under 18 epidemic

Yes. Yes. And YES! Talk to your kid everyday to find out what they did in school, etc. Talk to their friends. Talk to other parents. Visit the danged classroom. Know what is going on. That is your job as a parent. To *always* know what is going on and keep your child from harm, or from anything you deem inappropriate. Yes, yes YES!



Yes. Know where your child goes and how they spend their time and how they get there. It's really a no brainer here. If they are showing magazines and sex toys in the storefront, they are breaking these little things called LAWS. If they are in a district where there are no such legal ramifications, then it is a district your child doesn't belong in anyway! Yes.



Oh. My. God. If you don't want to monitor your child's viewing habits, then do yourself and the kids a favor and just get rid of the television now. That is an option yanno. Parents need to take some personal responsibility for their children, for watching over their children and for bringing them up in a fashion that they feel is appropriate. Parents are NOT blameless. They are the child's mentors, their tutors and their teachers. If you can't live up to that great responsibility, don't have kids.

See the thing is there isn't really any age verification process with or without a credit card. Most parents don't care. A kid thats into MMORPGS for instance stumbles onto SL it requires a credit card to sign up they ask their parents can i get a new game and cancel my old one? The parent says yes you still have an underaged person here. Credit cards are not a substantial means of keeping a minor out because they can simply use their parents info and birthdate etc when signing up.

It still comes down to the parents researching stuff. Asking their kids what game it is sitting down and taking the time to find out and make sure the kid is only allowed to sign up for teen Second Life. Yes credit cards help cut down but again its more on the parents then it is on LL. Kids still got in before they ended the need for a credit card or cell phone. People just bring it up now because it suits a argument to close signups again but its not really because of an under 18 thing its more due to the increase in griefers getting in.

How many Kids have you actually run into in your time in SL that have admitted to being kids Also how many of the people you suspect may be kids just immature adults that act like complete idiots. I've run into maybe 3 kids in my entire stent in second life which is going on a year and a half now and yet you call it an epidemic?? Epidemic usually means that most of the people in a certain area are infected or in this case that most of the people playing the game are under 18 which in all honesty is far from true.

Also to the above post many people that play this that are over 18 dont have access to a credit card and yet you would limit them many do contribute to SL regardless of. Remember one major thing about SL its NOT just people in the U.S playing this there are people from all over that play this and many dont have access to some of this stuff. LL take the necessary steps if they get reports that someone is under 18 they ban them to the teen grid and ask them to show proof of ID plain and simple.

Honestly law suits from angry parents that make it to court just show how fundamentally flawed the court system is. If i was a judge I'd simply throw them out because of the audacity of it. The major thing here is people complain now that its open but act like kids wouldn't get into SL still and it comes down to the parents just knowing what their kids are into. Seola here keeps inferring that all the kids are going to know a DOS prompt command or think to look that stuff up. Kids do know how to use computers but your acting like they are all up to no good and would look up that stuff.

Simply put most kids are not smart enough to completely cover their tracks sure get rid of browser history, clear cookies etc but its not all that hard for a parent to know what a kid is up to. Like most kids are going to know how to work around an admin password i dont know about you but while kids are tech savvy most are not that tech savvy!

And no im not saying that people should be sterilized if they dont fit into a certain income bracket but there are ways to ensure your there to actually be a parent to your kid instead of just putting food on the table. What im saying is if the job isnt allowing a parent to be a parent then there is something wrong in the picture providing for your child is great but if your not there as a parent then yeah. Some people know how to balance it and others dont these well rounded kids you speak of are from parents that are actually there and balance things out between work and parenting.

Yes parents can work and still raise a kid but many dont care enough to and dont take the time to learn what their kids are into or relate. They sit them in front of the tv and leave it at that and thats not good parenting.

As I said before, it's about due diligence on the parts of LL and the parents. Linden Labs by law has to make reasonable effort to ensure that people under the age of consent can not access the mature areas of the adult grid. Otherwise, they get to be slapped with all sorts of criminal charges ranging from contributing to the delinquency of a minor, to lewdness with a minor, to endangering the well being of a minor, to providing a minor with pornography. And if said minor decides to be sexually active.... Well, we don't even want to go that route of legal discussion.

Again minors are not supposed to be here if they are they lied to be here and agreed to the terms of service under false pretenses (which by the way should be legally binding but isn't viewed as such alot of the time) The thing is they can still get access if they really want to ask mummy or daddy its still on the parents to find this stuff out. If your kid intentionally goes to a porn site you have no right to press charges on the porn site for anything it was your kids fault and your own for not monitoring them. The problem is the court systems are so screwed up that they dont give a flying turd what is right or wrong.

LL block minors if they know they are here and that is a regulation process but if parents are watching their kids it shouldnt be an issue. So your going to punish adults that honestly dont have some way of providing info to mabye be verified for actions a little lying brat made?

No, no no and more no! Talking to them AFTER the fact doesn't prevent it from happening. If it happens that a supposed trusted adult shows them this material, there is NOTHING a parent can do, regardless. Unless you want to sit next to them in school everyday, all day. And again, so you ARE saying, that only the rich should have kids.



Oh, wait wait wait wait... so you ARE placing some of the responsibility on laws and government? Isn't that a contradiction?



I do agree with this one though, in some fashion. Parental controls on TV's don't have back doors to go through like PC's do. My son adores Dora, Diego and Spongebob. That's the extent of his daily viewing habits. But you said bringing up a child to which THEY feel appropriate, but you are the one setting the terms. Is that not also a contradiction?

But you can talk to the child to prevent it from happening they know its wrong and thusly they can tell you or tell an appropriate adult if something happens so no its not really saying the rich do just taking the time to teach your kids these things so if they do happen they can tell someone get to know their teachers and partake in school activities when possible to meet other parents and teachers and the people that run the school.

The original questions implied that this occurs more than once. If it occurs even one time, the parents should know. If they don't, then that parent is responsible. Talk to the kids and know what is going on. Too much to handle? Then don't have kids.




Nope. See, these laws were put into place because of parents like me, and possibly you, that told lawmakers this is what we want. It is up to the parents to ensure that these laws are enforced by reporting infractions to the proper authorites. It is up to the parents to ensure their children are not in areas that have no such legal requirements. These laws were put into place as a tool to help protect our children from what we deem inappropriate, but they are just that. A tool. If that tool goes unused then it does no good at all. It's up to the parents to let officials know when these rules are violated.




Actually, yes, they do. My kid figured out that by unplugging the converter box, waiting five minutes and plugging it back in, it resets all of the parental controls. He also figured out that simply by removing the cable from the box and putting it directly into the television also removes the parental controls. That box, which cost me $14 a month didn't do one single bit of good. We just got rid of the tv all together.

And how is it a contradiction to say for a parent to bring up a child to watch what the parent feels appropriate being contradictory? How am I setting up their terms? The parent might feel that watching CSI each night is healthy for a young child as it stimulates the thought processes on how authorities solve crimes. They might feel that watching shows like COPS is healthy as it shows a working justice system and how the cops always get the bad guys in the end. My opinion? I wouldn't allow any of my kids to watch either of these shows if they were under fifteen years old. It's not up to me to determine what is appropriate for your children to view, that's up to you.

Unfortunately, legally, the flip side doesn't work when you put it into SL terms. Even if the parent knows of the mature content here and says it's okay for the child to participate, it still isn't legal, and said parent can also find themselves up on charges as well. The only difference is that in this type of situation, the legal authorities are less likely to find out about it, unless the kid was bragging in school to some friends about this new game he plays where he gets to have as much sex as he pleases. Teacher over hears and contacts children's services. That's about the only situation where it'd be discovered.

But as it stands right now, they don't need to ask their parents. If a CC was needed, there's a layer of protection from LL there, because either the parents have thought the kid responsible enough for a CC, or the parents handed over their card. Then if they tried to sue, the judge would ask, did you provide them the means to access? Right now, there's nothing the judge to ask a parent that puts the blame onto them.



Actually you have every right to press charges if the site shows material without verification. There are internet laws, that don't allow the free looks without something covering the important parts, unless they use either a pay for service or a credit card verification process to show they are 18 or over (or 21 in some countries). If a site isn't abiding, then they can be charged under that law and opened up for lawsuits.



Oh do they?

/139/ca/147485/1.html



So I guess you are once again arguing that only the rich should have kids. It's risk versus reward. I'm guessing, wild shot here, that you don't have children, because you aren't seeing the reality of parenting in alot of the situations you've presented. You've bashed parents who aren't rich and basically said, that if you aren't rich enough, you shouldn't have kids, and that's not right. Again I say "Paris Hilton anyone?" Her mother doted on her and look where she is. Same with Nicole Ritchie, and many other 'socialites'.

Now look at someone like Bill Gates who came from a working family (albeit rich but they worked to get that way). Look at someone like Adam Sandler who was born of working parents.

Money and constant attention does not a good parent make.

But a kid might not always tell, regardless of how much you ask and most people who would do this sort of something won't exactly do it when you are there. I don't like the situation at all, but it's a course of finding out how.



But we can't enforce it, we entrust the government to do that (oy!). If we've come to know that an area has those laws and won't let our children in, that doesn't stop the action from occurring if someone decide to take down the blinders for a bit. We can take steps once it's happened, but we can't totally stop it. Sad part is, it's not like these places are in shady spots in towns anymore. There are some plopped right down in nice decent neighborhoods, or next to the corner Mom and Pop store.



I'm not sure how old your TV or box is, but many TVs come with parental controls built in. I have TiVo from DirecTV on one set, and the TV is set where you can't change off channel nor input without the pw, and the TiVo won't allow certain channels during certain hours. I'm quite interested to know what you used. It's not because I don't believe you, it's because I'd be hardpressed to find a certain converter that resets on unplug nowadays. Would be an interesting lesson. Our secondary TV, has no cable to it, and just the box keeps the settings when unplugged as well.



You are saying what they deem necessary. Which means that when you make the statement:


You are defining that a kid doesn't belong there. That's not leaving it to the parents to decide, that's stating that you think someone else's child shouldn't be there.



Agree with this. But even though a parent may find themselves in hot water, LL could too. All it takes is one rotten apple to ruin the bunch. Is it right? No. But is it possible? Yes.

Frankly, many jurisdictions are overloaded with cases and a simple kid bragging about sex is more likely to stay on the back burner til they are over 18 anyways.

BTW, to clarify, yes I've ALWAYS taken the stance in conversations that I'd rather lose a few contributing non-verifieds (there really aren't that many compared to the amount that signed up), than lose SL altogether for the actions of a few stupid people.

I'd trade in those that do do a few things worthwhile to have grid stability, less legal risk, and a higher chance in the people that are there are adults.

when will people learn to start raising adults instead of rasing children ?

ROFL!

Yeah uhhh, because they just suspended them and then let them come back on the main grid! Now THAT might bring about legal suicide. (Yes, I am aware that the kid can make a new account and come right back).

They move them to the teen grid after they're caught and suspended.

Folks, don't bother arguing with Seola - she has a 3 year old, so that gives her the right to sit here and tell everyone that they have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to teens and the net, because she's been through it herself, well, ummm, exactly ZERO times as well.

She'll put words in your mouth as she did to April, Mickey, and myself, for page after page even though we said multiples times that looking at what a kid is doing is not the only answer, despite her repeated attempts to paint it that way.

She rants on and on about HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH TIME? WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE PARENTS AREN'T THERE!??

WELL DUH! Then they aren't there! You have to trust them to a certain extent, and THIS is where GOOD parenting comes in.

How much is enough time? That's dependent on each individual situation - there is no ONE ANSWER to that, despite Seola hammering on me for pages to give her one. It depends on schedules of family members, the current behaviour being displayed by the child and whether it warrants closer scrutiny, and other factors.

This is all common sense.

Yet Seola is arguing until she's blue in the face about it. She's got ALL the answers and the rest of us are stupid and naieve. She has not given one example of what a parent should do. All she's done is tell us we're wrong for daring to suggest the things we have, with absolutely no suggestions of her own except that LL should bring back verification - something most people here are in agreement with. Her entire argument boils down to her belief that children are mostly sneaky devils and that nothing will stop them and their secret little underworld construct for fooling the bumbling parents. They're gonna get into things anyway, no matter what you do. Again, DUH! And NO that doesn't make the parents bad, but they do share responsibilty for that type of behavior from their kids. Ths is why being proactive is important. If the proactive parenting comes up short, then reactive parenting kicks in - the child should be sanctioned (not talking "time-outs here btw), and then the future proactive parenting stiffened a bit. This has NOTHING to do with parent's careers. If your career prevents you from doing these things, then yes, I agree with those who say don't have kids. Maybe wait until you're more settled into your career.

I took the liberty of looking at some other threads our self-appointed child rearing expert Seola has been involved in - she has done this sanctimonious, back-and-forth, mile long replies "How can you be so naive/dumb" type arguing before. She does not actually wish to have a discussion - she wishes to lecture.

My advice is to not respond to her, she has no interest in what you have to say, only in proving how "right" and smart she is by overstating the obvious and browbeating people with it.

Kids talk, and they brag to each other and they tend to rat each other out. Yes, the situation may not be discovered at all, but it is up to the parents to put forth that effort. If they don't, they have nobody to blame but themselves.




That is a very sad situation indeed, and even sadder still is that the parents in the community don't band together to do something about it. Oh, yeah, we have those places here too, but they follow the laws or they get citations.

Edit: By the way, I am really enjoying this discussion. Thank you.




Well, it's not that difficult really to find converters that reset on unplug. Go down to your local cable company and get a converter box. Now we don't have DirectTV as that's a bit pricey for us. We did have standard cable with a standard converter box. My television was a bit old and was one of the first with the V-Chip technology. The unplug trick worked on it as well.




Actually, no. The original poster defined that they didn't belong there when he asked if he was responsible for making sure their children didn't come across said storefronts. I was replying based upon his question. If you don't have a problem with your kid seeing pictures of women taking it up the keister and seeming to like it, then by all means, go right ahead and this response wouldn't apply to you at all.




And essentially, this is what I've been saying the entire time. Due diligence on the parts of the parents as well as on the parts of LL. Linden Labs can't possibly keep every single under age person from entering into this environment. But they do have to take the steps of due diligence in attempting to keep all under agers out. Parents are also responsible and more so than Linden Labs. That won't stop them from coming under fire though if a parent sues, or legal authorities get ahold of it.

[QUOTEFrankly, many jurisdictions are overloaded with cases and a simple kid bragging about sex is more likely to stay on the back burner til they are over 18 anyways.[/QUOTE]

Not quite true. That may be your feeling on it, but it isn't quite true. Imagine that you are a teacher and you overhear fifteen year old Tommy bragging to his fifteen year old friend Frank about this place he goes online to cyber with other people, and how realistic this place is, etc. (And to a teenager, it would be pretty realistic.) Teacher's gonna talk to either the principle or the counselor first, both kids will be called in, they're gonna want to know what place the kid is talking about and in come the authorities. Think it won't happen? Let's sit back and watch and see.

I do wonder though how long it is until Dateline decides to do one of their little undercover operations either here or over in the teen grid? Cause as hard as LL is finding it to keep teens off the adult grid, you know they're having even more difficulties keeping adults off of the teen grid.

You can quote the police blotter all you want but I know something you dont know by simply looking at that and the policy that LL takes when listing their banning admitted to being underaged results in a 14 day suspension in which time you must give LL proof that you are 18+. They also never list if they permanently ban someone or not you only see the initial thing they post on the police blotter. Again you keep bringing up this rich thing one doesnt need to be rich to actually be a parent and still provide for their children. Mabye they figure they need to live higher then their means allow but its still manageable if the parent takes the time out to actually be a parent you keep trying to use this as an argument when stuff is pointed out to you that parents CAN and should take the time out.

The issue is them making sure that they can be parents while still providing for their children. I was raised by my mother since i was 13 or 14 and you know what she still found time to be a mother and provide for us its not an excuse that work takes up to much time.

In some variation but the teen grid has alot more scrutiny into people's actions and you cant really do anything adult there anyways. Again there isnt even an epidemic that would infer that most of the people in SL are underage. They ask if your 18 and make you agree to a Terms of Service and Community Standards. Its not going to prevent children from accessing second life if a credit card is needed and unless the parent is still looking they can still easily get into here especially if they are into MMORPGS. Its still up to the parent to be a parent when it comes down to it. And i dont think adults should be punished because some kid lied to get into SL you would have a huge number of potential customers cut out and your then limiting it for no real reason other then a fear.

There are at best a very minuet amount of children actually in SL listen to the people that have witnessed children. In the god knows how many people i've met over the past year i've ran into mabye at most 3 kids and that is far from shocking to me.

Oh yeah, I mean, as you've seen, I've said a good parent *can* find out what they need most of the time, but my stance has been the exceptions.



Sometimes though, judges are so wrapped up in freedom of speech and expression parents can push all they want and nothing gets done. My hometown has an adult shop on the main strip highway of the town. Their 'blinders' are lingerie, but it was argued that since it wasn't on models or people, and they ARE blocking objectionable content, that's acceptable. This place became back doors to some of the richest neighborhoods there. Georgia, which historically is prude (based on voter stats), in Warner Robins, there was a strip club that advertising on the neon board on the main drag in town. Parents lobbied and lobbied, and until they actually had an 'incident' there, they couldn't do ANYTHING. It was sad.



Me too. A real point by point, fully answered response is nice to read and talk over.



I've honestly not had any personal experience with V-Chip, but that would be a serious flaw in parental controls! DirecTV isn't as bas as one might think. For like 45 a month, you get 135 channels, plus built in parental controls. But aside from that, lol, many of the local companies use TiVo box technology now. It's a huge ad for TiVo for people to be saying the got the info from the company, and they got tons of good response out of it. This local cable company, is it a nationally known or local hometown one?



Ah okay, point taken. Clarity works!



Exactly! If you are gonna have an open platform to all, regardless of who it happens to, or how it happens, it leaves the door open.



Sadly though, it's the teacher's word against the parents and some of those parents (like the ones that punch out coaches) will be so vehement, that it can cause the teacher to get fired. Sure, that's an extreme, but without proof of it happening, there's not much that can really be done. Alerting the parents, absolutely, but to take it to social services for most is a step too far. The ones that do, from what I've seen are mostly laughed at and get some schpiel about real issues, etc. Another sad point was something similar in northern Missouri, when a teacher overheard a kid talking about having sex at age 14. The teacher thought it the responsibility and failure of the parents so they reported it to DoCFS. DoCFS basically laughed at the teacher and said kid's will be kid's and they are dealing with real issues of harmed kids.



I'm wondering the same thing. Most adults that watch that stuff believe in it word for word. They called 'the choking game' and epidemic that was affecting every kid in every school. I saw it when I was about 17 and I'd never heard of any kids doing this in my school, or anyone I knew. It was really silly to believe all kids are doing it. Same with that rainbow/Skittles party story. Where (to put it mildly) a guy would allow 7 girls with different colored lipstick to leave their 'mark'. Or the jelly bracelet 'epidemic'. Where, depending on color's and amount is how much a girl would put out. (I never even heard of it period.)

They do have good stories, but when they interviewed a woman who wrote a book on teen lingo, and it was WAY off, and news programs were hailing it as the best translation ever... I lost my respect. But that certainly doesn't mean thousands of others don't believe it, and you know when they try a story like that soon, they'll go to extremes. I've said it in some of the media arguments, that all this media, while it's bringing players in, isn't always a good thing. It's mostly word of mouth media, one does a story, someone sees it and does their own story and it's gotten to the top. With all the problems of LL, it's only a matter of time (I think sooner rather than later), if they don't fix it, they'll be 'exposed'.

Which leaves the door open for a different lawsuit. Majority of people lie in this game, in SOME form. If someone gets caught like that, THEN LL makes them verify their age, they could just as easily claim several forms of 'isms', because they aren't forcing others to prove their age. Not like it matters, that person's probably on another account by now, a hair wiser in keeping their mouth shut.

As for the rich, that's certainly what you are putting out there. Saying a parent should be there with their kid's when they aren't in school certainly limits the jobs available to the common person. You have to work a few days a week, just to cover costs of working, then utilize those other days to actually make the money. The common person doesn't have job flexibility and are able to conform to the standard school hours shift. Now, to ensure being home, that's either not working, or hiring someone (which leaves more overhead costs) for a teenager who could otherwise take care of themselves. Most families out there are just above the poverty line thanks to inflation without rising economy. It's not sensible, allowable, or allocatable to have either round the clock stay at home mom's, or to hire people to watch 'near adult' kids. Budgets don't allow for it. Don't believe me, check out the stats on the average household income on families of more than 2. Considering daycare is running about 125-150 on average a week, it takes a few days just to reach that. So yes, only the rich can afford not to work, or to work and hire someone.



I'm guessing that statement means you were raised by a single mother at 13 or 14? I'm not sure, but that's what I get from it, cause the other way it reads is that you weren't raised by her at all before then. Were you ever left home alone? What was her job? How long had she had it? What year frame was it? These are not being nosy but important variables in discussing your experience.



I don't necessarily agree it's an epidemic either, but agreeing to a ToS that you are 18 is certainly not a barrier in any form. While it won't prevent ALL of them, a credit card cannot be gotten without parent's permission and it's certainly a nice extra step in the process. I'd never come across anyone under 18 before 6/6/6. Since, I've known of at least 8 now, after the last few days that are saying they are. If even 7 of those couldn't get credit cards though 1 could, that still leaves 7 less kids in the adult grid.

Yeah, it sucks that some adults may be shut out, but we've already discussed tons of ways to get verified for people that have 'no means', but they 'don't want to do it'. It's not a lockout by any means, but it is a lockout on easily gained access. I've listed several ways to get verified for adults, that require people being adults to get them and it works for SL. The most common answer? "I shouldn't have to do that to play." I don't think the numbers are as large as some would like us to believe that are true non-verifieds who have no bank account, no credit cards, no way to get pay pal, no savings accounts, and no money to buy a card. Most are just lazy. They get a taste of free and want to keep it that way. I wasn't here for pay for services, but what if LL wants to go back to that to keep a stable platform? LL's choice to offer a free game, what are you gonna say? You can't do that because I don't have 10 bucks a month to play on *their* resources?



And club owners and adult content owners are seeing more too. At my old job, I had several apply for DJ who weren't 18. I think exposure is decided a lot by what you do in SL. But either way, that's 3 too many. All it takes is 1, and with free for all accounts... there's nothing in place for courts. Sure there's a ToS, but that's certainly not enough, especially when you think of the MySpace case. 30 million from a mom and daughter team who said that a ToS and a clicking yes wasn't enough protection for kids. The filing WAS accepted. How many million users and all it took was 1 filing a lawsuit to change how MySpace does things.

I agree that it's harder for parents these days to live on one income only. But the reason for that is often the greatly increased standard of living. Two cars, a house, everything has to be affordable for the middle class. Well, it isn't affordable - not without both spouses working full time, which is incompatible with raising children.

In addition we more or less gave up our family system. Grandparents used to live at their children's home or at least close by and were able to contribute to their grandchildren's education and supervision. Today everyone is hell-bent on autonomy and self-realization, families shrink down to 1-2 custodians only and old people end up in nursing homes, without the ability to still contribute to the society.

Can we now blame the system and call for the law to censor everything that could possibly be inappropriate for our children? Not if it limits the freedom of everyone, I'd say. In Germany TV stations (other than PayTV providers) have to limit their content to an FSK movie rating of 16 (appropriate for teenagers); Hollywood movies get cut and edited until you can barely follow the plot anymore (you should see the german FSK 16 version of movies like The Terminator, it's a joke) and public shops, also online shops like amazon.de, aren't allowed to sell the original version; US computer games are censored here as soon as they contain a small amount of violence (I remember Command&Conquer; a harmless strategy game, where soldiers were redefined to be cyborgs and blood was colored green for the german market version; many other games aren't even sold here); in short, everyone is restricted in order to provide the child protection that parents are no longer able or willing to provide. "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both", to quote Benjamin Franklin.

The internet is a chaotic, uncontrollable place by nature, worse than a red light district. I wouldn't even say that's a bad thing... sexuality is such a huge and important part of our lives that you will find it everywhere where people are allowed to express themselves. I'm glad there is still one uncensored place in an already way too censored world. As long as adult websites are only protected by a mere disclaimer (and I sure hope it stays like that, because once the censorship starts it won't stop at adult sites), we can hardly expect from LL to provide more security than any other web content provider.

By the way, when it comes to lawsuits LL is in a funny position; they simply don't provide any adult content. All they offer is a development platform. I don't think they can be held responsible for adult content provided by the users of this platform. They're in the same situation as a web hoster; they only host 3D websites without monitoring them. Ultimately, the person who rents web space is responsible for the content of the "homepage". A lawsuit would only hit the small resident in the end. But all the resident has to do is to put up an additional disclaimer or point to the TOS plus the registration's "age check" (in form of the birthdate input field), to be as safe as any adult website, from a legal point of view.

You've made several good points in your post. A few things come to mind though, we aren't regulated that much over here as far as viewing per se. And I agree, sexuality is a core foundation of any species.

But on the lawsuit side, though they don't specifically provide the content, their platform does allow (for simplest terms) peer to peer. As we've seen in the US, things like Napster sharing peer to peer, even when they had nothing but the host have successfully been sued, just for providing the platform/software.

Here, adult websites are not "supposed" to have a simple check mark disclaimer, they are supposed to have a verification in place, before the actual sight of nudity. Whether they do or don't isn't the issue so much as what the law dictates, and the prosecutors. They have specific groups out there that troll the net all day looking for these sites. Could SL fall into the category, depending on someone's opinion, yes or no. But because there is no clear law, and the closest one that addresses it is yes, it's open to interpretation. And that interpretation is what bothers me. One judge may say yes, it's a violation, pay the fine, or shut down. Another may say no, it's P2P and that's all there is to it.

Also, if you access a website outside of the US that doesn't do age verification, so far as I know, the law allows the check mark of "this is allowed in my country".

The Napster case was a little different in my opinion. Napster was more or less guilty of handling of stolen goods. Almost everything traded on that platform was clearly illegal. The Napster operators did clearly know what was going on and chose to ignore many crimes in progress.

Adult content basically isn't illegal. It's only not allowed to knowingly expose minors to adult content. LL doesn't and can't know if an unverified user gave a correct birthdate information. With their birthdate question they already go one step further than a website disclaimer. No one reads the small print on the entry page of an adult website, everyone just clicks "let me in"; I can see that this is not much of a (legal) protection. But the birthdate question requires some thought; a minor has to knowingly commit a fraud in order to get past that registration point. This already makes a big difference, I think.

I wrote "unverified" user - but the user's birthdate has clearly been "verified", as much as you can verify any information on the web. If LL would, for example, verify a social security number (impossible for an enterprise that operates world wide), they would let someone in on good faith only just as well. They can never verify if the social security # really matches the person who signed up. Same with a cc# or paypal account name. It could be anyone's ID, cc#... or birthdate.

In addition, even after the account creation LL hints at the adult nature of SL in several ways. Adult areas are clearly marked as "mature", nudity and sexually oriented language/behaviour in PG areas is forbidden. They encourage their residents to report known minors. Their FAQs (knowledge base) also clearly mentions that LL won't tolerate minors using their adult grid and again asks the residents to keep their eyes open. All this is a lot more protection than a mere disclaimer already.

But even more important: you won't see real nudity in SL. Everything the platform allows to depict is rendered (with the exception of uploaded pornographic web photos, which is against the TOS in the first place since the material is copyright protected). As far as I know, US law turns a blind eye on rendered art or manga / cartoon porn; there's clearly no naked flesh shown, there's no human model involved whose dignity would be debased (in cases of extremely violent or humiliating forms of pornography) and it's always unclear how far it can be considered artwork (is Michelangelo's David porn? Technically, it's a nude male). The platform as a whole can be considered artwork. It encourages the user to use creative talents, to produce art. There are no inherent sex mechanics aside from the possibility to undress a 3D avatar which, by standard, comes without genitals (like any barbie doll that can be undressed). Other than rendered toons, you'll only find "chatroom cybersex" in SL. This has never been considered illegal unless it involves the suggestion of an RL encounter towards a minor, in online environments which were not restricted to adults.

Besides, when I use Google, I find a lot of cases where anti-porn provisions have been found to violate the first amendment, like http://www.answers.com/topic/reno-v-american-civil-liberties-union for example. These cases dealt with "real" porn, i.e. video material / photographies, not with rendered erotic material/artwork. I really think LL is legally on the safe side, as are their adult users.

if the teacher is showing hypothertical kid lewd photos why are they still working there?
what did you do to stop the porn shop from being built? did you go to the owner and say hey kids walk by here can ya tone it down or remove the offending items from the window.
yes you are. its called responsible parenting. hypothectically of course.

too many parents are takign the "its not my fault" route in child rearing and now we are stuck with a generation of slackers of suew first and take no responsibility for thier actions.
trust me if i had a kid, no way in heck would any of thos situations be plausible.

Ishtara said something that Interested me,, i saw an analogy elsewhere.

Ishtara said;


This reminded me of Napster, and KaZaA. Two Fileshare systems available for free on the Net.These two systems allowed people to trade Music Files (Primarily) and other computer file formats, In Many cases, Copyright protected ones with every other person using the service. Now, Lawsuits Happen, as Lawsuits will, and Napster, Then, the Largest of the Fileshare systems was shut down (Until their Legal restructuring). KaZaA was hit shortly after with a Similar suit, As was Limewire, Bearshare, and several others, But Napster was the one that Lost. The Others stood.
The Difference in the systems, I found out, Was that Napster had some kind of Central Server through which all the Material was Filtered before redistribution to whomever wished to Download, Acting as a Middle Man as it were, everything Passed through theor "Hands" before delivery. Now, KaZaA Et-Al, are all point to Point share programs. I put the program on my computer, and if you have it on yours, my system will search for your system, and the Only communication that takes place is My computer talking to yours. No Middle Man. KaZaA Never actually Handles any of the material that is being Traded, We are only using their Tools, How we use them is Not directly in their control. If i read things correctly, that was Not the case with the Napster service.

Now, You have Second Life, and the (Hopefully Fictional) Website "Huge Hooter Parade!!".
SL is an Open environment that has No Content Provided other than an environment, and some Building tools (Like a Blank Website builder). It simply Has no Provided Content. Only that Content that those sharing the environment Choose to Put there, Some very adult, Some Not.
HHP is a site that provides for download, Films, Photos, Art, Stories and Other Material ALL relating to women with very large Unclothed Breasts (Down boys, i Said it was Fictional) and there is also a small area for client Content.
Now lets say HHP uses roughly the same systems of checks and Balances that SL uses.
Now, in Two similar Homes, Two Similar Parents come home to Find two similar Under aged Children surfing these two sites and Looking at Digital representations (Remember HHP has an Art section)of Naked Women with Ginormous Boobies, and they Launch Similar Lawsuits against LL, and the HHP corporations respectively.
Can Anyone see where the suit against HHP might succeed where it would Fail against LL?

In My reading of Law (And it Really IS Fascinating) it strikes me that LL would prevail in it's case because LL was NOT the one providing the Images, Or placing them in the Minors access. HHP on the other Hand HHP is FULLY in control of ALL the content of their site, They are the Primary provider. The suit over the SL Content Might be more successful IF it were directed Specificly at the SL Player who set up his content. The suit over the HHP content would Fail If the suit were directed Not at HHP, but at the ISP that Carried them (Among thousands of Other Web Pages).

The distinctions under the Law May seem Very fine, But they Both (Napster Vs. KaZaA and SL Vs. HHP) hinge on points of Who has the greater responsibility. In terms of Suing KaZaA, or SL, you are suing the Maker of the Gun, Rather than the one wielding it, whereas in the case of Napster, Or the fictional HHP, the suit is directed At the Shooter Specificly.

That is my Understanding of the Law.

Angel.

I already wrote something about Napster in my previous post. Napster allowed the handling of stolen goods, something illegal by nature.
Whereas adult content (adult artwork even, since it's rendered and no photographic/video material) basically isn't illegal, as long as no one knowingly exposes minors to such content. "Knowingly" is the important point here. Providing a false birthdate during account registration is fraud, just as providing a wrong / stolen credit card number. LL can't be blamed for underaged users attempting to get in at any cost, even by resorting to fraud.

The same case would occur if a minor climbs through my living room window and watches a porn DVD on my TV. Doesn't matter that the window was open - I'm allowed to own pornographic material, I'm allowed to air the room, but the minor isn't allowed to break in.

I am happy that the OP is asking the Lindens a question but what exactly is his/her question to the other residents? Isn't this a forum for residents to answer other resident's questions?

Maybe I am missing the question.

i feel sorry for your children.

looks as if everyone GOT OFF OF TOPIC