Hentai Porn Removed from SL
by Alphaville Herald on 10/12/04 at 12:17 am
Reached earlier today, Robin Linden communicated that the Hentai Porn placed in game by Sasami Wishbringer was offensive, in violation of the terms of service, and would be removed. We don’t know if the porn and porn vendors were removed by the Lindens or Sasami, but it has now been removed. A good move by the Lindens? Censorship? The debate continues.
The door of what was Sasami Wishbringer’s slave quarters at Fantasy Slave Market. The Hentai door sign has been removed as well as the advertising of Sasami as a slave. (See previous article)
Stall at Fantasy Slave Market where Sasami Wishbringer’s hentai vendor once stood.
Kale
Dec 10th, 2004
What do peeps think about this designation of offensive? This brings up questions regarding both how much a TOS can and should bind a player. I think the TOS can certainly keep this stuff out of game, but does this damage the freedom and potential of the virtual world or does it protect more pressing real-world concerns?
-Kale
urizenus
Dec 10th, 2004
I think ‘offensive’ must mean something like “something that we and or our customers will find too gross, disgusting, etc.”. It’s a loose defintion and could lead to uneven enforcement, confusion, etc., but what are you going to do? They may also have concerns that those images *would* be considered obscene in some parts of the United States, for example.
Kale, in the other thread you ran together obscenity and child porn, but they are two completely different categories of things. The later is defined relationally, in that it involves actual children in the production of said work.
ajdown@jp
Dec 10th, 2004
Result eh Uri?
aj
Kale
Dec 10th, 2004
Well, leave it to me alone to add even more confusion where I hope for clarity. It’s late and I’m sure I’ve gone astray in many ways but I didn’t realize I had tangled threads. I started out as a 1st amendment issue, and I wanted to get into that. Let me try to make myself understood. THE issue here, as I see it, is one of obscenity, including all type of porn. Ah, but the Court (see the articles listed) have refused the idea that depictions actually qualify as child porn because they/you/others point out that no child is harmed. I really get it, but isn’t that just one side of the argument. The other side of the coin is that some of the same threats/harms that motivate the “obscenity” (along just one axis, others being child abuse, etc) designation of what you (and the Court) deem child pornography could be applicable in this case for those concerns outlined in the other message. So, I apologize for not abbreviating “child porn” along the “obscenity” classification spectrum clearly.
-Kale
Unknown
Dec 10th, 2004
I think LL has set a bad precedent. LL has opened Pandora’s box. Just you wait for the nut jobs to catch wind and they will decry all porn in SL and petition for its removal. I really don’t have an issue with porn as long as people aren’t hurt in the making. BDSM i have problems with.
In the past LL has remove images that were totaly offensive (stuff dropped by SA goons). Nobody compained about the bannings or removal because they were infact offensive to more then just the vast majority. This removal was something that was boarder-line.
If we examing the entire situation, BDSM & furry porn are not far from what was removed. The only reason they remain in SL is because they make up a *sizable* percentage of the *paying* population. LL has lost of the respect of some of the community. I don’t know what to think. What exactly lead to it’s removal? Was it the compaints that came from the article? Or was it compaints based from before the article? Or was it compaints from people who have the ear of LL? I don’t know what to think.
I’m a long time Tenchi fan and I have never liked Tenchi hentai. So seeing Sasami in those compromising situations was a bit much for me. But life is full of nasty stuff. What do we do? Turn a blind eye. People argue over the morality of animated porn while people are dieing from hunger. So while i’m out exploring in SL, i like to keep things in perspective; If i can’t give a damn enough about starving people why should i bother with this?
Sasami
Dec 10th, 2004
Just to clarify:
I decided to remove my vendors and association with a certain location…noone in the Lindens decided to do this for me.
Noone with LL has asked me to stop playing as I have nor do I have any intention of doing so. I did this not because I felt it was ‘obscene’ on in someone else’s interest I do so, but merely because it was something I had not bothered with in a while and didn’t appreciate the negative attention that the former article brought to it which seemed a rather blatent attempt to negatively impact my play experience in game.
As it is, to me this site is not a venue in which I will wish to engage in thoughtful discourse of a ‘broader issue’. It is not to me a place that is interested in it.
Have a nice day..some of us have to work.
Ava Eldritch
Dec 10th, 2004
” . . didn’t appreciate the negative attention that the former article brought to it which seemed a rather blatent attempt to negatively impact my play experience in game.”
hehe dont you think its a little bit arrogant to assume that you are important enough in all our lives (or even just Uri’s life) to warrant a grand conspiracy orchestrated soley to mess up your game. Get over yourself.
lol at 700 yr old hooker
Dec 10th, 2004
Sure, Sasami Sure. Your the victim in all of this, that’s right. poor you.
*/sarcasm*
Usual response for someone caught out doing something questionable. I think you need sex addicts anonymous. the version for the bad kind of people.
boohoo for sasami. boohoo.
Kale
Dec 10th, 2004
I don’t know what happened here, but following this general issue, and something in Unknown’s thoughtful response: I agree that the words “sizable, “”paying” population probably hold vast weight on what we might like to think of at times as a more principled-based issue and that personally bothers me to an extent. Although, it bothers me in the real (physical) world more than it bothers me in a game where one does indeed sit down and sign a TOS agreement. This is the age-old redux about whether we want more room for freedom and expression, even when many find some of it deeply offensive/obscene. (In case it isn’t already painfully obvious, I’m no scholar on any of this, but many people includiing the mighty Court have a real hard time defining that term “obscenity” so understand I’m using it here colloquially and not in the fashion of referring to any single case to avoid my innate tendency to generate confusion— the *only* thing the Court/legal scholars and I *do* have in commmon!
).
Back to this financial hook, if you sign a TOS agreement, you’re told that certain expressions won’t be allowed in a game, and depending on the nature of the game/environment, then it seems reasonable from a point-of-view. There’s really too much crap that I just don’t want to be accosted with in an environment where I’m paying to exist, so on that level I can find some sympathy with letting financial incentives guide such in-game decisions, as UnKnown suggests often be the practical case. Yet, censorship concerns exist for me on-line too as I’m sure they do for many, and I’ve always been a 1st amendment fan and see on-line worlds as properly not excised completely from those governing the “real world.” Once more, I don’t know what happened here, but if SL is moving policy-wise toward some more stringent form of censorship and is to be properly understood as closely modeling the real world, that’s a great topic, and I wonder what views we should consider about the “financial” factor.
Why do zoning practices bother me in the real world? It leaves me non-plussed when you can kinda ad hoc engage in removing certain items out of “nice” communities. If expression is meant to be truly protected, how does this zoning factor make principled sense? (I mean, I understand a lot of this will have to do with definition which could be legitimate based on differing relevant local conditions but this too often seems just completely whimsical and drives me insane throughout law. Is there no way to shore up some greater consistency or must we live with level of madness?) Either the protection of the 1st amendment values embodied in vast freedom in the community, absent clear and present physical harm, should be taking the day or if some grave harm is displayed over-riding the expressive value some maintain, we can’t just decide to “zone” it toward bad areas and thus hide it and be consistent, can we?
ajdown@jp
Dec 10th, 2004
“First amendment”?
Crap. Doesn’t apply online, or in a private environment. Wish some of you americans would get over the fact and wake up to reality that there is a whole world beyond your borders.
What you accept as real life ‘norms’ does not automatically apply in any online environment. When you sign up to any private entity, you agree to follow the rules and regulations put before you.
Don’t like ‘em, leave, it’s that simple.
I don’t know the rules and guidelines for second life, but if they have been broken then you deserve whatever action is taken. Whilst many people disliked the ‘no profanity’ stand of TSO, it was a rule, and either don’t swear or get action taken against your account if you break that rule.
aj
ian
Dec 10th, 2004
agreed with AJ, a lot of americans are ignorant of the rest of the world
urizenus
Dec 10th, 2004
Robin Linden has offered the following helpful clarification. The images in question would not have been removed because they violated the TOS, but rather because they violated the community standards clause by virtue of being in a public place. Here are the details. Thanks Robin!
“For the record –
the pictures that were removed were not removed by us. If they had
been, it would have been because they were in violation of the
community standards (not the terms of service) clause about indecency:
Content, communication, or behavior which involves intense strong
language or expletives, nudity or sexual content, the depiction of sex
or strong violence, or anything else broadly offensive must be
contained within private land in areas rated Mature (M).
This is where the language “broadly offensive” came from. While
everyone agrees to abide by the community standards, they are not a
contract in the way the terms of service are. These standards reflect
the values and behaviors that are considered acceptable by the
community. Ordinarily we don’t pay any attention to pornographic
images unless 1) they are in public areas or 2) they violate real life
laws (as in the case of child pornography). The images you posted on
your site violated the first clause.”
Hiei Hyun
Aug 8th, 2008
Regular porn is ok.but child porn is not. That avatar should be taken off of sl. cild porn is as bad as muder in my opinion