Virtual Child Porn in Second Life

by Alphaville Herald on 09/12/04 at 1:13 am


Everyone knows that Child Pornography is illegal and everyone *should* know that it is wrong. But what about virtual child porn? — cases in which no real child is victimized in the making of the porn, but in which a child is represented as having sex with an adult. Or imagine an avatar that was designed to look like an eight year old and offered itself as an escort and sex slave. Second Life must now confront this issue. Sasami Wishbringer is an avatar modelled after a Japanese anime character named Sasami, who has the body of an eight year old, but is in fact (according to the story) closer to 708 years old (see, an adult — or that is the copout). This avatar is currently an Escort for The Edge, and is also a slave at Fantasy Slave Market, and participates in the auctions there. Sasami Wishbringer also sells hentai (anime porn) featuring Sasami in game. Should this be allowed?

The user profile for Sasami Wishbringer

Some of the Sasami hentai being sold in Second Life (portions of screenshot censored)

For sale in second life. (portions of screenshot censored)

For sale in second life. (portions of screenshot censored)

The door to Sasami’s slave quarters at Fantasy Slave Market

Poster on the door to Sasami’s slave quarters.

The holding pen and auction block for the slaves at Fantasy Slave Market in Second Life

129 Responses to “Virtual Child Porn in Second Life”

  1. Rosalita

    Dec 9th, 2004

    Ava, I have yet to be disrespectful about the situation. I’m here cause this was brought to my attention. As for your negative attitude, please, leave it at the door. Anyways, this is enough from me. I’m tired of bieng insulted by those who don’t even know me. Thank you Urizenus for bieng civil.

  2. Ava Eldritch

    Dec 9th, 2004

    oh you are done attacking Uri now? LOL mmmmm my job here is done then. :P

  3. Cocoanut

    Dec 9th, 2004

    Linden Labs had better take a stance against this sooner, rather than later, or they will see – as an earlier poster predicted – their entire game go down the tubes in a welter of negative publicity.

    Those of you in a lather about this article being published don’t know libel from a hole in the ground.

    Any sort of newspaper has just cause to publish facts by virtue of being a news medium. The facts published in this case are true and available for anyone to know even without Uri publishing them. And those facts include the player’s name.

    If that puts Sasami in a “negative light,” then the facts are what put Sasami in a negative light; not the reporting of them.

    (And, Rosalita, if newspapers had to have permission of everyone named, there would be no “news” and there would be no “newspapers”.)

    Moreover, Uri could have been as judgmental and critical as he liked, if he wanted to, and it STILL would not be libel. It would be then an opinion based on fact, which is also perfectly kosher.

    If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kiddie porn kitchen.


  4. Kale

    Dec 10th, 2004

    What the hell has happened here? I’m so dismayed at the response to this topic. Does ANYONE else realize that we haven’t managed to take ourselves even remotely to the vicinity of this perfectly legitimate and interesting debate(okay, admittedly, mostly to some of us very sad boring legal-minded).

    What is the problem? Why poke at Uri for framing this issue? Poking at Uri: I know it’s fun. I’ll admit that, but let’s be real. I’m not even sure some of these comments are meant to be taken seriously or I may weep for the future here and now. First, there is the vehement assertion floating amongst the board that we all should get a life and this is no issue because the character in said story is ROLE-PLAYING damnit, and nothing could be wrong with that. Set next to that assertion, if you will, the threat (teeeheeee; honestly, threatening Uri is as fun as poking at him too— I’ve also found that on some of my days, but I digress…) to sue “Uri” (a fictional character) for defaming this other purely fictional character. Now, this would all be some decent dinner theatre if not for two things: 1.) I’m not entirely sure some of these comments were meant in jest and that scares me quite to the bone, and most frighteningly 2.) Uri plucked out a good issue here that we can’t seem to pick up for the life of us.

    As far as I can tell, no judgment on this topic has been rendered, but a question has been directly posed. I suggest that those of us off-topic step up and get a grip on the issue and lay off of all the “go to hell, Uri.” (Just for now…Yeah, maybe he possesses a wee bit too much of the journalistic oooomppph of a Hunter S. Thompson in the day, maybe he mocks and cruelly chides fellow legal editors who leave him to do *all* the freakin’ work around here, and maybe he mopes around the office mumbling something inaudible yet nonetheless surely unpleasant if not downright vile at fellow colleagues…ooops, I was saying “lay off” wasn’t I? How’d I get turned around there? Sorry, bro; I really have missed you all at the Herald as much as I know you’ve surely missed me….ahhheemmmm).

    Okay, back on track:
    The topic we should be discussing is what constitutes obscenity (child pornography being but one variety) and whether the first amendment is enough to protect items like those displayed in this story from obscenity charges. As I understand it, one of the advantages of cyberspace is creating an alternate reality that merges and collides with the more everyday realities. (Isn’t this just *the* hook of games like SL?) While this can undoubtedly be cool and exciting and just plain nifty, it can be darn puzzling when something that is deemed harmful in this everyday reality starts being replicated in virtual mediums. So, here, the question is does/should such content count as legally obscene (given that child porn is legitimately obscene and as such poses serious harm and risk that trumps any 1st speech claim) or is what we’re talking about merely “virtually obscene” (no real harm or threat of harm to trump the 1st amendment)? What’s the difference between the two that can allow us to distinguish the truly obscene from the faux obscene? If one is harmful or exploitive to a group of citizens, why isn’t the other. (So, someone did raise the issue of other types of simulated crime and violence and may see this as no different— we should talk about that point and see if we can get more of a handle on that).

    While this case can be raised on any level dealing with obscenity, I think it’s great to frame the issue in the context of child pornography because for many people, such depiction (even perhaps virtual) is a move beyond “prurient, lewd, nasty” and is a step toward threatening, predatory, and exploitive of extremely vulnerable members of society. Now, that’s the issue on the table, unless I’m wrong. Here are just a few relevant articles that I was able to pull from lexis-nexis very quickly dealing mostly with the U.S.S.C. face-off with Ashcroft on this issue:

    The American Lawyer, December, 2001, supreme advocacy, Virtual Reality Check–Is pornography obscene if it’s composed of nothing but pixels?, Tony Mauro

    Fulton County Daily Report, July 12, 2002 Friday, The U.S. Supreme Court bows to free speech in pornography cases

    Legal Times, July 1, 2002 Correction Appended, POINTS OF VIEW; Pg. 44, Talking Dirty Court’s Cases on Sex and Speech Are Fractured but Thoughtful, By Joan E. Bertin

    I’m sure there is a hotbed of good other resources that I’d be thrilled for others to share. Can we re-frame this excellent topic for serious debate? “Obscene” or “Protected”? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?


  5. Sasami

    Dec 10th, 2004

    If the ‘article’ you are responding to was not phrased as a personal attack Kale, perhaps it would have gotten a more serious minded response. But instead said ‘reporter’ opted for sensationalism, hype, supposition and presumptive attacks to further one person’s moralistic vendetta over how another peron plays a GAME rather than a serious issue.

    Thus it will not be treated seriously, rationally or calmly by any that respond to it, despite any attempts because the article itself fails to rise to that level.

  6. SLer4mo

    Dec 10th, 2004

    I would like to point out, that at least the pictures in game were on an adult only site.

    However, Second Life Herald has vilolated the Internet Child Protection Act by posting them here on an unprotected web site.

  7. Kale

    Dec 10th, 2004

    I don’t read a personal attack. Tell me where I miss that please? What I see is a very controversial issue, which we seem to have supreme difficulty exploring— leading me to conclude that maybe it really is worth discussing after all. I see coverage from in-game that speaks directly to this issue before us. Of course, I respect that you need not participate in the discussion or care for this format, but I’d still appreciate anyone who has thoughts on the real issue….

  8. Anonymous

    Dec 10th, 2004

    Uhh, technically, this is not pornography, US Supreme Court says that simulated child characters are not restricted… (honestly from the transcripts the act of creating non-child based adult material was encouraged so long as it doesn’t harm an actual child.)

  9. SLer4mo

    Dec 10th, 2004

    As to the topic of discussion here.

    I think it was handeled in very bad form.

    First I really don’t think anyone bothered to discuss the issues with Sasami first, with the expection it seems of one person.

    Second, instead of doing thing the proper way, but contacting a Linding, and possibly sitting in a discusion with a Linden and Sasami, it was thrust out here on an unprotected site. Not Good.

    I consider how this was handeled as bad as is the Topic of discussion.

    Two wrongs do -not- make a right, and the way this was handeled, presented, and put forth was TOTALY wrong.

    You talk about being proper, you should follow that in your actions, and display proper form in dealing with sesitive issues, instead of airing them in public first.

    My thoughts on this whole matter.

  10. Sasami

    Dec 10th, 2004

    A personal attack? Quite simply in posting this information without my permission, without approaching me to see where I stood on it (to get my side of the story so to speak) and to suppose / assume / publically be presumptive as to what sort of play I offered in game despite the advertisements and without regard to whatever virtual age I appeared at those times (which as I am sure you SL savvy people know is changable). If he wanted to discuss this issue, as has been said before, no names needed have been mentioned nor did any imagery that was perhaps less than suitable for all the viewers here to see. He could have started the article thusly:

    “As of late I and those around me have noticed that certain players are selling Japanese Hentai images that depict ‘underage’ cartoon girls in sexual positions. Some of these players are even runnjng about with child like avatars, offering themselves as Escorts and Slaves for auction at various mature areas throughout SL. How do you as players feel about such behaviour? Is it simply roleplay or is it something the Lindens should moderate and put a stop to? Please comment here if you like.”

    If the reporter or this ‘publication’ were vaguely interested in discussion of the issue rather than the person, they would have posted thusly. But instead they directed all this at a player who was not bothering them and was not even approached about it, save by one rather offensive individual that interupted a pleasant conversation with friends using this line: “Sasami, you are one of the Edges Whores??!! Don’t you think it is wrong and that you are a pedophile to portray Sasami that way?!”

    This same person’s name appears on a screenshot in this article a mere day after she made this offensive public scene and somehow I am supposed to be so naive to think it is unconnected or a ‘rational discussion of the issue’ rather than an attack meant to defame a perfectly legal and allowable virtual (key word here: NOT REAL) way of roleplaying?

    Somehow I don’t think a rational discussion was the intent here.

  11. Kale

    Dec 10th, 2004

    Well, the Herald can certainly be low-brow, as can I sadly, given my roots. — I’m certainly not denying that we’re graceless and artless and lousy “journalists” just doing our thing. I can tell you that our thing is not to be intentionally unfair and mean-spirited though we’re a rather pissy lot, and our thing is sometimes to be amusing and entertaining, and our thing is (believe it or not) to probe interesting legal/social/economic issues in on-line environments, particularly games. I’m sorry you felt the presentation of this story was an attack, and while I wish to respect your silence if you desire no further correspondence, I can’t help but be struck by the response of yourself and others to this story, and I’d like to get a grip on what people think of the (potential) real issue here, so I’m still urging that to any interested….

  12. urizenus

    Dec 10th, 2004

    Anonymous says: “Uhh, technically, this is not pornography, US Supreme Court says that simulated child characters are not restricted…”

    I think you meant to say either that the court ruled it wasn’t *child* pornography, or perhaps that it wasn’t ‘obscene’ The court didn’t say it wasn’t porn (which obviously it is).

  13. Curious

    Dec 10th, 2004

    Sasami, at this point you’re preaching to the converted. You keep making a big deal about how Uri used your name in it. Well, no one here has said they absolutely thought that was the right idea, in fact I think everyone here is saying that they thought he was wrong to do that.

    What you ARE avoiding is the real topics and real issues, unanswered questions about this that make a lot of sense.

    And this isnt an allowable thing. It’s been removed from SL before. It may be legal to have it in America, but as has been said before, posting it here to the Lindens is considered broadly offensive and therefore not allowed.

    It also seems to me that you want to blame everyone for this but yourself. Do you think that taking a small girl avatar, (and like I said your profile makes it clear that she is a girl who is just beginning to go through puberty and is young, so dont even try and pull that 708 crap), and putting her as an Edge Escort (AKA, Lady of the Night, Hooker, or Whore, none of them are insults they’re all what they are) and also a sex slave. Did you not think that. “hmmm someone might be offended by this! Considering that the law just BARELY appealed virtual child pornography as illegal, the only reason they did was because the wording was too vague.

    You deserve that child’s avatar Sasami, because you certainly are acting like one.

  14. Sasami

    Dec 10th, 2004

    Hmm..Curious you are being rather pendantic…wanna know why? Lets list the reasons:

    1. I have done nothing wrong. I continue to roleplay as I have and I am violating no laws and have no intention of ‘changing’.

    2. If I had any remote interest in ‘discussing the issues’ it was quelched by my inclusion in the ‘issue’ without asking me or my permission to include me.

    3. I don’t give a crap if someone is offended by what I play or who I am. That is their problem not mine. People will be offended if I were gay, liked 80s music, a furry, a anime fan, and so on. People get offended easily by a multitude of asinine things. Let them. I am not them. I have the common sense to mind my own business when what someone is doing does not hurt myself or others on a tangiable objective level. Since this is precisely why our Judicial system has ‘allowed’ obscenity’, ‘porn’ and so on, I think I am on fairly safe ground.

    In summation, there are no issues I am avoiding because simply put there is no issue here I am interested in discussing save the fact my character, information and person was brought onto this site without my permission or knowledge. If you can not see that is the only reason I am posting here, then you are the one that has a ‘childlike mind’ not I.

  15. Ava Eldritch

    Dec 10th, 2004

    Yes Sasami your character was brought onto this site. Guess what? Uri does not need your permission for that. Suck it up. No . . he did not bring any personal information about your RL person onto this site. So, basically you have no arguement. As Kale pointed out, you are welcome to leave this discussion at anytime. I think its great that you dont give a crap who is offended by your lifestyle in game. Good for you. One should stick to their convictions. LOL

  16. Sasami

    Dec 10th, 2004

    Actually, according to the Harrassment clause of the EULA and this part as well:

    4. Disclosure
    Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Lives.

    Uri does indeed need my permission to bring my character / persona into this discussion within reasonable limits. He did not have it and the article quite frankly constitutes harrassment.

  17. Rosalita

    Dec 10th, 2004

    Cocoanut, Curious. I’ve made it known who I am, why not reveal your own identities? Let me say this one last time. As I have said PREVIOUSLY despite your ugly words toward me. I’m NOT supporting Child Pornography. That argument is VALID. What is NOT VALID is the specific TARGET that Urizenus placed on Sasami, bringing this harassment against her from others who have yet to post and from those who feel she is such an abomination, is uncalled for.

    In the real world, a person has the right to sue when thier name is presented in such a manor. Libel is written, Slander is spoken. With that in mind, Sasami has in all rights, to be able to protect herself right now. Some of you people may not like her. But that does NOT give YOU the right to harrass, ostracize, demean her integrity, and or otherwise be (Lack of a better word) a total jackass.

    Now with that said:

    Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or which causes such party to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure such party in such party’s occupation. (Cal.Civ.Code § 45)

    Slander is a false and unprivileged publication made orally either in person or by radio or television or by any other means which charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime, imputes to a party the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease, tends directly to injure a party in respect to such person’s office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to such party general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to the office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits, imputes to such person impotence or a want of chastity and by natural consequence, causes actual damage. (Cal.Civ.Code § 46)


    A written statement is defamatory on its face if the natural and probable effect on the average reader is to defame the plaintiff without the necessity of considering the surrounding circumstances. (Cal.Civ.Code § 45a)

    An oral statement is defamatory on its face if it charged plaintiff with a crime imputes in plaintiff the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease tends directly to injure plaintiff in respect to his her office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him her general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his or her office, profession, trade or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits imputes to him or her impotence or want of chastity.

    If a statement is not defamatory on its face, but nonetheless under all circumstances is defamatory, plaintiff must establish that he or she has sustained special damages in order to also recover general damages.


    The entire document can be read here at:

  18. Kale

    Dec 10th, 2004

    Defamation, as I understand it in a plain girl’s language requires at least two really difficult elements: a level of *intent* to harm one’s character that is quite high, maybe reaching malice, and seems utterly lacking to me in this case, and as for the “plaintiff’s” standing this hypothetcal involves an admittedly fictional character. Both factors would seem insurmountably problematic to me in viewing this as any sort of light. Are there cases like this anyone has reference to?— that would be so fascinating.

  19. Crazy_Psycho

    Dec 10th, 2004

    This goes towards alot of things… I see even babyfurres but there are rules set and this is sad you need to target one person.. What is it she didn’t put out for you so you decide to ruine this girls life? Banning is stupid in this matter is like banning you for being dumb.. I dun make alot of sence do I well lets help you out buddy.. You got alot of people that are gonna sniff you out.. Fare warning I would drop this article its a anime that is pry as hold as DBZ. I myself don’t like child porn but shit if you know anything about the jap culture you would have thought twice about getting yourself hunted down

  20. Psycho

    Dec 10th, 2004

    This goes towards alot of things… I see even babyfurres but there are rules set and this is sad you need to target one person.. What is it she didn’t put out for you so you decide to ruine this girls life? Banning is stupid in this matter is like banning you for being dumb.. I dun make alot of sence do I well lets help you out buddy.. You got alot of people that are gonna sniff you out.. Fare warning I would drop this article its a anime that is pry as hold as DBZ. I myself don’t like child porn but shit if you know anything about the jap culture you would have thought twice about getting yourself hunted down

  21. Cocoanut

    Dec 10th, 2004

    Curious, don’t speak for everyone.

    I absolutely do think it was the right idea for Uri to use Sasami’s name. He has every right to do so, and practically a journalistic responsibility to do so. I don’t know where you guys get your nutty ideas – evidently you don’t read newspapers much or even watch much news on TV.

    The people in this thread who are truly supporting censorship are those who say that a virtual newspaper covering a virtual world has no right to do so.

    (Rosalita, I have spoken no “ugly words” to you. I just mentioned that newspapers don’t need people’s permission to use their names, which is something you should know. I don’t have a character in SL, if that’s what you mean by “revealing my identity”.)


  22. Anonymous

    Dec 10th, 2004

    This is Defimation of Character by identifying the person by name.

  23. Touter

    Dec 10th, 2004

    Okay, I had posted before, anonoymously, that the US Federal Government had ruled that virtual porn of minors is not the same as real porn with minors, and in fact, had stated that allowing adults to produce virtual characters (I.E. 3D models, and cartoons) where actually better than using real children as it does provide an outlet. This is a case where it’s a freedom of speach.

  24. Touter

    Dec 10th, 2004

    On another note, by banning the netcafe I normally surf the net from, this publication is obviously unwilling to listen to truth on the matter from the US Supreme Court Ruling, I do have a few other addresses I can post from if you’re going to continue blocking me ^.^

  25. ajdown@jp

    Dec 10th, 2004

    “Defamation of character” is what you are looking for…. and I don’t think you will find any legal professional will be willing to defend you? Why, because it is a virtual character, that does not exist in this real world.

    If Uri had said “Sasami is, in fact, a 40 year old truck driver called Dave who lives in Milwaukee” then that could be seen as a problem…. but as already said, the only information given is publicly available.

    Sasami, why not just answer the questions rather than whining on about how it’s not fair to be picked on?

    Some people seem to have the line between “reality” and “game” somewhat confused.


  26. Rosalita

    Dec 10th, 2004

    My appologies Cocoanut then. Your posts struck me as such. Curious and Ava are a different story.

    At best, this is what erks me about this artical, and why I will stand by my opinion that Urizenus targted Sasami and why she has a right to defend herself against this. Ths subject is indeed about Child Pornography. There is little doubt about it. It turns then into a critical defamation of Sasami’s morals. At the end, Urizenus asks if this should be allowed? He did not address the issue at large however and again, this is my opinion, bad tabloid journalism.

    The way the artical came off to me, is he’s making Sasami the poster child of this crusade. A literal witch hunt in this case. He lost sight of the larger picture which is indeed Child Pornography within Second Life. And those who rally behind him carry this same view.

    As I have said, I am in no way any expert on journalism, or even as esteemed as the “Good?” Docter Urizenus. But, that aside, he did not name anybody else for that matter, even his “supposed” friend who I read up in a previous post. Then again that is hearsay.

    The broad spectrum of the artical bears off into left field to come around full circle to target Sasami. He’s not addressing Child Pornography at this point. He’s personally addressing Sasami.

    My two $L’s

  27. Ava Eldritch

    Dec 10th, 2004

    dont expect an apology from me Rosalita.

  28. urizenus

    Dec 11th, 2004

    I am so looking forward to the day when I am brought to court for defaming an avatar! And “defaming” it by republishing info that said avatar him/herself published in a public forum to the effect that…
    1) s/he was 8 years old (or 808, depending on how you count)
    2) s/he was an Edge Escort
    3) s/he was a Fantasy Slave
    4) she was a dealer in anime porn in game

    and that my defamation of said avatar led to her … what? economic ruin I guess, because of loss of sales in Linden dollars of her anime porn and/or her virtual escort/slave services whatever they might be.

    Oh please please please please bring this lawsuit! It will be one for the ages.


  29. Jeri Zuma

    Dec 11th, 2004

    It boils down to libertarianism versus consequentialism (a word I picked up on CSPAN-2 today)….
    The analysis: fine and good that Sasami has the freedom in SL to shape her avatar, and play whatever role… (that’s the libertarian part)
    Consequences: The “what ifs”: What if SL starts attracting pedophile members who form a group of juvenile-looking avatars? Is that what LL wants? What if a RL court case turns on how some budding pedophile testifies that the pedophile activity on SL influenced him to commit a pedophile act in RL? Does LL need that kind of association and bad publicity?
    Conclusion: Even though Sasami has a theoretical right to express her av as she wants and do what she wants with the av…, opening the door to activity that resembles acts of child pornography *can’t* be good for Linden Labs, and thus, they should reluctantly ban that… There has to be a line somewhere..

    Byw, a newbie asked me if it was okay to make his av look like Hitler. There’s another good issue.

  30. Maria LaVeaux

    Dec 11th, 2004

    Uhh, technically, this is not pornography, US Supreme Court says that simulated child characters are not restricted…

    True for the United States,, Not true for Canada, We routinely convict people for Production of Child Pornography for such actions as producing or posessing Drawn Material,,Writing tales involving children engaging in sexual activities, and other such activities.
    Our laws with this regard are somewhat more restrictive, But, Our constitution recognizes reasonable limits on ANY of our guarenteed rights.
    This having been said, Some of those Hentai Images would qualify under our law IF the person in them were Not over 700 years old. The laws here also recognize,, that the creators of such materials (Depicting Midgets, or Adults acting like kids) Cannot be held accountable for what goes on in the Mind of the viewer.
    We all know many people have their minds perrenially in the gutter, we can’t legislate it out of existance, we can only place reasonable limits, and let peoples conscience do the rest.

    A Question,
    - what is it a man does standing up, a woman does sitting down, and a Dog does with one leg in the air?
    Answer: Shake Hands
    and i am not responsible for any other answer YOU thought of first.


  31. urizenus

    Dec 11th, 2004

    >technically, this is not pornography, US Supreme Court says that simulated child characters are not restricted

  32. Klea

    Dec 13th, 2004

    First off: I’m sorry if I’ve stated something that’s been said, I have not had a chance to fully read the comments. I am not here to share my personal feeling of this matter in any way. I would however, like to point out some observations I’ve made.

    This game has a Requirement of being 18 years of age or older. “Sasami” is not a minor, nor is s/he real. It is a character played out by a adult, for a other adult/s. The character’s age is not a issue, nor is the fact that the person is a member of a escort group or a slave market group. Neither are Illegal in any way, unless the actions are in a improperly zoned area.

    I am 100% confident in Linden Lab’s decision for the teen grid either way it may be, and am sure that mature areas will be restricted in some form or another. LL would in now way purposefully endanger itself by allowing teens to be subjected to Age-sensitive materials.

  33. fluffy Pennyfeather

    Dec 13th, 2004

    I find it amazing that the issue of copyright has never entered into this discussion. I mean, what about Linden’s liability should someone at Pioneer LDC discover that they are assisting in the trafficking of pornography using their copyrighted characters?

  34. Wonderswan

    Dec 14th, 2004

    Hey Sasami forgot to mention using a character that is copyrighted. Oh but no one cares about that, you’re not really a child, you just play one in game. Oh yes there’ll be cries of not violating it but hey you’re making money off it and the loli genre, you go ‘girl’.

    I’m sure the owners would like to know why you are using their created character ‘without their express permission’ etc etc.

    When you present yourself, you present it for it is and the way you want it to show. You’re offended for being labeled something you aren’t yet you present yourself in almost every way as such. You reap what you sow. It’s like a prostitute getting offended for someone calling her a whore. No one forced you to be in that profession or do that stuff.

    To the being at least 18 to play SL comment. Well most of the folks who actually play know better than to believe ‘that never happens’.

    As for this teen grid, porn waiting to happen. You’d have to confine this ‘grid’ pretty small to contain things within the guidelines that LL has set out. Otherwise you will get so called ‘teens’ wandering in there to look for prey. Sure that can happen in the main grid, but its just begging for the issue to become alive by putting up a seperate grid.

    I’m sure you betas remember ye olde “Black wall” they use to do around Mature sims back in beta and shortly after public.

  35. Erik Burke

    Dec 17th, 2004

    Hello Sasami, I left you a message in game enquiring about your services. I pay v.good $$$.

    poster name is my avatar name.


  36. Ian

    Dec 19th, 2004


  37. Urizenus

    Dec 19th, 2004

    Erik, this ain’t no dating service. Look up Sasami in the game, not here, rotfl.

  38. Ian

    Dec 20th, 2004

    I think Erik is someones alter ego .. ^^

  39. Shei Domino

    Dec 20th, 2004

    It’s just blatant aesthetic favoritism to restrict something like this while vampire S&M sex clubs pervade Secondlife. If the Lindens intend to enforce content guidelines based on pressure from other people and their subjective morals, I say that goes against their whole “your world, not ours” rhetoric. I understand that this issue is very emotionally loaded and upsets a lot of people, but when you come right down to it, it would be no more acceptible to ban this than it would be to ban homosexuality, or say, pornography featuring black people.

    As for Jeri Zuma’s “libertarianism vs consequentialism” issue, I say the ends do not justify the means. If pictures of Sasami having sex are going to draw in a crowd of undesired pedophiles, is it okay to ban that? That’s too emotionally loaded for a lot of people to answer rationally, so let’s look at a similar case. Let’s pretend the majority of SL players were very conservative, and they were getting all up in arms about the minority of “perverts” in SL, what with their homosexual behaviour and dildos and other such sinful things; would it be acceptible for that kind of material to be banned, lest these “deranged” people come to SL in flocks? This is a parallel case, and it is unreasonable to treat the two differently.
    This is just another case of intolerance for something that hurts nobody.

  40. Robert The Man

    Dec 26th, 2004

    This is 100% wrong..It don’t matter how old the person is..It the size of a 4 year old for goodness sakes..Would you want a 4 year old real or avatar doing what these pictures show?I would sure hope not..

  41. joe public

    Apr 2nd, 2005

    child pornography involves pictures of children engaged in sexualy explicit acts..
    drawings and 3d animted representations of children are NOT actualy children. they are in 99% of most cases adults playing children, and are therefore are old enough to understand what they are doing, and we know that nobody is actually being exploited in any way shape or form.

    you may not LIKE these sorts of images, but in a mature sim, they are perfectly allowed. you may not LIKE people engaging in any of this kind of stuff, but if thats the case, you have thje option of leaving.

    finally, this is a game. this is not the US. only a small percentage of the people who play second life are from the US, and most of the people in this game couldent care less about the laws and politics of a country that they may never see or visit. the internet is international ground, and is not bound by the laws of any country. using some form of illegality argument to attack an issue of this sort is a futle and stupid waste of your own time, and that of the reader.

    live and let live, or get out and go die.
    you may not like what some people do in this game, but i’m betting ther are several thousand other people who cant stand what YOUR doing.

  42. Dark

    Jun 18th, 2005

    This is not that bad… I don’t see anything wrong about this, it’s just
    a mind entertaining game… to me that is. Honestly I would love to go to Japan and see how a game like this is formed, but that is not all I would go for.

  43. capt beefy

    Jan 17th, 2007

    while im not saying this kind of stuff isnt wrong, the fact is it should be allowed. Child pornography isnt illegal because its wrong, but rather that it often endangers children and generally causes problems. since no actual children are involved, this should be allowed content. it is not the place of the on looker to regulate and ban what he or she feels should be banned.

  44. JustSomeGuy

    Jan 23rd, 2007

    Let me preface this by saying that I find these pictures creepy as hell, especially considering the characters involved in some of those pictures. I used to like the Tenchi series when I was a teenager, but looking back a lot of it was pretty pedolicious (or at least misogynistic).

    But still, if you think this should be banned because it’s gross, you’re being a baby. Legality should never be based on someone’s personal aesthetics, because too many people have horrible taste and I’m afraid you’re all going to gang up on me and make we watch American Idol. As for whether this has negative social effects, well… just about everything we enjoy does if misused. Cars, restaurant food, drugs, video games, TV, movies — they’ve all been linked with dangerous behavior. But none of them by themselves will guarantee this behavior, and so we allow them because most people can handle themselves with them. Does simulated kiddie porn cause pedophilic longing, and does that longing turn into forced sexual conduct with minors in almost all cases? If the answer is no, then the only difference between this stuff and Grand Theft Auto is that the latter is more popular. Maybe we should do more studying on the subject — for all we know maybe this stuff helps keep pedophiles out of children’s bedrooms!

  45. Elmo Cimino

    Jan 25th, 2007

    I think that this pron is wrong – -BUT not aswrong as real life. The illiciting of children for sexual gain is bad, – and should not be aloud in real life. but a pedo. will find an outlet – if you take away even the virtual grounds, all he has left is REAL CHILDREN. so by shuting this down you fuel rage and/or sexual urges for the real meat. dont deny them this – you may well regret it.

  46. That Guy

    Jan 30th, 2007

    I agree with the prople that say its SL and not RL. cuz its true. it isnt real. you think when you cyber with a adult that roleplays a kid your realy doing that. i think also this goes to other drawn porns outside SL.

    take for expample. SL Main Gird. When you sign up YOU HAVE TO BE 18 Or Up cuz the content people make in world. so there adults controling there avatar and pick a life they want. just like a dult artist picks what to draw. and dont say a kid can draw it. cuz that just showing stupidpy. and cause to point a finger at who raise that child.

    And Also i agee with ‘JsutSomeGuy’ Make ever bit of that stuff illegal then im sure child rape points board will sky rocket. think about your self if you got a kid and want that stuff ban. would you want them jerking there meat at there computers or jerking there meat on your kid? the way i worded that should make your mind do back flips. some of you with sex partners knows the urges. and dont wine i dont get urges for children. maybe so but the urges for what your into are just the same. those urges you can call are a virus them self. the hormones and chimecal inbalance much like a virus, that can also toss ones jugement. but that depends what there un jugemented minds fine fansy to them. pedos yes there bad so there urges inglof them and go after what catchs there eye. Me personly. i hape PEDOs and Everything they stand for. but i like to see all kinds of photo pron not be ban of that nature. i like them to stay at him beating there stick on the keyboard then on my child. they got means to kill there urges without de flowering a kid. LET THEM! Better then taking it all away and letting it build up inside. then when they lose control and go after your child. if i was a juge and i had to do a Child Rape Case. Ill let the sick fucker walk goes all your dumb stupidpy of votteing to ban a means that keep that kid safe.

  47. YourMOM

    Jan 31st, 2007

    whoever posted this is an inmature, duh its a game.
    2nd dosen’t hurt
    3rd don’t you have anything else to do?
    4th what benefit does this makes?
    5th if your child see imagies such as this then you SHOULD NOT ALLOW TO PLAY THE GAME or does your child control you?
    6th if you don’t like the game DON’T play IT!
    7th get a life.
    8th feel offended? like we care if you really feel offended then i wanna see you destroy all the hentai in the world thats if you can.
    9th if you don’t have at least a little fantasy as having sex with some 1 who is not your wife then you are not human!
    … and finally 10th. hello we are now in the 2007…

    don’t forget its a dam game for cris sakes..
    your mom!

  48. Pedo Paul

    Feb 7th, 2007

    Thank you for posting this. I’d never know where to find this kind of stuff in SL. Let this post serve as a beacon for pedophiles everywhere.

  49. junior morin

    Feb 8th, 2007

    this is awsom

  50. smart1

    Feb 15th, 2007

    its a friggin game!!!!
    yes there should be a warning of some kind in the beginning or a sign in the game, but come on!!!

Leave a Reply