Well, I guess Ageplay is now Officially banned

Ah yes this argument. You DO realize this is the same argument that the right wing christians use to try to ban homosexual marriage don't you? The exact same argument. Bet you don't like it when they use it. but it's ok for you to ..


Anyway, animals, with few exceptions, are not going to grow up with memories of molestation and have to go through years of therepy to help repair the damage done to them.


And on the complete other hand, I don't give a damn if someone wants to bugger their german sheperd.

Understand this: it's not sex with children. There are no real, actual children involved here. It's two adults acting in a fantasy context in a computer game.

With the exception of bestiality, all that you mentioned is between adults.... even adult AV's!!

No, it doesn't, as the cartoons arn't real people. That's the key that many of you seem to be missing here: what is real and what isn't.

Here we go folks, it's fact time


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon




For the USA people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003


Oh Canada! It's Illegal There Tooooo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Sharpe



The Dutch Said No Too
Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 470


Norway said No
http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19020522-010-023.html#204a



South Africa said "See ya"
Films and Publications Amendment Bill


Sweeden?
Not legal there


United Kingdom:
Protection of Children Act 1978 was amended in 2003 and on November 23rd 2006





Anybody have any questions?

I actually think this current debate is moot , depending on what the blog statement meant

If it means ageplay is banned - then its banned. It could certianly be interpreted that way.

If its banned - the should it be or should it not be banned reasoning kinda flies out the window.

Nope, a child avatar isn't a costume in this circumstance, it's quite clearly not about adults dressing up, it's about adults wanting to have sex with children. If it were a case of, as someone mentioned earlier, the wife dressing up as a cheerleader, it would be an adult avatar in a cheerleader outfit.

Using the child avatar (and the child avatar was part of the media story) is a fantasy about having sex with children, not dressing up.

It is still illegal. Look up at my post after yours.

Actually, by many defintions, these people are.

Could be difficult I would say. Does a short AV make them a child or one dressed up tall but in child-like clothing make them a child. Where do you draw the line here? Just saying. The porn industry has films involving role-playing like this and its not illegal. Just some examples.

Already, public displays or obvious references to adult-child sex RP are already banned. What's left is people carrying on these things as much out of sight as they can manage. How do the people calling for a further ban propose LL, which has its hands full just keeping the grip up and SL going, should enforce a further ban on that?

PLEASE show me where you got the facts on this. I'm begging you to back this up.
I would LOVE to see the documentation.


You're kidding right? You're actually trying to make this argument?
Regardless of the age of the person NOW, if they were children when the exploitative photos were taken, then it's child pornography. Thanks for the straw man, though.


If you look at the actual law, to be found in a link off the page you put up, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html, it says NOTHING about "cartoons and animation".
The phrase "must be indistinguishable from" is pretty important.

Answer the question please. Is furry sex about having sex with an animal or is it not? Do the people behind the av's believe they are actually having sex with an animal, or do they know that behind that av is a human adult?

LL can't police the whole grid. It's impossible. How many uploads of photographs are down everday?

The question is, do you see these films being made after 2003? In the United States?


What most people seem to not be getting is that whether or not it is legal in your country is irrelavant. LL is based in the United States, where it IS illegal.

You do know that act was struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitional right? You are aware of that arn't you?

[sigh] There is a difference. Here it is: Many jurisdictions categorize THE DEPICTION of children in sexual in a sexual context to be illegal. I am not aware of any laws in theUSA or Western European countries that have the same laws concerning depictions of furries, slaves, or murder vicitms. Do you see the difference?

Some places, I am sure, prohibit depictions of gay sex. Those places are probably places where SL does not have a huge customer base.

Point is that these DEPICTIONS of children in a sexual context are illegal inmany places AND most people, including SL customers find them offensive. LL can and should ban DEPICTIONS of children in a sexual context. I am glad they have stepped forward and done the right thing.

Yes, acting out a pedo fantasy about having sex with children. 2 adults acting out their pedo fantasies. Meeting other people across the world with pedo fantasies. Perpetuating their pedo fantasies. Perhaps growing bolder and more rapacious with their pedo fantasies, until maybe, just maybe, these fantasies aren't enough anymore. Until cartoon pixels just aren't enough anymore for these 2 adults, and their brand new network of pedo fantasists.

The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional.[21] The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."

On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography.[22] The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. 1466A which criminalizes both Miller Test obscene cartoon depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and, as noted by the 11th Circuit in United States v. Williams, cartoon depictions of a minor or what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) and need satisify only the third part of the Miller Test, that it lack serious artistic value.[23]

In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted[24] under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) on twenty counts for receiving "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males."[25] Whorley was also convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) on fourteen accounts for receiving "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct."[26][27] Whorley was on parole for earlier sex crimes at the time of the violations, although these convictions were independent of Whorley's violation of the terms of his parole.[28] The same FOIA-requested November 2006 United States Attorney's Bulletin describing the details of the conviction, concludes by suggesting that the precedent set by the Whorley case be used as a basis for future prosecutions of possession of such obscene cartoons. It is worth noting that Whorley's charges were coupled with charges for possession of conventional child pornography and that he was on parole at the time making the legal possibility of appealing the charges far less feasible and far less attractive to civil rights groups, such as the ACLU.

Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court.

In February 2006, Senator John McCain introduced S.519, which would add a mandatory 10-year sentence in jail to anyone who uses the Internet to violate the PROTECT Act.[29]




I also checked the Supreme Court's website. Provide a link

One of the british based hackers who broke into the Pentagon's systems is being extradited to the US from the UK - though he never entered the US to commit his alleged offences. So you are incorrect.

Child abuse is too emotive a subject for any objective analysis of censorship and morality in SL. People understandably feel so strongly about it that anyone who doesn't go with the flow on this is perceived as being pro-paedophilia in some way.

Its an unfortunate coincidence that the German media expose came at the same time as age verification too as, for some, both issues seem to have become intertwined even though in reality they have very little to do with one another.

If and when LL announces a ban on something more passe like swearing or violence (no... I'm not suggesting that this will be or should be the next thing banned) I think there will be much more objective debate on the issue but it just doesn't seem possible this time round.

As for my own feelings on the subject, I still go by the yardstick of two consenting adults and nobody getting hurt. However, personally, I find ageplay unsettling. I can't understand why people would want to act it out, even as consenting adults, and wouldn't want to encounter what was in the German TV report while I was inworld.

Indeed, but it still remains illegal in other countries.

LL may not be liable in most countries but they are not going to risk losing markets by not respecting laws outside the US.

Ah...the sweet smell of logic and fact!

As I said, it's what I believe. I never said "These are the FACTS". They're my opinions, and I'm pulling them out of my ass ....... much the same way you pull yours out.

No.. no they aren't.

In your opinion. If you are going to speak of absolutes, please back it up.
As I said, many of us (users of SL, that is. I'm not an ageplayer in any way, shape or form) have the ability to look at an avatar as a costume. Just 'cuz you say it isn't doesn't make it so.