under 18 epidemic

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.

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.

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.

What more do you think they should do? It might help if you provide concrete suggestions.

True, but in that case, most countries have laws against it, so they could still be prosecuted. Fraud dealing with anything financial is a lot more serious than checkmarking a box that you are 18.

But since the person committing this offense is by definition a minor that's not much of a threat, is it?

SL is a very very adult place, there is simply no way anyone under 18 should be on the main grid, period.
QUOTE]

I'd prefer to see restrictions lifted than tightened personally. I know a lot of very mature under 18s. I know 17 year olds who are married with children - and are able to provide for those children financailly. I know a number of under 18s who have accounts on sl. I know one atleat who has a paid premium account too, paid for by themself (visa debit cards are available to 16 year olds in the UK, and can be used to get verified status on a PayPal account). None of them cause trouble. The one with the premium account owns land and makes clothes and is an upright member of the community. What exaclty goes on in Sl that teens can't see on tv anyway. Violent movies are available to 15 year olds legally in the UK, the age of consent for sex is 16, they can view porn on the internet if they want, in short I don't see how SL can damage them in any way. In fact, being exposed to sexually explicit and violent material in a safe environment can be very beneficial. Personally, I watched porn and violent movies at a young age and enjoyed every minute of it - it didn't do me any harm.

I suppose I should report the under 18s I know, but I'm not going to because they've done no harm.

I suppose I should report the under 18s I know, but I'm not going to because they've done no harm.

I'd prefer to see restrictions lifted than tightened personally. I know a lot of very mature under 18s. I know 17 year olds who are married with children - and are able to provide for those children financailly. I know a number of under 18s who have accounts on sl. I know one atleat who has a paid premium account too, paid for by themself (visa debit cards are available to 16 year olds in the UK, and can be used to get verified status on a PayPal account). None of them cause trouble. The one with the premium account owns land and makes clothes and is an upright member of the community. What exaclty goes on in Sl that teens can't see on tv anyway. Violent movies are available to 15 year olds legally in the UK, the age of consent for sex is 16, they can view porn on the internet if they want, in short I don't see how SL can damage them in any way. In fact, being exposed to sexually explicit and violent material in a safe environment can be very beneficial. Personally, I watched porn and violent movies at a young age and enjoyed every minute of it - it didn't do me any harm.

I suppose I should report the under 18s I know, but I'm not going to because they've done no harm.

I suppose I should report the under 18s I know, but I'm not going to because they've done no harm.

I'd prefer to see restrictions lifted than tightened personally. I know a lot of very mature under 18s. I know 17 year olds who are married with children - and are able to provide for those children financailly. I know a number of under 18s who have accounts on sl. I know one atleat who has a paid premium account too, paid for by themself (visa debit cards are available to 16 year olds in the UK, and can be used to get verified status on a PayPal account). None of them cause trouble. The one with the premium account owns land and makes clothes and is an upright member of the community. What exaclty goes on in Sl that teens can't see on tv anyway. Violent movies are available to 15 year olds legally in the UK, the age of consent for sex is 16, they can view porn on the internet if they want, in short I don't see how SL can damage them in any way. In fact, being exposed to sexually explicit and violent material in a safe environment can be very beneficial. Personally, I watched porn and violent movies at a young age and enjoyed every minute of it - it didn't do me any harm.

I suppose I should report the under 18s I know, but I'm not going to because they've done no harm.

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.

If I have a kid. I send them to school. And the teacher periodically shows my kid some lewd photos. I'm the first one responsible?

My kid walks past a porn shop in the city. The shop displays magazines and sex toys out at the storefront where people see them. I'm responsible for preventing my child from walking past that street?

Back at home, when the kid switches on TV, and theres more of this stuff during prime time. I'm the one responsible to go switch it off and tell them not to watch it?

As far as I know porn shops don't display dildos in storefront windows.. but then I live in the US.

nor the UK.

Hell, even we brits have some propriety!

As far as I know porn shops don't display dildos in storefront windows.. but then I live in the US.

Well, In Canada (Vancouver at least) I've seen such things on display in the adult store Windows, The Interesting thing is, Here, The Thought of it doesn't seem to send the Citizens into a Foaming Rage like it does elsewhere. My experience of Canadians (I'm an Immigrant from France Via the United States) is that they seem to have a Far more open and sophisticated attitude towards such things. I can't say Authoritatively whether it's a Good or Bad thing, But the over all lack of Fire, Brimstone, and/or other dire consequences seems to indicate at least that it is a Non Event.