LL Ageplay Shocker: The Company Rules
by prokofy on 07/03/07 at 8:04 pm
Prokofy Neva, Dept. of Community Afffairs
In a reversal of their usual hands-off policy toward inworld lifestyles of even the most extreme type, Linden Lab has unexpectedly come up with an ageplay policy today, which it has chosen to articulate not on the official Blob, but in notecards delivered to some inworld businesses.
A notecard is making the rounds with the following text:
Dear Second Life Resident:
Linden Lab would like to inform you that your land or business is possibly not in
compliance with Second Life’s Community Standards. The depiction of sexual
activity involving minors may violate real-world laws in some areas, and the
Second Life community as a whole has made it clear that it views such
behavior to be broadly offensive. Linden Lab chooses not to allow the
advertising or promotion of age play or related activities in any public
forum — including in-world textures, classified ads, the Second Life
forums, or parcel descriptions.Advertisements, promotions, or descriptions of such activities must be
removed to avoid account sanctions. Any account asserting an age that does
not meet Second Life’s minimum age of eligibility will be closed.Linden Lab
The notecard, titled “LL AgePlay Policy” and listing “Chadrick Linden” as creator, is white type on brown and is a non-modify card and appears to be authentic.
It is not yet known which businesses or homes have received the card.
For a lively discussion on the topic and my thorough critique of Tateru Nino’s justification of ageplay on the Blingsider, see my blog.
Empathic
Mar 8th, 2007
>>It does not serve as a release, but rather an enticement.
Can you site your source on that statement, or is this your opinion?
You are right about one thing, Pedophilia IS a condition. In fact, so is homosexuality. They’re actually both in the same category and classified as incurable.
Apparently, you’re intent in this is to alienate a section of the populace that has an incurable psychological tendency. Guess what, you’re not helping them, nor are you discouraging them from what they do. If you can’t see role play as a kind of emotional and psychological release, then you have no idea what it’s like to role play in the first place. Trying to force people to simply suppress themselves only serves to make their tension worse.
At Last...
Mar 8th, 2007
“As far as you touted APA goes … kindly do not quote anything from a group of people whose views change with the ages and are never firmly grounded in anything remotely resembling reality.”
“quite frankly a dictionary is nothing more than the current adopted meaning as seen by a particular publisher or group of people.”
I think I need say no more Reality. Why on earth would you want to dispute accepted definitions of words or conditions if you did not have some sort of vested interest or issue with the things they define? Out of interest….how do you define paedophilia?
P.S. Since when were fantasy and reality proper nouns?
At Last...
Mar 8th, 2007
Oh, I’m sorry Empathic. I forgot that Second Life was intended as a therapeutic tool for paedophiles.
Reality
Mar 8th, 2007
Colonel, do yourself a favor and cease responding to me. You do nothing but dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole.
My “interest” is in showing just how twisted and out of touch humanity has gotten. You are a prime example, clinging to nothing more than the ideas of a single person or a group of people whose composition changes over the years and whose ideas change as the years do with no firm root in Reality.
I will however answer your question, however you should have been able to figure it out for yourself. Pedophilia is simply sexual activity with real children – as in living, breathing beings. Nothing more – nothing less. The realm of Fantasy – Second Life and all similar venues – do not enter into the equation.
I do find it telling that you have thus far been unable to cite your own view or opinion. Until you do your responses are – to me – devoid of thought.
At Last...
Mar 8th, 2007
Reality,
sigh…lol
Paedo – Greek for ‘child’
Philia – Greek for ‘love for’
Even the base meaning of the word has nothing to do with a physical act. You clearly live in a world of your own, where words take on their own meanings and everything is defined by you. Who’s deluded here?
“My “interest” is in showing just how twisted and out of touch humanity has gotten.”
So everyone else is twisted and out of touch and only you hold the key to put us all right eh? lol
Next!
Empathic
Mar 8th, 2007
Second Life isn’t “meant” as a therapeutic tool for pedophiles. Then again, it’s not meant to be anything in particular except a tool for expression. That said, you’re still on this high horse that pedophilia is to be condemned.
I have bad news for you: Restricting Ageplay in Second Life does nothing to stop a person from being a pedophile. The only way you’re going to get rid of pedophilia is to kill them all.
Actually, not even that would work… pedophilia would still appear in people even if you killed off every pedophile in the world. Guess we should start having yearly pedophilia screenings and committing anyone who fails to suppress pedophilic tendencies.
Reality
Mar 8th, 2007
A pity colonel – you’ve just proven that you really are devoid of thought.
When you are capable of typing a response or post that is not a base attack in foolish defense of your rather apparent need to cling to abstract ideas which are not rooted in Reality … perhaps then you’ll cease with such childish responses as the one above.
The root of the word has little to do with the reality of its use – I’d have thought you would have known that. As for the rest of your rather immature and pathetic response: I make no claims to be anything other than a person who is sick and tired of seeing people treat Fantasy as if it were Reality. I am sick and tired of people clinging to fleeting ideas which change with the people that present them along with who is ‘studied’.
I am little more than a person that deals with absolutes – all or none.
Thank you for your time and thank you for showing me that you are incapable of independent thought.
Lorelei Patel
Mar 8th, 2007
“Why not just ban *all* sex from Second Life, then 99% of our problems will be solved.”
Hey, ban *all* sex in real life, and all the world’s problems will be solved in about 100 years. Guaranteed!
Just a Thought
Mar 8th, 2007
@Lorelei: eliminate Humanity and all the worlds problems will be solved, including this argument over social morality.
Empathic
Mar 8th, 2007
Reality:
Pedophilia is not the act of molesting a child. There are numerous cases of child sexual abuse committed by NON pedophiles. Pedophilia is the predisposition to be sexually attracted to prepubescents.
Everyone:
MY argument is that pedophilia in itself is NOT a crime, is NOT curable, does NOT harm children.
Barring ageplay from Second Life does nothing to stop a person from BEING a pedophile, nor does allowing it encourage a pedophile to act out something in reality. Those with the intent will do so anyway. Those who CAN distinguish reality… concrete actions and circumstances, between fantasy, a word created in our minds and entirely imaginary, may still be pedophiles, may still engage in ageplay, and will NOT harm a child. Why? Because they know it’s wrong.
Child molestation does harm children, which I am vehemently against. Only the most cruel and self obsessed are the ones who don’t care about the suffering of a child.
The thing is, people are out of touch. People need to get a grip on reality and realize that two adults playing out an imaginary scenario does NOT prodcue a victimized child. There is NO evidence of such.
Any argument you have against ageplay in Second Life can be said for every single other action in Second Life just about. Virtual Murder, virtual Gambling, Virtual Rape, Virtual Pornography, Real Pornography, Prostitution. If we’re so damn concerned about the kids, let’s ban all this, since all of it has the potential to harm them.
Reality
Mar 8th, 2007
Empathic, I’m afraid I have to point out that in the case of your definition of Pedophilia it eventually leads to sexual encounters within those who cannot keep such desires in check. Hence the rather physical encounter based definition based simply on the reality of the situation.
Any other tendency to be attracted sexually to anyone, or to be sexually excited by anything comes down to the physical act eventually. It really would be nice if this was not the case but it is. Incest, Bestiality, Pedophilia – indeed all kinks and sexual preference come down to the actual act.
Therefore to refer to those who have not taken that final step using these labels show only that people cannot separate the thought from the actual act.
I personally do not use such labels to describe those who never take that final step from the realm of Thought or the realm of Fantasy to the realm of Reality for the simple reason that to do so unfairly paints those who have not taken that step with the same brush.
Some will cross the line – others will not. Until they do … well then anyone they may affect is safe.
Overcast
Mar 8th, 2007
Lot of good points.
You know though, in all honesty the best thing that can be done to eliminate issues like Pedophilia is to educate your own children. I never beat around the bush with my kids on child predators. I assured myself I would never sit around saying “I wish I had only explained it more clearly” to one of my kids if anything happened. Naaa, they got the cold truth about it.
As for it all in SL, I can agree that a certain amount of disclaimers need to be made, I think we can all agree there’s a clear case to be made in all of our interests and the interest of the game itself to not make it some type of ‘haven’ for criminal activity. Last thing we need is ‘the man’ making issues out of SL – like currently exist with “MySpace” and other such social sites. Can guarantee – if there’s one thing politicians do well, is take away rights so they can stand on some ‘moral’ high ground they think will win them votes.
So a hardcore seperation of ages in SL is good to help with that, actually I don’t think I’d play SL if it wasn’t for that. I’ve had more than my share of dealing with 13 year olds on other MMO’s and I’m sure many of these griefers are just that too… If not they certainly have the mentality of those kids.
Any obvious infractions on the law need to be dealt with too, just for protection of the Sim itself. Any less will simply get the attention of greedy politicians and the likes of Jack Thompson, and his ‘Jihad’ against video gaming and anything else on a TV screen that’s against his moral code; all the while he sues doctors out of existance for a fat bank roll, but I digress…
I’m all for people doing whatever they want in both RL and SL, but it simply has to be balanced with protections of rights for the participants and the ability to operate under the law – for both sides.
Although, in the end; I think it’s a judgement that is very likely effecting some who aren’t ‘proven’ guilty of being in violation of any laws; however, I suspect some are indeed, in violation as well.
I most certainly do not agree with pedophilia (heh, and actually most laws for that matter), but I can’t go as far to say all these ‘age RP’ groups were in fact doing that either. That’s kind of making a judgement – at least on my part, without all the facts.
Really, it seems a rather subjective debate at the core… But I guess the hell-hounds of paranoia must be loosed when the possibility of some lawyer getting involved with his own fangs drooling with the thought of more cash to feed upon, regardless of the source…
Funny never thought of that before, lawyers and wolves do have quite a lot in common, don’t they? (Travel in packs, feed on anything as long as it has some meat, and not too sophisticated to prey on the weak and/or injured.. there I go, babbling off-subject again).
But in the end, better to just let the hell-hounds gobble it all up before the wolves have a chance to feed and mess up everyone’s day~~ lol
At Last...
Mar 8th, 2007
Reality,
Your arguments become less coherent every time you post and quite frankly I cannot be bothered to pick to pieces every one of your absurd and tellingly, quite egotistical and narcissistic, points. However…
“Therefore to refer to those who have not taken that final step using these labels show only that people cannot separate the thought from the actual act.
I personally do not use such labels to describe those who never take that final step from the realm of Thought or the realm of Fantasy to the realm of Reality for the simple reason that to do so unfairly paints those who have not taken that step with the same brush.”
In the case of paedophilia…the difference is quite clear. If you act on your attraction to children by raping one, you are a paedophile and a child abuser; if you don’t act then you are a paedophile but not a child abuser. It really doesn’t get any simpler than that. The problem is, you like to devise your own meanings for words, words which for everyone else, mean something quite different. Personally, I speak the English language and prefer to accept the generally accepted definition of words within that language. Apparently this makes me ‘devoid of independent thought’.
Empathic,
Please read my first post….
“I am not saying it is RL child abuse, but why anyone would want to support the expression of paedophilic tendencies through virtual roleplay in SL is beyond me.”
I never said it was child abuse, I never screeched that all paedophiles should be killed; in fact I was the one that made the point that paedophilia is a psychiatric condition. My point is that Second Life is not the correct medium to help these people. It is not part of a programme to help them, it is not monitored etc etc However, it does provide a place to meet, network, RP new ideas, develop the seed of paedophilic interest into a blossoming tree of paedophilic fantasy.
“That said, you’re still on this high horse that pedophilia is to be condemned.”
The encouragement of paedophilia in SL is not appropriate and is to be condemned.
Reality
Mar 8th, 2007
Colonel – please, keep proving that you are capable of nothing but feeble attacks … It really is quite telling. do yourself a favor and quit while you are ahead hmm?
Either you are capable of thinking independently instead of in the manner that society has taught you to think or you are not. In this case you are not and never will be capable of such thought.
The sad part is that you actually think you’re clever in the manner with which you make your attacks. child Abuse is far too broad in its definition and thus a logical step for you to take in making yet another feeble response.
For the record I speak English as well and prefer to treat the meaning of a word in a far more direct sense, not something that is subject to the whims of a company or group and certainly not something born of some perceived norm which society decided on a whim to create.
In the future kindly make the attempt to cite your own views instead of attacking the poster. frankly I’m quite tired of your meaningless bantering on the subject. You have your view, born of whatever it is you perceive – I have mine, born of a firm grasp of Reality which allows for nothing which is not an absolute.
Go about your way colonel and find someone else to assail hmm? I’m tired of dealing with your frankly repetitive excuse for a response – you’ve said/typed nothing I have not seen before and nothing absolute.
Thank you and good night.
Just a Thought
Mar 8th, 2007
Are people still arguing over this?
Here’s the solution you’re all missing – since not a single person here can agree 100% on this topic just fraking drop it already.
Everyone has their own ideas and beliefs and some are so firmly planted that not a single damn one of you is going to change the mind of the other. give it a rest already …. damn.
Empathic
Mar 8th, 2007
>>Therefore to refer to those who have not taken that final step using these labels show only that people cannot separate the thought from the actual act.
And therein lies the problem! The issue at hand is NOT those who are pedophiles or the acting out of fantasy. The problem is those who do not have self control and/or cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. This is true wether the subject is pedophilia, murder, rape, incest, or any other potentially harmful thing.
Fact of the matter is, pedophilia is a psychological condition based entirely on thought, not action.
>>The encouragement of paedophilia in SL is not appropriate and is to be condemned.
By that merit, neither are any of the other potentially harmful fantasies. Is your stance against pedophilia and ageplay, or is it against all forms of potential harm include murder and rape?
On a side note, even though I’m not on your side, I do have to agree that ‘Reality’ is not making a very good point at all.
Lorelei Patel
Mar 8th, 2007
“@Lorelei: eliminate Humanity and all the worlds problems will be solved, including this argument over social morality.”
Just like I said … only *better*!
Prokofy Neva
Mar 8th, 2007
fu, you are an ass
Jesse Malthus is indeed correct. “No modify” doesn’t mean the originator of a notecard can’t be spoofed. In technical terms, this setting is a non-sequitur, wholly unrelated to the origin of the notecard.
You don’t always look for the *most complicated* answer to every question. If you have a card that says “Chadrick Linden” and it is on NO MODIFY, the reasonable and rational assumption is that it is NOT hacked and NOT spoofed. Spoofing indeed can be done on group-set objects with creators; I’ve been spoofed and made out to be a griefer in that fashion with the library beach ball, but a notecard is less likely to have been put on “share with group”. It’s more likely than not that it is what it appears to be.
Chadrick was online, I queried him; he didn’t answer. Sometimes they are busy. I don’t wait for 6 other news agencies to scoop me; I run the story with a reasonable assumption.
Later, another person confirmed directly with Chadrick that it indeed was authentic, just as it appeared to be — scroll back.
The reasonable, normal assumption about things in SL is the way you go; you don’t *start with* the hackster nihilist twisted idiot assumption and warp everything to that.
>Additionally, it may be possible that the originator is a Linden as suggested, but did this without authorization. Even more possible explanations have been offered.
So? It’s still a Linden. We all know that Lindens are authorized in their system of “distributed decision-making” to make decisions at times in their immediate sectors. Chadrick’s sector is abuse-reporting. It seems reasonable to assume he has taken proper action.
>I really do think someone (read: YOU) should have confirmed this prior to going public, to offer a whole story instead of a tidbit, but then, the credibility of blogs that pretend to be newspapers about pretend worlds is obviously going to be [adjective].
Well, you don’t need to use adjectives here, it’s fine to say “fuck you” and I’ll say it right back to you, champ: you go with a reasonable, normal assumption, not the word-salad special du jour; I didn’t have a *denial* from Chadrick, who could either be busy, or just have me on mute or not wish to reply to me (due to other unrelated incidents); I see he’s online; he doesn’t say “no” — I wait 15 minutes, I run with the story.
>If you indeed made an effort to do so, it is not apparent by reviewing the text of the article.
Because I didn’t have a confirmation? If you get one, you put it in later (as was done in the comments). This isn’t the White House here, buddy, it’s the Herald.
>You can, of course, escape responsibility by your choice of ‘appears to be authentic’, but I find that to be lazy journalism, and I will not rely on your form of reporting as a matter of fact.
No, it is perfectly credible and good journalism. I examined the card. I asked the sources who had also told me which businesses were handed the card, but I didn’t have a confirmation from that business yet. I think you’re just being a troll and a nit-picker because you simply don’t like what the story says.
>Point blank: Until this *is* confirmed, I don’t think anyone should buy off on this notecard as a legitimate Linden Labs position. If it IS a legitimate Linden Labs position, it is certainly a very poor way to distribute policy.
It is their position. It’s how they decided to do this position at this time. Deal with it: point blank right back at you.
>Further, with regard to legalese that affects the Second Life service… Second Life is a telecommunications medium. It is more than likely regulated according to laws related to telecommunication, in the same category as a phone line, web site, radio and television broadcasts, and other similar mechanisms. The Federal Communications Commission and it’s policies may regulate the use of Second Life. Additionally, there is gambling in Second Life, quasi-prostitution, fraud and many other forms of questionable practices occur between users on a daily basis. Even beyond this, it’s reach extends to the international community.
Actually, no. You may spout opinions on that, but we do not have THE LANDMARK PRECEDENT-SETTING CASE THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR TO MAKE THESE CLAIMS WITHOUT ANY DOUBT. So spout if you will; many have before you; many after; we do not have the case law.
>The truth of the matter is, legally, Second Life is fairly unprecedented territory, it’s disposition has yet to be determined, and it reaches into all of the legal cans of worms out there. I don’t think anyone, lawyer or Joe Citizen, even “The Man”, can AS YET accurately pigeonhole Second Life as falling specifically under any particular governing body, and I think the desire to be “right” is leading a lot of intelligent people to draw false positives and venture wild guesses as to what “the rules” really are.
Yes, yourself included. It is part common carrier, part public space, part private club; part TOS service, etc. They can hide behind the EULA decision precedents and it will have to be a very persistent and deep-pocketed claimant who can get the First Amendment to work on this; and lotsa luck trying to get it on ageplay or pissing on the Koran. Next!
>I do not isolate this to just you, Prok, nor to just Little Gray, but… If you’d like to be “right” about the legalese as it pertains to Second Life, you will need to get more than one opinion prior to claiming you are, and I believe only time will tell what is to become of Second Life and what ‘rights’ we believe we have in it.
I’ve done that. I’ve challenged Little Gray successfully reminding him of existing case law that might or might not apply in the United States. And BTW, if the Dutch or Chinese or whomever gets on this, they may use their more considerable powers to shut down objectionable websites that you don’t have in the US.
– fu
Lorelei Patel
Mar 8th, 2007
“Reality:
Pedophilia is not the act of molesting a child. There are numerous cases of child sexual abuse committed by NON pedophiles. Pedophilia is the predisposition to be sexually attracted to prepubescents.”
Good point. Child sexual assault isn’t always about attraction. Neither is rape of grown women. It’s power and opportunity.
Lewis Nerd
Mar 8th, 2007
I just received an answer to my IM question to Chadrick Linden, who confirms that he sent this notecard. However, he has declined to answer any other questions on the subject.
Whether this will become Linden policy, featured on the blog and amending the CS, remains to be seen.
Lewis
Angel
Mar 8th, 2007
My questions now would have to be; in which countries of the world is Virtual Child Pornography illegal?
AAVP/Kindred falsely claim UK and Australia, both of these have no such laws (The UK law is photo manipulation using photoshop). The USA struck down theirs, the Dutch are considering a ban – but it’s just a proposal.
If there is a minor country with such a law, then should we close down all the Gay clubs as Gay acts are illegal in a number of countries including Iran and many Asian countries?
For those people who use the “grooming training ground” argument… now that Virtual Child Pornography is against Chadrick’s law will these people get their fix by viewing RL kiddie porn, porn where REAL children are harmed?
Misty McConachie
Mar 8th, 2007
“AAVP/Kindred falsely claim UK and Australia, both of these have no such laws (The UK law is photo manipulation using photoshop). The USA struck down theirs, the Dutch are considering a ban – but it’s just a proposal.”
Do you have any legal authority to back up your claim that it is not illegal?
As an Australian with a legal background my reading of the Australian statute is that virtual representations of pedophilia are indeed covered. I would refer you to s 91H of the Crimes Act.
At the moment yes it is just a matter of interpetation, as we haven’t had a test case. But given the current legal/political climate in Oz in regards anything related to child pornography I’d be very surprised if that wasn’t the interpretation taken.
In regards the other jurisdictions my knowledge is limited to:
“UK law has dealt with simulated images quite differently since 1994, when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act introduced the legal definition of an “indecent pseudo-photograph of a child”, which is prohibited as if it were a true photograph. On October 1, 2002, the Netherlands introduced legislation (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 470) which deemed “virtual child pornography” as illegal.[10] German law does not discriminate between actual or “realistic” sexual depictions of children.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography
(An unreliable source indeed)
I think you’ll find Angel that just because a State has not specifically outlawed *virtual pedophilia in Second Life* does not mean that said conduct is legal. Most statutes refer to depictions and description as a general matter.
The Canadian case is of particular interest. There in 2005 a man was convicted and sentenced to community service for possessing manga that depicted pedophilia. If manga can be a basis for conviction surely SL may be as well, given it’s much more interactive nature.
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2005-10-20/canadian-sentenced-over-loli-porn-manga
Redaktisto Noble
Mar 8th, 2007
I spoke with Chadrick Linden and with someone who received a notecard. I have an article up at SLNN about what I learned. Looks like the fallout will continue.
I can say for sure that the SL Edwards campaign had nothing to do with this move by Linden Lab.
I, personally, am still pretty uncomfortable with the ageplay concept, and find sexual ageplay especially disgusting.
Misty McConachie
Mar 8th, 2007
Torley Linden has also confirmed, over on the official forums, that this is indeed LL’s new policy.
Empathic
Mar 8th, 2007
Yes Misty, if you live in Canada
At Last...
Mar 8th, 2007
This post is aimed solely at Reality and is not to be taken out of context by anybody else….please scroll up to see my earlier ‘debate’ with Reality…
I used to be a policeman and for a number of years I was involved in the investigation of net child porn. We once arrested a 22 year old man for possession of indecent images of children. He had thousands of photos on his PC hard drive of babies, under a year old, being sexually abused. As far as I am aware, he had never actually sexually abused a child himself. According to your definition of paedophilia (1) he is not a paedophile. What, then, is he?
(1)”Pedophilia is simply sexual activity with real children – as in living, breathing beings. Nothing more – nothing less. The realm of Fantasy – Second Life and all similar venues – do not enter into the equation.”
P.S.
Emphatic,
Bear with me, I will answer your points, but it’s late here and I ‘m off to bed now.
Misty McConachie
Mar 8th, 2007
Chadrick’s comments raise some interesting points:
(1) Will this apply to land descriptions? Presumably. This ought to make life quite difficult for those that advertise child prostitution via search-places.
(2) There remains no clarification of “Any account asserting an age that does
not meet Second Life’s minimum age of eligibility will be closed.”
(3) Ageplay and Sexual ageplay seem to have been lumped together which seems entirely inappropriate. Does this mean that Kindly High can’t advertise?
Reality
Mar 8th, 2007
Now that you’ve given some background colonel I can understand your views. I do apologize for being rather ough with you however it is a natural reaction to the frame of mind you seemed to be presenting.
As to the twenty two year old … while not by a realistic and action based definition a Pedophile he is someone who needs help or an alternative.
The trick is identifying whether or not this man would have crossed the line colonel. Now comes a rather important question: How much of the material showed real children and how much was what is referred to as Lolicon?
One of my close friends has been drawing many images for a game project of his, in addition to Hentai style drawings of a few of his characters. When he runs out of ideas for poses or for a base to create a character from he delves into an old archive I maintain on an external hard disc of Hentai artwork. This archive is maintained and updated with anything he may be able to use as often as is possible ….. Of course you can imagine that in updating the material I have come across a number of places which host Lolicon – none of which ever remains on the screen for very long.
Setting aside societal morality for a moment, age players must walk a fine line – as must any role player – even myself. Those that begin to cross the line between Fantasy and Reality need treatment more than anything else.
for many reasons Age Play should be allowed – but setting most aside the prime reason is so that those who may be disturbed enough to blur – and eventually cross – that dividing line can be found and treated properly as quickly as possible.
Reality
Mar 8th, 2007
Hmm, something I missed at the end there – those that blur the line too much, those that cross that line, are a blight on any class of Role Player.
Lorelei Patel
Mar 8th, 2007
“(1)”Pedophilia is simply sexual activity with real children – as in living, breathing beings. Nothing more – nothing less. The realm of Fantasy – Second Life and all similar venues – do not enter into the equation.”"
I don’t think so.
What you’re describing is child molestation or child sexual abuse.
Pedophilia is attraction to children.
Not all pedophiles molest children. And not all who molest children do so because they are sexually attracted to children rather than adults.
Reality
Mar 8th, 2007
Sorry lorelei but you’re dead wrong – base Human Nature bears that out each and every time.
In the future do not believe the blathering of those who ignore such things.
In addition you might want to try reading a person’s post before making a response: I have rather clearly stated that the definition I have given for Pedophilia is based on action – not mental state or any such nonsense that can be used as an excuse to paint as many people as possible with the same brush.
At Last...
Mar 8th, 2007
Michael Heimbach is talking about real child pornography here…but the principles remain the same.
Testimony of Michael J. Heimbach, Crimes Against Children Unit, Criminal Investigative Division, FBI, before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, May 1, 2002…”Internet Child Pornography”
…The Subcommittee has asked whether there is any connection between those who trade or possess child pornography and those who molest children. Based on my experience and based on my consultation with experts who have made it their business to study that connection, my answer is a resounding and alarming – - yes….
…My colleagues at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service tell me that, according to statistics compiled from their investigations, a frighteningly high percentage of the child pornography offenders investigated were also involved in the sexual molestation of children. Their studies indicate consistently that, of the total number of child pornographers investigated over the past several years, nearly 40 percent have been determined to be child molesters…
…The best indicator of future behavior is a pattern of past behavior. The next best indicator of future behavior is what an individual wants to do…
…An individual’s child pornography collection is the best indicator of what he is fantasizing about. In turn, an individual’s fantasies are the best indicators of what he wishes to do…
—————–
Reality: with regards to the case I investigated, most of the images were real photos, some of them were ‘Lolicon’, some of them were ‘pseudo-images’ of children.
I would say he was well on the way to crossing the line, when we picked him up he was applying to work as a DJ at a youth club. He was a paedophile…pure and simple, not yet a child abuser, but certainly a paedophile.
I think your desperate attempts to redefine paedophilia are strange. You are rather too forcefully trying to hammer the term into meaning only the ultimate act of a paedophile….namely child rape. Let’s hope that you keep those ‘legal’ images on an external hard drive for the purest of motives, and that you don’t ‘accidentally’ come across too many ‘Lolicon’ images in the future eh?
My initial point stands. Those who undertake sexual ageplay in SL are by the accepted dictionary and medical definition, paedophiles. SL should not promote such behaviour.
Angel
Mar 8th, 2007
Misty: “Do you have any legal authority to back up your claim that it is not illegal?”
I have obtained legal advice on this matter in preparation with a meeting of the head of AAVP but unfortunately he never bothered to return my IM. :/ Go Figure.
As you are an Australian and the founder of AAVP (I believe) I will state that Section 91H that you so love to quote is a NSW law and not an Australian Law. As far as Australian Law goes the ABA has final say.
Now in terms of Section 91H any computer game that has recieved a rating is exempt from this lawm in other words if the government censors have decided it can be played you cannot be prosecuted by using it.
In terms of Victorian law there is an addition defense, if you believed that the person you were having a relationship with was over the age of 16 at the time.
SA, WA and Qld laws expand on these defenses.
In the UK the law against virtual Child Porn is quite specific “The image must be indistinguishable from a photograph”
As I said, the claims of AAVP are fake and based on the discussions Misty had with one professor at a university.
Misty McConachie
Mar 8th, 2007
Ah it’s you Sean, the boyscout role player.
First of all let’s assume my interpretation of the NSW legislation (and a professor friend’s as well) is incorrect – which of course I would contest.
Robin Linden has just stated at a meeting that virtual pedophilia is definitely illegal in both Italy and the Netherlands (presumably Linden Labs has had formal legal advice to that effect). And I think we could safely add Canada to that list.
Isn’t that enough for you to agree that legality is a genuine and live issue here?
Misty McConachie
Mar 8th, 2007
And I’m not sure where you’re getting your legal advice from but it sounds really off the mark.
This is a quote taken directly from the ABA’s website:
“The laws administered by the ABA cover ISPs and ICHs and they do not make it an offence to view pornography on the Internet. However, you should be aware that viewing some material, such as child pornography, may amount to an offence under relevant State or Territory legislation.”
http://www.aba.gov.au/internet/overview/pornography.shtml
Misty McConachie
Mar 8th, 2007
And game classification is done by the Office of Film and Literature Classfication (OFLC) not the ABA.
According to the OFLC database Second Life has not been classified.
Maria LaVeaux
Mar 8th, 2007
Misty Says:
“Chadrick’s comments raise some interesting points:
(1) Will this apply to land descriptions? Presumably. This ought to make life quite difficult for those that advertise child prostitution via search-places.
(2) There remains no clarification of “Any account asserting an age that does
not meet Second Life’s minimum age of eligibility will be closed.”
(3) Ageplay and Sexual ageplay seem to have been lumped together which seems entirely inappropriate. Does this mean that Kindly High can’t advertise?”
Answers as Follows;
1) Yes, it will make it Impossible. All Public advertisements and announcements, Photos, textures, Descriptions Mentioning Age Play For the purposes of Sex would be judged against CS in the same way a strip Club who’s advertising features Prominant display of Nudity, or explicit sex would be.
Something for example advertising (Just an example here) “Come to Riverdale Highschool and Live in the Archie Comics Environment” Would NOT be covered by this stricture even though the people taking part were Playing 17 year olds because the Clear Intent of the Advertisement is NOT to advertise or depict a sexual activity with Under aged persons (The new ruling however does Not make any restriction on what “Betty” and “Veronica” choose to do in the privacy of thier own bed rooms, or in IM in the shower room).
2) No Clarification is Needed here it falls pretty solidly in the “No Sh*t” Classification.
If player X says in thier profile “I’m a Cute precocious little twelve year old exploring second life”, With OR Without sexual connotation this person is claiming to be (True or Not) Under 18 in an environment that is restricted to persons OVER 18 Y.O.A. and a Ban would be Imminant.
There might be a Gray area where the person would list in thier profile “I am Over 18, ROLE PLAYING a Cute precocious little twelve year old”. I say “Might be” as that section of the note seems ONLY to reaffirm that SL is an adults only environment, and the section does Not go on to say “Clearly specified Adults pretending to be Under Age will also be Banned”.
3) No, It does not mean that at allI don’t really see The Lumping together of Age Role Play, and Sexual Ageplay in the Note distributed by the Linden at all but i DO clearly see it in the Posts By Others attempting to speculate on the Notes Intent, That Is however purely a Matter of thier own Thinking and Not supported by the Notes text. See my answer to #1 above regarding “Riverdale High”.
The Linden note after careful reading STILL appears Only to address Sexually Inapropriate advertising in Full view of the SL general populace, In this case the advertising of Roleplaying Children for sexual purposes, and NOTHING ELSE.
Maria.
Reality
Mar 8th, 2007
Colonel, let’s hope that in the future you drop the sarcastic tone and learn a few things about Humanity – instead of what you’ve seen hmm?
Let’s hope you stop clinging to outdated, broad-sweeping terms, in addition to your need to attribute what does not exist to others.
Then again perhaps you’d enjoy a more direct version of the same that you seem to like dishing out? My apologize to anyone else that has read my posts in the past for what I am about to do ….
It is a known fact that in many Precincts the Officers are corrupt (Pigs) – no matter how many times they’re flushed out of the system, more return. By the same token logic that you’d like to apply – and almost all Humanity applies without any real thought on the matter – all Officers are corrupt Pigs.
If you did not like that Colonel then I suggest you keep the blatant sarcasm and cute quote play out of your responses. Frankly it isn’t amusing and frankly it only shows that you really are incapable of making a post without some sort of attack in it.
Reality
Mar 8th, 2007
Damned html tags …. That last section was supposed to read as follows:
It is a known fact that in many Precincts the Officers are corrupt (Pigs) – no matter how many times they’re flushed out of the system, more return. By the same token logic that you’d like to apply – and almost all Humanity applies without any real thought on the matter – all Officers are corrupt Pigs.
If you did not like that Colonel then I suggest you keep the blatant sarcasm and cute quote play out of your responses. Frankly it isn’t amusing and frankly it only shows that you really are incapable of making a post without some sort of attack in it.
Reality
Mar 8th, 2007
Great … there’s a stuck tag. Ah well, tried to fix it.
Artemis Fate
Mar 9th, 2007
*cough*
FWord Utorid
Mar 9th, 2007
Prok,
> fu you are an ass
“fu you are an ass”? THIS is the extent to which you can retort? I clearly overestimated you and shall not repeat the error.
So the adage goes, to assume makes an ass out of you and me. The assumptions here are all yours. In fact, in your reply, you used the word assumption 8 times to describe the content of your article.
>If you have a card that says “Chadrick Linden” and it is on NO MODIFY, the reasonable and rational assumption is that it is NOT hacked and NOT spoofed. Spoofing indeed can be done on group-set objects with creators;
> I don’t wait for 6 other news agencies to scoop me; I run the story with a reasonable assumption.
> Because I didn’t have a confirmation? If you get one, you put it in later (as was done in the comments). This isn’t the White House here, buddy, it’s the Herald.
Right. And you’re Second Life’s Geraldo. Got it. Perfectly clear to me now. LOWER ALL EXPECTATIONS OF FACT OR RESEARCH WHEN READING ANYTHING PROK WRITES. Filed under ‘Remember not to read what Prok writes’.
>me> It is more than likely regulated according to laws related to telecommunication
>Actually, no. You may spout opinions on that, but we do not have THE LANDMARK PRECEDENT-SETTING CASE THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR TO MAKE THESE CLAIMS WITHOUT ANY DOUBT. So spout if you will; many have before you; many after; we do not have the case law.
Spout? I doth pen “MORE THAN LIKELY”. Clearly you are the one here that runs away with assumptions.
> I didn’t have a *denial* from Chadrick, who could either be busy, or just have me on mute or not wish to reply to me (due to other unrelated incidents); I see he’s online; he doesn’t say “no” — I wait 15 minutes, I run with the story.
Prok, I think you are conspiring against the government. (sends an IM, waits 15 minutes, publishes article) PROKOFY NEVA IS CONSPIRING AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.
> I examined the card. I asked the sources who had also told me which businesses were handed the card, but I didn’t have a confirmation from that business yet.
> I think you’re just being a troll and a nit-picker because you simply don’t like what the story says.
You don’t think, Prok. You assume.
> you go with a reasonable, normal assumption, not the word-salad special du jour;
> No, it is perfectly credible and good journalism.
Lewis Nerd
Mar 9th, 2007
I repeat again, I asked Chadrick for clarification as to whether the notecard was genuine, and got a reply ‘yes’. That’s when we ran the story on Stratics. Just because the SLH got the story out first doesn’t really matter; the story *is* genuine so don’t doubt Prok’s coverage of this story. Chadrick has so far declined to comment further on the issue at present.
I’m guessing that today there may be a blog post about it, possibly with ‘comments closed’ because this is the sort of thing they usually do on a Friday so all the shit can hit the fan whilst there’s nobody there to do anything about it, and by monday it’s all calmed down.
Lewis
bubbles
Mar 9th, 2007
Everything on this page, except for LL’s involvement, has been said before. MANY times!
Devon Ashby
Mar 9th, 2007
I logged in last night to find the following message in my saved IM’s:
[19:00] -NAME REMOVED- : (Saved Thu Mar 08 11:24:43 2007) your comment in the SL Herald is all well and good, but you are a paedophile. Paedophilia is a condition, not an act. Whether you RP as a child or an adult in these situations is largely irrelevant. If your RP involves the sexualisation of children in any way, you fit the dictionary and medical definition of a paedophile….
[19:00] -NAME REMOVED-: (Saved Thu Mar 08 11:25:04 2007) Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1998.“pe.do.phil.ia n [NL] (1906): sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object — pe.do.phil.i.ac or pe.do.phil.ic adj.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. The diagnostic criteria for paedophilia according to American Psychiatric Association: a) Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent intense sexual urges and *sexual arousing fantasies involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children*. b) The person has acted on these urges, *or is markedly distressed by them.* c) The person is at least 16 years old and at least 5 years older than the child or children in a).
I thanked this person for their concern, said it was okay that they didn’t understand me or what I do, and muted them, after noting that the account had been created March 7, 2007, as a freebie.
This definition doesn’t apply to me. I am not interested in having sex with children. I don’t know any children and don’t wish to be in their company in my personal life or my fantasy life. I make no connection between my childlike avatar and any flesh-and-blood child.
I chose the physical representation of a beautiful little girl as my visual exterior in SL, using the tools and parameters of avatar creation provided by SL. It’s a part of myself that I can’t adequately express in real life. I own a beautiful pet dragon. Another thing I can’t do in real life. It’s a fairy tale existence; the Princess who slays the heart of the scary dragon. We never lose sight of the fact that we’re adults and what we’re doing is between consenting individuals. It’s something we’ve discussed at length.
The person who IM’ed me said that whether I RP a child or RP being with a child is irrelevant. His or her knowledge of what I do and any regard for the truth is what I see him/her finding irrelevant. How can it be pedophilia if it’s ME, and I’m over 21? How can my SL partner be a pedophile if he’s choosing to RP with an adult female? If adult females are his sexual preference? We’re both sickened at the thought of harming a real child. I’d report anyone I suspected to be a minor. They’re not welcome in my world.
At the heart of this matter there are two different issues. Real Life child rape, and Second Life adults playing fantasy games with other adults. As an ageplayer I can state unequivocally that there IS no ageplay if one of the players IS a child.
Ageplay is an adult game.
Again, a concept so simple but that is being blatantly overlooked.
Empathic
Mar 9th, 2007
Add those two issues up and you get at the REAL issue. The inability of the general populace to separate the virtual from the real.
Detritus Maloney
Mar 9th, 2007
I’m a bit sickened by the loose use of the “p” word. Both BDSM and furry (widely practiced and little commented upon lifestyles in SL) have categories as disorders in mental health, and homosexuality was removed only recently from the DSM. I certainly cede the point that ageplayers are participating in a kink that many people find offensive, but so are furries, nudists, escorts (prostitutes) and all cyber sexual partners. I believe that it is the responsibility of individuals participating in lifestyle fantasies that include subjects or imagery that can reasonably be assumed to offend the larger community to express those fantasies outside of the public forum. However, we should be very careful about passing judgment and limitation on the discreet behavior of adults in areas of SL that are designated for free exploration of sexuality in all it’s forms. No user is driven to these areas; they must be specifically sought to be found and entered.
The key that these folks seem to be missing is “real harm.” The ONLY acceptable type of ageplay occurs between consenting adults in private or specifically designated venues where all involved have made every reasonable attempt to ensure that they are aware of each others age. It remains pure fantasy, no real images of children are involved any more than real children themselves are. In addition, the medium for expression of the fantasy is a verifiably adult-only venue.
Moral relativism is a bad thing, but these puritanical commentators are drawing the bright line in the wrong place. “To each their own” when it comes to RL conduct is obviously a faulty moral framework; there is a right and wrong. However, SL doesn’t exist in any RL sense of the word; avatars are not children, or even pictures of children, they are somewhat crudely computer rendered and animated representations of a persons imagination. If SL ever does get photorealistic, the parameters of this conversation will shift, but I don’t think there are many ageplayers who would do anything inappropriate while looking like a RL naked child. It’s precisely the plasticity and unrealistic visual presentation that separates an ageplayer’s chosen avatar from reality and gives safe life to their fantasy.
Finally, it is ridiculous on its face to claim that participating in online fantasies that include acts declared illegal in RL predisposes the user to criminality. Similarly, it is completely non-productive and mean-spirited to brand a person a paedophile simply because they defend their own fantasy life using civil argument. There is a great deal of gambling, prostitution, con artistry, and every stripe of human depravity present in SL and I don’t believe there has been an epidemic of crime since it came online. Nor has there been a tremendous swing towards general creativity or civic discourse, despite SL’s numerous venues for both of these. We all need to remember that there is a fundamental difference between using virtual tools to enhance or express our fantasies and the thoughts, feelings, or actions that define us in daily life.
I think it would be much more productive to focus concern on preventing under age users from creating or accessing accounts with a service that is clearly meant for adults.
Lothar
Mar 9th, 2007
“these puritanical commentators ”
I can’t believe our society has progressed to a point in which condemnation of pedophile images (it is pedophilia, whether real children are harmed or not) is considered ‘puritanical.’
And yes, it is pedophilia if you are sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent body or to sexual acts involving that body.
Deal with it.
Lothar
Mar 9th, 2007
” have rather clearly stated that the definition I have given for Pedophilia is based on action – not mental state or any such nonsense ”
Oh, yeah, the agreed upon definition for the last century or two is “nonsense,” since in the magical land of Second Life we can make up our own definitions.
That’s “Reality” for you.
D Shire
Mar 9th, 2007
Lothar,
Give it a couple of hours and Mr Reality will be on here telling you that your last post proves that you are ‘devoid of independent thought’
lol