Shocked and Stunned

You need to report that straight away. I have children myself and it makes me sick to the stomach. It's not acceptable and anyone who comes across that sort of thing should not even think twice before reporting it.

Oh ya. pretty much the textbook case for "broadly offensive."

And yet... that account seems to still be active, more than 24 hours after the fact, after ARs from several people.

Mari

You were on the money with this one. and i truly hope they fry the a$$ for this.

wtg Pixel!!!

keep in mind though, by posting about it here You may have given the person a heads up, and impeded the investigation. they need to keep it active so He/she ca be caught in the act.

They may want it 'active' until the boom can be lowered or the authorities tell them to remove it...

*shudders* Gah... I don't want to think about this. It makes my brain and heart hurt.

...

Christ.

*goes to sit in her bathtub and shudder*

/me sadly shakes her head, more saddened by the fact she isn't surprised about these things anymore.

Maybe so. But ick.



Yours an mines. Very disturbing, an makes really kinda angry, an very very sad.

Mari

As far as I know, world images in general aren't saved, though this being a texture in a profile, it might be in the cache.

Regardless, it wouldn't be evidence of any questionable practice. The police aren't stupid enough to think that every one found with a couple of such pictures on their hard drives is doing other stuff. They wouldn't even get it without getting the entire hard drive, if not the system, and the absence of anything else suspicious on the drive would be pretty good evidence that there is nothing else going on.

From what I can tell, it's not even clear that this particular image is illegal by itself. It is enough, in my opinion, to justify further investigation of the person responsible for the image (and obviously enough to justify booting off of SL).

Reporting this was absolutely correct, specifically because of the RL connection. But let's not make the good guys too paranoid to even want to deal with it.

Really? Are you serious? Do you have a 10 year old daughter IRL? Do you have a sister, brother, or friend who does, if you don't?

Without apology, I DO NOT share the same vision of "Your Wold, Your Imagination" that so many on these forums seem to.

"That tells me nothing" -- what actually WOULD tell you something? I'm curious, since the idea of a RL picture of a 10 year old girl in a sexual pose doesn't seem to "tell you" anything.



"The base note described it as a RL photo of a girl around 10 years old in an explicit pose."

I read Susie's coment meaning "Explicit" isnt necessarily descriptive. The description does not say whether it was a sexual pose nor if any nudity or near nudity is involved, nor implied.

Theres a lot of emotion wrapped up in this issue so anyone who does not seem to come down hard against it paints themself as a target - when it may not be the case that they arent againt this sort of thing.

I dont know that is why Susie meant - but im willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

I assumed she meant she didn't know whether the OP was overreacting or not. But yeah, people are very touchy on this subject. Not that I blame them, really.

So it boils down to what is acceptable in terms of degrees of sexual depictions involving 10 year old girls. If Tina-Ten-Year-Old is only in a mildly suggestive pose, it's okay. Nobody should get emotional about it, and should just go on about their business until actual pictures of Tina-Ten-Year-Old show up on the grid revealing her in all her pre-teen sexually explicit glory. Remember, Tina is 10. If this is where "the community" is at on this issue, then I am prepared to delete my content and drop my account *today*.

No - just that the word "Explicit" isnt a very objective descriptive term.

"Sexually Suggestive Pose" would have been a better descriptor.

Note I dont even think they used "Sexually Explicit."

Literally just saying "Explicit" might mean anything - that is what I took Susie's comment to mean.

Thats the exchange.

While you can say , 'well any explicit pose is bad'

It doesnt mean Susie's question was really answered.

Thats all.

I have looked at the pic in question and can't say 100% for sure if it is of a child or a young looking adult. In either case I doubt if it is a ToS violation despite how people feel about it.

I can't imagine how it couldn't be. And I'm usually the one trying to be as broadminded and balanced as possible.

When describing nudity:

Full nudity where there is a clear focus on the genitals, often including the model's legs spread.

...a definition off the web.

I know. That is one of those things about SL - it removes all shock value from everything. The longer you stay, the more you end up going "meh. whatever...." and back up to your skybox you go, shaking your head.

Sadly, it is more shocking when somebody does something fabulous that restores your sense of wonder than it is when another whirling penis floats by whilst chat spamming the score from "Oaklahoma!"

People who post such material on their profiles are harming even more people than they might imagine. As well as colluding in child abuse and risking a jail sentence themselves, they are putting viewers of the profile at risk of prosecution too - in UK, where a lot of SL-ers come from, and probably in other countries too, it is an offence even to download such material by accident

I tried to AR someone the other day whose profile pic was a graphic photo of a pile of dead dogs and their message was "[a certain ethinic group] in Second Life". I was very offended by this although I don't belong to that particular racial group. But I couldn't AR, as the griefer's name wouldn't appear in search - hopefully they'd already been banned.

Whether sexually explicit or not, ANY picture of a 10 year old cannot be the player themself, and as a picture of a minor, it reasonably follows that using such a picture is an invasion of that child's privacy, as well as impersonation. Those alone would, to me, make it AR-able.

I did wonder myself whether it could be a very young looking adult. However, having a daughter myself, and with particular regard to the proportions of the body I think it unlikely in the extreme that this is an adult. Also the context must be considered. The owner of this avatar is specifically selling virtual paedophilliac experiences and belongs to a large number of groups dedicated to the same thing. This person is also offering real life photos for sale. The prices quoted on the RL page of profile are from 200 to 400 I believe. No currency is specified, so could be Lindens for all I know. But if it's dollars, euro or sterling then no way does 'normal adult porn' cost that much per image. I mean, look at the stuff you can see for free on the web. And no, I don't go looking for it!

As to my description of the pose as explicit, sorry, yes, I should have said sexually explicit, but I was shocked and upset by what I'd seen.

In response to people who feel that I have put myself at risk by viewing the profile and ARing this, all I can say is that I did what seemed to me to be the right thing. Yes I made a value judgement, as a mother and foster carer and attempted decent human. If there is no violation of TOS, or crime against children then the people concerned have no need to worry. But I think there is.

I don't think it's wrong to keep a cool head, no matter how touchy the subject is. I agree with Susie that the word "explicit" doesn't say all that much. Even a diaper advertisement might be judged to be explicit, if it turns up in an SL profile.

Something to consider:


However, since the OP mentioned a "sales pitch" for similar photos in the same profile, I assumed that "explicit" was meant the way that most people took it for, i.e. sexually explicit (which is also hard to define).

I would agree with you about keeping a cool head in most situations. The OP didn't appear to have lost her cool, nor did the police who found this "questionably" explicit photo serious enough to investigate. This doesn't sound at all like an innocent diaper ad, or mom taking a picture of the kids in the bath tub and having the clerk at the photo shop telephone authorities for child porn. Others who have apparently seen the profile in question seem to concur that this is something more serious. "Explicit" to me really only means one thing, particularly when it is used to describe a photograph of a girl who is ostensibly only around 10 years old.

You are a hero. Its people who step up who make the world a better place. Thank you.

In the context used , I took explicit to mean one thing, so I have no issue with the original post. While Zap's reaction may have been a little hysterical I agree with it in essence.