Shocked and Stunned

Blimey, I've never been called that before! I feel rather choked. Thank you, for being so kind. In light of that, may I ask all the posters here to direct their thoughts, prayers, positive mindsets et al, for just a few moments, to all abused and unloved children and adults everywhere? It can't hurt, and would be such a result from such a nasty incident.
Thanks again.

Hysterical, maybe. I admittedly do allow myself to get hot and bothered by certain issues - exploiting and abusing children being one of them. I have zero tolerance for a "live and let live" attitude toward this, and zero interest in being a part of a community who embraces that attitude. Over reaction? Probably.

In the spirit of that thought, /me gives Zap a hug.

As I was ripping the head off of someone hurting my kid, I did pause for a moment to consider if I was being hysterical. Naw!

For me it seems to come with being a mother to be protective of children. It might be a built in natural element meant to protect the next generation. Something hard wired in biologically in most of us. The part of society that enjoys hurting and exploiting children is mercifully small but does huge damage to part of the generation that takes over the earth after us. It is important to me at least that any suggestion that hurting children or sexualizing them not be presented as normal in anyway (and yes this does include pre teen pop crappy singers IMHO. Wouldn't it be nice if we could AR the cultural garbage the greedy corp culture tries to numb us to sleep with..sigh).

Given that the image may be in the OP's cache, and that posession of it is a criminal offence in the UK punishable by incarceration, I would certainly report the incident either to the IWF or the local authorities immediately after filing an Abuse Report.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/
http://www.met.police.uk/computercrime/#iwf

Involving your local authorities was most certainly the right thing to do in this situation. The picture that you saw was evidence that a RL child was being abused. It's sickening. Involving your local police only insures that this will be taken care of, especially since you have a professional connection to them.

As far as I'm concerned you've done the right thing.

Unfortunately, our judgement of people getting hot and bothered about paedophilia is somewhat jaded by those with similar emotions who took it upon themselves to lynch paediatricians and burn down their houses after mis-reading too many tabloid newspapers. So when the OMGs, the hysteria and the pitch-forks come out, it's perfectly natural for people to suspect an over-reaction.

Agreed, if the photo is as purported, then it's sickening and one can only hope that person responsible for it has been brought to justice and the minor involved rescued from such an awful situation.

The authorities hopefully achieved this by working towards their goal in a cool, calculated & professional manner, because the hot headed approach is unfortunately what results in unsafe convictions, and convicted criminals with get-out of jail free cards (due to police brutality and what-not).

My use of Hysterical was in itself a bit of intentional hyperbole. Just in case it was lost on anyone. Zap has no need to justify his reaction.

He doesnt need to justify his reaction.

Its just his assumption about what Susie meant was inflamatory. That was all.

-------------------------

I havent seen the picture, I do not know what it is.

If its the picture of a child in a pose at all suggestive even just from the neck up Id say it does not belong.

If its an adult that looks like a child .. thats more difficult to say. At which point its still objectionable becuase its obvious they are using the young looking aspects of the person. The purpose of the photograph is to look like a child.

Of course the second isnt illegal, becuase the photo is of an adult.

-----------
But both would against supposed Linden Labs Policy, as would a Virtual image in a suggestive pose-

Since there isnt allowed to even be a depiction of Minors in any sort of sexual imagry, reguardless of the age of the Model in the photo.

Being surprised, offended, outraged is one thing.

But removing shock value is a good thing. Shock value is what the media uses to grab your attention, with the result that people get the wrong impression about the frequency of such incidents. There's also a fine line between those emotions that don't factor into an evaluation and those that do to the point of distorting it. It's shock value that drives poorly written legislation that bans medical texts along with porn.

I realize this is a subtle distinction around semantics. But regardless of which words are used, reactions can involve strong emotions but actions need to be subjective.

Doesn't it strike you as unreasonable that someone could become a criminal by an accidental act? While I'm sure the British Parliament has impefections similar to those of the U. S. Congress, I have a hard time believing that British law would allow such miscarriages of justice.

In this particular case, the picture is a sexually seductive pose, which I don't believe to be illegal by itself in anyway under US law. I'd be surpised if it were illegal under UK law.

That's not entirely true, because US law includes some prohibitions against photos that are indistinguishable from that of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

But you're right that it doesn't belong in SL.

"Explicit pose" tells you nothing? Is that because you prefer to not see that any even a little bit informative? I'll concede that it doesn't tell you *precisely* what the picture depicted, but unless you are being intentionally obtuse it also shouldn't "tell you nothing".

.

It is unreasonable, but also not unheard of. There was recently a well-publicized local case that comes to mind. It is apparently difficult to convince a non-technical jury that knows nothing about caches and cross-site content and popups and etc., that it is actually possible to not know each and every image that is stored on your computer. When feelings run hot, the courts run amok.

.

On the net are available Photos and film clips of a Young Chinese woman. I mention her because her hight, Build, and tone of voice make her indestinguishable from a Girl of perhaps 14. I DID report her Pics to the Police for Investigation Last year when i first saw them, and was assurred by the Investigator that this Woman was NOT a minor (I Googled her name to check some facts, she is 26 years of age). It still Freaked me Out because she Was Portraying an Under Aged babysitter.

It's Thinly possible that the Girl on the profile is Not a Minor, But i think that is for the Authorities to determine, and Deal with appropriately. IF the OP, and the rest of us are wrong, No harm, but if we are right, this Person Needs to be Dealt With.

Angel.

Being shocked, sickened and saddened by things one sees on SL is understandable but it really has nothing to do with child sexual abuse. The internet never sexually abused a child. That is mainly for parents, relatives and friends to do. If you don't believe me contact your local CPS agency to see who exactly sexually abuses children.

That is quite true, Susie. However, for there to be photographs and video of abused children on the net, the children have to have first been abused. A man who lived in the next village to mine was arrested a few years ago as part of Operation Ore. His computer was taken away and many sexual images of children were found. He was convicted of downloading, sharing and making images of children. He is a paedophile. So far as I'm aware he has not personally abused a child, but the ready availability of this material fed his desires, and he in turn disseminated these images further afield. For every picture of a child in a sexually explicit pose, there is an incident of abuse. Imagine how that child will feel, knowing that dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of people have seen them in their misery, pain and shame. The internet has made it easier and quicker for this material to be traded. I have worked with so many children and young people who always ask me the same questions. Why? How could they? Was it my fault?
No, the internet doesn't at first hand abuse children. But goodness me, it certainly helps those who do. So, those of us who don't, who I will continue to regard as the decent majority, must find it incumbent upon us to be ever vigilant. We hear of the global village. How the internet has made us all neighbours. So let's be good neighbours and enjoy the wonderful positives of the net, and not turn away from someone who might need our help.

This might be a very unpopular thought, but I can't help it - I like to apply rational thought and common sense to everything I come across, and try to not let emotions get in the way.

Pixieplumb, you wrote about a pedophile who was convicted for downloading and sharing child porn, but who had never abused a child himself (as far as you know). Couldn't the reason for him never abusing a child be that he was able to satisfy his urge in another way, by masturbating to pornographic material?

There is always the notion that someone with a sexual deviation must be even more dangerous once they find another outlet for their desires, and it simply makes no sense to me. From a mere biological perspective: A pedophile who just jerked off looking at a photo = a pedophile who is less likely to abuse a child afterwards, since he just shot his load. Sorry for the outright formulation.

Pedophiles are people with a certain sexual urge. I don't think that automatically makes them monsters who have to be locked up to protect us from crimes they might never commit. Let's take another group: unattractive heterosexual men, who are unlikely to ever find a female partner. Are all of them rapists? Using the logic "Pedophile = child abuser", all ugly heterosexual men must be rapists. But the vast majority of them finds other ways to deal with their natural urge, like masturbating while watching porn.

Of course, there has been a crime commited by the person who took the photos, and that person should be punished. Everyone who bought, downloaded or otherwise obtained these photos could be said to have aided this person in a crime.
But you say that the internet helps those who abuse children. If now 100 pedophiles DO NOT abuse children because they get off on photos instead, photos of a single incident of abuse, then the internet has effectively lowered the crime rate. Only 1 case of abuse thanks to the internet, but probably 101 cases of abuse without it.

It might appear cold and inhumane to make such a rational calculation. But if one case of abuse could indeed save hundreds or even thousands of children from being abused... and think of the reverse: the removal of such images from the internet could lead to more cases of child abuse as a result.
To me, it almost seems as if it might be best for the children as a whole to punish only the person who took the photos and thereby commited a real crime, without removing any opportunity for other pedophiles to satisfy their urges without harming anyone.

Now let's add modern technology to this line of thoughts. Photorealistic rendered images, or sexual ageplay in virtual worlds. No child harmed, no crime done. Pedophiles happy and less likely to abuse real children. So easy, if viewed from a rational perspective... or not?

Since virtual child porn is also criminalized in many countries, it almost looks as if rational thought doesn't matter. Pedophiles are to be punished for thought crimes; locked up behind bars before they're able to really commit a crime. Appears to be rational as well. Just as rational as arresting cholerics before they commit violent crimes. Or arresting homeless people, before they get a chance to steal. Or cannabis consumers, before they start to deal with drugs. Or... I think the list is shorter if we determine who would stay out of jail. Wouldn't be that many people.

The risk is if you tell others where the profile is, which you haven't done other than informing the Police from what I can tell. I had an incident at work regarding an email and was told by the Police that I couldn't forward or fax them the email in its entirety as that would mean I was distributing the material.

Nothing shows better what such laws really do. I wouldn't even dare to call the police if I got such an email, fearing to be arrested for unwillingly having the illegal material inside the email stored on my PC.