Blame Europe
by Pixeleen Mistral on 16/05/07 at 11:45 pm
Is Crackdown on “Ageplay” the First Step to Complying with European Laws?
by Carl Metropolitan
Linden Lab’s recent policy shift to an explicit ban on sexual “ageplay” may be more about “where are we putting the new European co-location facility?” than any carefully considered decision on the where the line between “freedom of expression” and “protect the children” should fall.
Sexual “ageplay” in Second Life–as repulsive as it is–would almost certainly be legal under current US law. In the United States, only virtual child pornography that is “indistinguishable from” real child pornography is illegal. [1] However, many European jurisdictions are far more restrictive. In Germany–source of the recent ARD “Report Mainz” news reports–laws against “virtual child pornography” are even stricter, [2] making little distinction between real and virtual child pornography.
As Second Life grows, the European market becomes a larger and larger part of its user base. ComScore estimates as a much as 61% of Second Life’s residents are based in Europe (including 16% in Germany). [3] While ComScore’s likely overestimated the number of active European residents, there is no doubt that European users have made up a substantial percentage of Second Life’s rapid growth over the last eighteen months. Enough growth, that Linden Lab is rumored to be looking for European collocation space. And with servers in Europe, the Second Life content on those servers would unequivocally fall under the laws of the nation(s) those servers are based in.
Europe is not likely to be a friendly place for SL’s sexual “ageplayers”. In England indecent “pseudo-photographs” of children are criminalized.[4] Virtual child pornography also is illegal in the Netherlands, which bans “realistic images representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct,” and Dutch prosecutors have stated their intent to bring prosecutions involving Second Life sexual “ageplay”. [5] Norway and Sweden also prohibit virtual (even cartoon) child porn.
Finally the EU’s European Committee on Crime Problems has recommended a common criminal policy that defines as child pornography, “pornographic material that visually depicts [...] a person appearing to be a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct” or “realistic images representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct.”[6]
The First Amendment has led to United States having some of the least restrictive laws on freedom of speech in the world. But as Second Life’s real life users become less and less American, and its servers cease to be wholly US-based, Linden Lab will inevitably be forced into more limits on what it can and cannot allow its users to do.
According to a recent AP story, Peter Vogt, director of Germany’s Central Agency for the Prevention of Child Pornography, said about the recent sexual “ageplay” scandal, “Linden Lab has been working very hard here against this abuser who misuses this game as a platform for child porn.” So much for laid-back California talk about consenting adults…
Brave new world? No–just the old one.
[1] In the US, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, which expanded the definition of child pornography to include “virtual porn”, was overturned by the US Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). The current US law, passed in 2003 (“Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today” aka the PROTECT Act), covers any “digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct”.
[2]“Second Life ‘Child Abuse’ Claim” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6638331.stm Second Life in Virtual Child Sex Scandal http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,2075340,00.html
[3] “comScore Finds that “Second Life” Has a Rapidly Growing and Global Base of Active Residents” http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1425
[4] In the UK, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended the Protection of Children Act 1978 to criminalize “pseudo-photographs”, defining such as “an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph. If the impression conveyed by a pseudo-photograph is that the person shown is a child, the pseudo-photograph shall be treated […] as showing a child.” UK law is much broader than the US “indistinguishable from” standard, and would arguably include Second Life sexual “ageplay”—especially with the photorealistic skins common to Second Life.
[5] “Dutch demand ban of virtual child porn in Second Life” http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/21/dutch_demand_ban_on_virtual_child_porn/
“Virtual child porn may be a crime in Netherlands” http://tinyurl.com/2v3m6s
[6] “Draft Convention on Cyber-Crime” http://www.iwar.org.uk/law/resources/eu/cybercrime.htm
[7] “German Investigators Probe Use of Second Life to Trade Kiddie Porn” http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1178787887385
hyzmarca
May 24th, 2007
The only reasonable basis for moral restrictions is harm caused. If something causes harm then it is probably bad. If something doesn’t cause any harm then it is most certainly okay. One may find it repugnant, but repugnance has no place in logical discourse.
If consenting adults want to play a sexy game with electronic puppets, it harms no one. The nature of the game and shapes of the puppets do nothing to change this fact. There is no question that there is no real harm in this. Some people might not like it. Some people might be repulsed by it. No one has a right to not be repulsed.
I would have everyone remember the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and take inventory of the your kinks, quirks, and eccentricities which some people may find offensive. If you enjoy some harmless thing that other people might not like, how would you feel if it was then banned?
If you don’t like something then don’t do it and don’t watch it, but you can’t reasonably demand that it be banned unless you are willing to have your harmless activities banned.
About US law. It is extremely difficult to fail the Miller test. This test demands that the work, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary and/or artistic, political, or scientific value if it is to be considered obscene.
“Taken as a whole” is the important part here. You can’t just pick out a scene from a movie and say “this is obscene”. You must prove that the whole movie is obscene. The same is true for Second Life. The government can’t just pick out a single sex act and say that SL is obscene. It must be proven that the entirety of SL lacks serious artistic, political, or scientific value. No one would reasonably claim that this is the case. SL certainly has serious value. And this fact insulates every sex act that might take place in the work.
As for German law. Screw German Law. I had a nice little quip about how I would respect German Law as soon as German law makes six million Jews rise from the dead; but, this quip is sort of offensive and really doesn’t express my position.
Any law that restricts that freedom of adults to engage in private harmless activities is unjustifiable and is therefore unjust. This makes the German law unjust.
Dr. King fought against some very unjust laws that were pretty standard in the Southern United States at the time and which had been protected by the US Supreme Court. One of the metheds he used was civil disobedience. He staged sit-ins in segregated businesses, willfully violating these unjust laws because they were unjust.
I strongly believe that everyone has a civil duty to violate blatantly unjust laws.
Of course, Dr. King faced the consequences of his violations of the law and was often imprisoned for them. I certainly do not expect Linden Lab employees to risk imprisonment to prove a point. But, they don’t have to risk imprisonment due to the nature of the internet. As it stands, it is impossible for any country other than the United States to enforce any laws against them. They might choose to locate other servers in other countries, but it is a simple matter to locate servers in those countries that have liberal sexplay laws.
As has been said before, Second Life is in violation of many laws in more restrictive jurisdictions, particularly those which adhere to Sharia and other religious laws. No internet service can be expected to comply with the laws of the most restrictive jurisdiction simply because the most restrictive jurisdictions have laws that would be considered human rights violations in the rest of the world.
The gambling issue is different due to the fact that real money was changing hands. Linden Labs was and is standing on a slippery slope because they allow the Linden Dollar to be freely exchanged for real currency. Casinos should have been shut down due to the huge amount of fraudulent games out there milking people for there money. The fact that it also violates real tax and gaming laws doesn’t help matters. Honestly, the free exchange of Linden Dollars is the single most irresponsible and dangerous aspect of Second Life and something that I find far more offensive that ageplay ever could be because it does cause real financial harm.
Some people have brought up the possibilities that child avatars are being played by actual children. This argument fails to take into account the fact that actual minors can use adult avatars just as easily. Many young people use the internet, including Second Life, and a venue to explore their own sexuality. They believe that it is safe. For the most part, they are right. There is no chance of STDs or unwanted pregnancy; physical rape is impossible unless the victim is wearing some sort of force-feedback bodysuit; and the computer can always be turned off. Real danger only arises when online relationships become physical relationships.
That being said, no adult should go there with someone who has been confirmed to be a minor for various reasons both moral and legal. It has the potential to quickly devolve into a slippery shitty mess for both the adult and the minor.
There are minor Residents in SL but not every resident of SL is a minor. In fact, most are not. More importantly, it is against TOS for minors to be residents In absence of evidence to the contrary, one must assume that the typing hands behind and reading eyes belong to an adult or to a robot reading and typing for a disabled adult.
Personally, disagree with the policy of excluding minors. If I had my way the landscape would be quite different, with designated child-friendly zones free of all forms of offense. Of course, I also believe that a community-based policing approach is by far the best method of dealing with things that residents find offensive, with each distinct area having its own rules and standards set by democratic vote or owner fiat depending on the nature of the area. These rules, clearly posted, could enforced by Residents who frequent that area and are given police powers within it (by vote or be owner appointment), rather than by Lindens or by owners alone. The result always Linden Labs to keep its hands-off approach while allowing concerned Residents to maintain order. It also allows community laws and standards to be applied on a purely local level so that those people who want to do offensive things in their private places can do so and enforce their own rules while those who want a clean sex-free community can have theirs.
This is a far better solution than enacting blanket policies that may not even be enforceable.
Woolly Mittens
May 24th, 2007
This theory would work if it were not for the Netherlands, where Europe’s fattest internet pipe is connected the US and no silly laws are in effect.
Anonymous
May 24th, 2007
hyzmarca, your hysterically-held and belligerent opinions are just that — hysterically-held and belligerent opinions. They aren’t “right”. They’re just your point of view, and your desire to “set us all straight” runs up against some really solid argumentation to the contrary.
Re: “If consenting adults want to play a sexy game with electronic puppets, it harms no one.” That’s only a belief that those wishing to extend out their hedonism endlessly can sign on for. Others looking at it more dispassionately can say — but what kind of society is it that condones the simulation of child rape? What kind of world are we building if it is considered “fun” and “ok” and “harms no one” to simulate brutality and obscenity with a child? What is it we teach children themselves by indicating this is fine and even “fun”?
When you multiply the hundreds of hedonisms that each one imagines is in their little private silo “not hurting anyone, you have an entire corrupted, cynical, and degenerate society that finds the degradation of the human being to be just fine.
Fly around SL and that’s exactly what you see — a landscape of belligerent, sullent, hostile fuck-you hedonism protected by aggressive security orbs.
I don’t see why those of us concerned about the overall effect on civilization of simulation should be batted away with the facile argument that “this harms no one”. Of course it harms everyone if society becomes merely degenerate, cynical, cruel, and bestial. That’s why in RL, laws and social norms are in place.
The Miller test might easily be flunked by a lot of the really crude, stupid, illiterate, and extreme obscenity in SL. I don’t think this has been put to the test and I don’t think those so confident it will pass have any clue about these things.
Taken as a whole, probably SL itself doesn’t pass the Miller test for redeeming social, literary or political merit.
Online relationships become physical relationship all the time. And it’s reasonable to take precautions to minimize the damage.
There is a vast misconception here in many apologists’ mind that Linden Lab is making some blanket policy or enforcing some blanket rule here. It’s not. It’s saying that you are now answerable in your own jurisdiction for designating or not designating your rented Internet server space as adult.
Just as the rest of the Internet. If you think simulated child pornography won’t be characterized as real child pornography or obscenity in your jurisdiction, good luck. But you many not have any assurances of this, and you will no longer have LL covering for you. All these notions of special jurisdictions in fact already exist — in real life. If you think you can make something *different* than RL that has freer norms, you are no longer able to hide behind Linden Lab to do that. You’re on your own. Increasingly, working to the day when they will have host-your-own set-ups, you will have to face this yourself.
Thus, LL isn’t attempting to “enforce blanket policies”. But RL police whose job it is to enforce blanket policies will be doing this.
csven
May 24th, 2007
I saw someone post a blog entry (on a non-SL blog) talking about how “whole-body” interfaces would lead to all sorts of perversion. That’s close enough to “sex toys”, so I’m going to add that here (note: sex toys are illegal in some U.S. states).
There’s also been protests over same-sex marriage because it perverts the (extraordinarily flexible and often disposable) institution of marriage. Still hearing calls for a Constitutional amendment to ban it, so I’m adding that one as well.
List of Second Life Perversions
1) Pretend Inter-Religion Relationship
2) Pretend Homosexual Behavior
3) Pretend Slavery (Gorean)
4) Pretend BDSM
5) Pretend interspecies (HAWT!)
6) Pretend Capture/Rape
7) Pretend Capture/Rape of a Sub human by a Dom canine
Pretend Inter-Racial Relationship
9) Pretend Sex Toys
10) Pretend Same-sex Marriage
C’mon people. Help me out. Let’s ensure Second Life is totally sanitized beyond pretend.
Jessica Holyoke
May 24th, 2007
Sorry about the lateness of the reply. I only found this comment after some very in-depth scrolling of the replies.
>Jessica is one of these modern malevolent minds that we really have to watch out for on the Internet.
>Trained in law — almost — and smart enough in a cunny fashion, she will use her “law school” and her wits, such as they are, to argue in favour of her own hedonism.
Again, you are being clueless about the training of lawyers, I have finished my formal training in the law. Mentioned when I said that I was a law school graduate, but not a licensed attorney.
And why wouldn’t I argue in favor of my beliefs and actions? Isn’t it hypocritical to engage in actions for which you cannot offer defense?
>Most hedonists in SL just use the blunt weapon of “I get to do WTF I want, fuck off”: Jessica puts a legal patina on it and wraps it in that ever-popular trick of trying to hoist the liberal by his own petard.
I don’t think that means what you think it means. You seem to be suggesting that I’m using a liberal’s own weapon against a liberal. Which if you mean legal arguments used against a legal argument, that makes sense
The comment reads:
>>Nobody limited CONTENT, Jessica. This is New York City. If you don’t think there >>aren’t a million civil rights attorneys and civil libertarian activists on this, you’re hugely >>mistaken. But it’s also a city with cases of child molestation and even murder, and >>cases of AIDS. So it’s a BALANCE, a concept that the licentious rarely understand.
>So, the NYC porn stores are a bad example of content providers if only because of >previous mob involvement. After all, that can be the only reason you would mention >that those types of stores must be outlawed to contain murder, right?
These are both non-sequiturs. Why would the involvement of the mob in porn stores — or lack of involvement — be relevant to regulation of their activity? It would not
And what is this half-witted effort at a clever repartee, “this would only be the reason to outlaw murder”? We’re talking about porn here, and the mob is irrelevant, and murder is a different discussion I’ll pick up in my blog.
Its not a non-sequitur. You used as an example of the evil of pornography stores that New York City is a city with child molestation, murder and AIDS and that balance is needed to lower the rates of all three. Plus you threw in an insult towards me. But in your previous anti-porn posts you did not link murders with pornography stores. One of the reasons stated for the NYC crack down and the increased FBI involvement of obscenity prosecutions is due to possible mafia involvement. So in a way, I was AGREEING with you.
>Magazines are free to publish what they will. A porn shop must have proof that a person >is 21, however. That’s not limiting *content,* it’s limiting *exposure to content*.
And by limiting “exposure to content”, you are limiting “content.” Because by placing limits on how things can be heard, you are limiting the message being broadcast.
Again, the opportunity for improvement in my writing. So lets take the first comment again and give another example. A movie avoids an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. This is due to limitations placed on advertising and projection. In addition, places like Blockbuster would not rent an NC-17 movie. Due to the rating’s board, certain content in movies is excised. The movie as a whole is changed due to content restrictions. So either, you change the content so that it gets to the widest audience or you keep the content and be exposed to a smaller audience.
The restraint on speech comes by forcing to think whether or not someone could object to this during the creative process. Using the “Traffic” example, the movie would be slightly different if the director decided to leave out the Erika Christensen scene because of vaguely worded regulations on what constitutes “a depiction of minors in a lewd or sexual manner.”
Again, the restraint on speech comes by having your message, your words altered because someone, somewhere might object.
>Actually, no. I’m not aware of any such doctrine. In the U.S., there’s no “prior restraint”
that would be applicable to the First Amendment where it is applicable (i.e. not inside the Boy Scouts) and there isn’t any mandate by any entity to enforce the First Amendment by making sure broadcasters have “access” in some broad fashion. That is, the FCC has its regulations. And there are things like equal time for political candidates as a norm that might be followed.
But the government is not obliged to make sure a media has outlet. The law would be neutral about how the negative right of the state getting out of the way of exercising a right would be fulfilled. The state does not get in the business of supplying avenues of expression for those who wish to express (except in some concept like a national arts foundation, but that’s not what Jessica is implying).
What you wrote had nothing to do with anything I said. I wasn’t arguing about broadcasting, I was
>No limit is placed on any media here. Rather, a limit is placed on minors themselves. Big difference. You cannot argue from the placement of an age limit that content in media has been abridged. It hasn’t. Go back and ask your law professors about this.
Another insult. However, what I wasn’t arguing about age limits on access when someone is a minor. I was arguing when access should be limited on content when the reader is an adult.
That is what is at issue here Prok. Not whether children should have access, but rather should adults be able to make this choice. You are arguing that the content is objectionable so no one should have access to it. I’m arguing that adults should be able to make their own choices.
When you and csven were arguing about drinking ages, the point I took csven as making was that various jurisdictions have different requirements as to age. You seem to be saying that doesn’t matter, csven saying that it does. I pointed to the example of the age of entry into a pornography store as an alternative example of how age restrictions can vary from place to place, instead of seeing you two devolve into an argument about what’s a drinking law, what’s drinking and whether a certain bill passed in Wisconsin.
>>Second, I limit any inquiries about my real life for a number of reasons. alf of the reasons for which can be identified by your experiences.
>I don’t care. Keep whatever privacy you want. People are fucktards and will stalk you. Don’t imagine I’m going to stalk you or are prying for RL details, however, with that innuendo. I’m not.
>And I wasn’t saying that you were. I was referencing your experiences as a good reason why as to not give out my RL information.
AND for good measure you’re trying to set up a one-two Hyprokisy punch, trying to make me out to be prurient if I inquire about credentials and scream that I’m outing privacy like my own privacy is outed — but…I don’t pretend to be a lawyer like you and try to trump arguments like you do by credential-waiving. Suck it up.
How am I being hypocritical? (Or Hyprokisy is a term I just don’t know yet). What I was saying was that one very good reason as to not give out RL details is what happened to you. You have very painfully revealed the evil things people will do when they get the opportunity. I don’t want that to happen to me, so I try to be cautious. Again, I’m AGREEING with you, or at least sympathize with your position.
>I’m saying that you will endlessly open yourself up to questioning by taking these harsh, literalist interpretations in the name of licentiousness.
>And my responses in the various forums should show that I’m not avoiding being questioned and that I take steps to answer any questions presented.
Do we need such lawyers, that look to law to bend to their own licentiousness? This would be a matter for the society at large to debate.
I realize that my response to your first comment here doesn’t really match. But your response to my response makes even less sense. Are you saying that lawyers should not be licentious? Are you arguing that if they have a belief that you object to, they shouldn’t stand behind that belief?
Bending the law is such a loaded statement. Everyone is going to bend the law in their own direction, no matter what area of law they practice in. You simply object to my analyzing the law in a way that you find licentious.
>You can’t seem to wrap your mind around the idea of porn shops as being actually places that the town fathers wish to limit the access of *children* to for a variety of *legitimate* reasons.
I’m not questioning that children should not be exposed to pornography, they shouldn’t. But limiting the ability of others that are otherwise should be able to make their own decisions is a concern.
And that’s happening…um…where? In Second Life? No, LL is telling people that they must answer to the laws of their country. They are not responsible for protecting people from the enforcement of their laws. Therefore, they give them responsibility. If they wish to be in compliance with their local law, they will flag their lots and card adults. If they wish to risk prosecution, they can’t run to LL to shield them.
But that’s not the point being made Prok. The point has been made, time and again, that age play is not in violation of US law. By having the Linden’s ban it, they are saying that they don’t care that its legal where the engaging resident is, but rather, if another jurisdiction finds it objectionable, or if its not in our interest to keep you on the grid, then we’ll terminate your account.
The whole uproar over this isn’t that the residents broke the laws of their home country. Its that the residents may not have broken any laws where they were from and still they were banned. Yes, Linden Labs has every right to do this according to the ToS. But that doesn’t make it right so far as being able to engage in legal conduct for where they are.
>Where are the people who couldn’t make their own decisions? Either you are arguing that 18-year-olds should be able to read pornography, or even younger, or you are arguing that somebody should take the responsibility for bearing the brunt of prosecution while others are free to do what they wish. You can’t have both.
Should 18-year-olds be legally entitled to read pornography? and buy it? I really don’t have an opinion on this, not studying the issues. They read it *anyay*. The issue of the stores seems reasonable in my community to avoid creating traps all around schools and colleges to keep luring people into spending time in porn shops which are not only places of purchase of porn, but pick-up joints and by their nature as being regulated, a place whether in general, the seedy activities of the society tend to gravitate, whether for drug sales or prostitution.
Can you really not follow my arguments? I’ve been saying that two consenting adults that wish to have one of them appear to be younger than the age of consent should not be illegal. By saying the Linden’s will terminate any account that engages in that content, they are limiting what consenting adults can do.
Your arguments fail in so many ways. Your point is that either 18 year olds can read pornography,(which if they can vote and marry, why can’t they ready pornography) is one issue. Being shielded from prosecution because there isn’t a better age verification system is something different. The two aren’t related, so yes, you can have both. And pornography store zoning issues was not really brought up before, but I’m sure the relevance will be absolutely clear to others.
>>>Lawyers do not scare, neither Internet lawyers, or RL lawyers with credentials. Any one of us can become a “street lawyer” and learn the law as it applies to them and study the jurisprudence. Lawyers do not make law. Legislators do. Legislators are elected by people. Never forget that.
>>What the hell does that mean?
Law is made by legislatures? Pretty straight forward. Three branches of government. Did you study that part in college? And governments that issue regulations that legislators don’t have oversight of, and don’t participate in, and where people also have a role with elected representatives, can’t expect to go on imposing draconian law forever, people rebel and organize the communities freely sooner or later, sometimes much later, but just law comes from democratic legislatures, not from committees of tekkie experts coding up a voting machine where you can only vote “yes”.
Hmmm, maybe I should have typed “and your point is?”
>I’m actually more annoyed by your “never forget that.“ Because there were times when you got all lofty on me about
evidence and judges and juries deciding the law, apparently on their own without lawyers. Then you say that legislators make the law. Of course, they make the law, but lawyers, judges, and juries all help shape the law.
Let’s go over the three branches of government, shall we? There’s the legislative branch. Elected by the people and for the people. They draft and pass laws. The executive branch signs them in many cases. It appoints the judges in some countries. The judges the interpret the law. These branches are checks and balances on each other. Lawyers and judges shape law, but they don’t draft and pass it.
Of course I’m going to get all lofty on you because I’m very much for the rule of law. The rule of law to which the executive branch itself must conform, as the other branches. If a society only has magistrates before whom hapless citizens are thrown, they have no recourse for a just and adversarial defense. On the other hand, a judge is able to interpret the law on its own terms and by precedent and can prevent a frivolous lawsuit. I don’t know what your actual reference is to judges, but all parts are needed in the system. Media coverage becomes yet another factor.
And your point is? These statements are not helpful in your arguments against me. Other than you might get off on talking about the rule of law.
And I wasn’t talking about tekkie anything. I was stating that as the law stands right now in the US, age play is legal.
>First, you attack me because of my possible lack of credentials. I provide them to you. Then you say what I have is a bunch of crap and that my credentials don’t matter. If they didn’t matter, why were they so important to you?
>I see the tekkie literalist disease invades even those who are in the field of law, which should suffer as much from this diease. I asked for your credentials. So many people google and paste. I’d like to know if you actually studied law formally or had credentials. If you didn’t graduate from law school yet, or didn’t pass the bar yet, I can’t exactly give a ringing endorsement for your credentials, now, can I?
I graduated last week. But again, you are using some tekkie literalist insult on my skills. So I’m not sure where you are going with that attack on me. I might need some work on my writing, but at no point is what I’m doing copy and pasting.
>Is it now your position that the only people that can question you are legislators as far as interpretation of laws go?
What kind of nutty statement is that? Is this something you get from TV? Legislators can exercise oversight of the enforcement of laws the pass, and judges can interpret them. What is the “you” to which you refer? N ot literally me, but to the public? The will make its will felt in various ways.
>I might wonder if an actual legislator shows up on the boards, you’ll discount their opinions because they aren’t a judge.
Why would I do that? Because you’d merely like to ascribe wacky opinions to me? I just explained about the three parts of government. Do they still teach that in school?
Prok, your arguments aren’t making sense again. You asked if I was a RL lawyer, I said I wasn’t admitted to the bar yet. You said that lawyers aren’t that important to the rule of law, legislators are. In fact, anyone can be a lawyer in your mind and their opinions and analysis are not important to you, Prok, because your opinion is all that matters to you.
>You are a technician with rote knowledge. Anybody who has a rich enough daddy or willing to go into debt enough who get pass an LSAT and entrance requirements can go to law school. It’s not a guild in World of Warcraft. It doesn’t require an impressively complex set of skills, necessarily, but just the wealth and staying power to read a lot of rote knowledge (rather like computer science).
You have no clue, no clue whatsoever about law school. If law school is not about rote knowledge. Its about being able to look at a problem and analyze it with the legal tools that you have.
I have plenty of clue about law school, hon. More than you can imagine. And it is rote knowledge. It requires mastering a lot of rote concepts and facts and research tools. Yes, it’s about being able to think critically once you have mastered that literature, but not everyone shines in this department, and many a dull and serviceable corporate litigator has merely mastered a lot of droning stuff, not illustrated himself to be of keen and penetrating mind.
If looking at a problem and analyzing it with tools you have results in you telling me a blooper like it’s somehow an offense against the First Amendment to limit the exposer of teens to porn content, and that there’s some obligation by the state to ensure the reach of printing materials by not keeping teens or people YOU feel are adults away from it, I can see that we have a case here of bad tools, bad analysis, and probably some really wierd critical Marxist professor somehow lurking about. Whatever it is, it’s not law but ideology. The ideology cloaking itself with the law to justify the world’s oldest profession, which happens to be your profession in Second Life.
So you’ve been to law school now or have had a close association with same? That’s news. But you did say that all I had achieved was the status of a “technician with rote knowledge.” Then you go into saying that thinking critically is important, but not everyone has that “keen and penetrating mind.” Which, again, might be your viewpoint because what they did was not in keeping with your viewpoint.
I never said that minors should have unfettered access to content. I said adults should have unfettered access to content. Now you are stating that I have some odd definition of adulthood because I went with 18, even though other countries go lower. I never stated that the age of majority should be lowered in the US. But I was pointing out how that age still has limitations. And there’s another condescension.
?Hardly. I think you have no clue about the actual rule of law and your own requirement to submit to it and to understand that interpretation of the law is a dynamic process and can change with the community’s own needs, yet it is not something that is so fungible that every passing whore can bend it to her delight. I hardly see any example of being “confronted by someone with legal training” somehow trumping me or pwning me — I see a college kid who can’t grasp the basics about the free press, for starters.
Wow, two quick insults in a row. No one is saying that the law is in limbo because you are on SL or some blog. I’ve been saying that the law should be followed, but the law for where you are, not some country’s law that you don’t have contact with.
>It’s actually the case, however, that a number of lawyers, including those that gravitated to SL for whatever reason, are not as lofty as me. I’m pretty lofty when it comes to keeping the Lindens paws off third-party blogs. That’s vital to our Second Life. You don’t seem very concerned about that, with all your zeal about prior restraint and post-induction of access. You probably think the law in service of political correctness is just the ticket.
When I asked people in the various legal lists the other night to care about this, only one wrote me and said, thanks for caring about our freedoms in SL. The rest shrugged, said “we don’t do those windows” or “not for us” or “it won’t affect me, I’m not publishing chat logs on my blog, I’m a good boy” or whatever variant thereof. it was actually the usual sorry sight, as civil rights lawyers are a different animal than lawyers used to functioning in large corporate settings where they do the corporate bidding.
Actually, this is the first that I heard about your request for a meeting. And I’ve been to your events before. I would have been there if I was able to. And I do care, but I’ve spent a long time responding to you here. Maybe if a group notice went out instead of an IM.
>BTW, lawyers aren’t where you go to uphold law abstractly, as you might go to a jurist and philosopher about law, or to a judge or other great thinker. A lawyer is a technician. His job, above all, is to serve his client. His client is paramount. If serving the client involves shading this aspect of the law or dramatizing the other, that’s what will be done.
I guess all the environmental lawyers, civil libertarians and other activist lawyers are solely about servicing the client.
>I guess you’ve failed to see all these articles in the Herald about how information gets leaked, how people track IP addresses and match them with the appearance of that address elsewhere on other sites where a different name might be posted, where within the space of an hour, an assiduously-guarded Linden alt was outed. Good luck, and as I said, don’t bet on it.
I didn’t realize that’s how people outed one another. So thanks for the heads up. I think this is the third, yes Prok you are right in this post so far.
>You have an agenda. That agenda is the adult business of Second Life. Therefore you have a bias in trying to a) get the most bang for the buck out of Linden TOS and law interpretation and b) bang on anybody in a forums that you think isn’t giving you the licentiousness you need. Now we’re clear on that, it’s not an especially interesting discussion, because you aren’t interested in creativity for artists or freedom of speech or the community as a whole, you’re interested in the adult business because you find it er, liberating, or whatever you find it to be in your own subjective set of interests.
>So in your words, my interests must be out of self-interest alone and not for any other reason. How many assumptions about me are you really going to make Prok?
I think I’ve pretty much got it on the money here, as your zealousness and need “to be right” is evident to all here. Everybody always claims they are helping the masses. Let’s here it for how you are helping newbies. Do you have freebies?
I do have freebies. I just don’t have land to place them out on. But I freely give a gift bag, when appropriate, of skins, clothing and shapes. I also give out a note card giving newbies information on things like making money, rebaking and, because I usually meet them in strip clubs, free sex areas.
On the need to be right, it’s a mixture of honing my argument skills, knowing that I am right, and working on withstanding the harsh slings and arrows of others.
Anonymous
May 24th, 2007
In summation, I never argued that minors should have access to pornography. I argued that legal adults should be able to decide for themselves what they can and cannot do in relation to their own jurisdiction, and not a jurisdiction for which they have no contact. I graduated from law school but I have not taken the bar. I never argued that pornography stores cannot be zoned, but that they should not be eliminated. When I argue about restraint on SL speech, I’m not talking governmental restraint in this situation. I’m talking about people having to make conscious decisions to exclude elements not due to whether or not what they are saying is worthwhile , but rather a vague restriction on what is being said. (I.e. if an avatar is dressed as a girl scout and the avatar’s height is shorter than 5’4, is that too child-like and runs afoul of the restrictions.)
Insults by Prok: I’m counting Marxist and any use of tekkie, so 14.
Situations where Prok is right: At least three and he does have the separation of powers right.
Digressions from the argument: at least 5.
Which at this point, I will concede to Prokofy. Because I just realized that I will not persuade him of my position, nor he won’t persuade me with his. And otherwise, this argument can go in circles.
But he and I are both right, because I never argued anything else, that personal, local jurisdiction and the actions of every individual in SL is subject to the rule of law for where the resident is located. And this might lead to situations where Carlos is from one place and Edie is from another, they engage in conduct that Carlos is arrested for and Edie is not.
csven
May 24th, 2007
“seeing you two devolve into an argument”
But that was fun.
Some people play in SL, and I occasionally play with Prok on blogs. THAT’S Entertainment!
hyzmarca
May 25th, 2007
I find the assertion that hedonism is the primary cause of antisocial behavior in an online community to be both incredibly funny and incredibly sad. It shows a great lack of understating about the nature of pseudonymous social interactions in general and social interactions on the internet in particular.
Trolling, flamming, griefing, and general antisocial behavior goes hand-in-hand with pseudonymity. People do it because they can get away with it, not because social norms encourage or tolerate ethical hedonism. In fact, one finds trolls, flammers, and griefers in online venues that outright ban all offensive and sexually explicit content.
The key to prevent anti-social behavior in an online venue is good moderation. This is something that Second Life lacks by design. Outlawing ageplay won’t change that one bit. The Lindens cannot moderate the entire virtual world, obviously. They lack the manpower to do so. This really leaves us with community moderation being the only solution. The problem is that things are not currently set up to encourage community-level moderation.
And I’m actually going to back up my assertion with citations.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713856878~db=all
http://java.cs.vt.edu/public/projects/digitalgov/papers/p543-lampe.pdf
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/poor.html
http://web.media.mit.edu/~golder/projects/roles/golder2004.pdf
http://sambuca.umdl.umich.edu:8080/handle/2027.42/39369
http://lackaff.net/node/20
All of these articles are good, but the last one is of particularly high quality.
Hedonism does not encourage anti-social behavior. The opposite is true, in fact. Antisocial behavior only leads to strife, which hedonism is squarely opposed to.
Tollerance does not encourage anti-social behavior. It discourages strife and promotes polite community.
I have been to some of the darkest corners of the internet and, quite frankly, communities that cater to extreme sexual fantasies tend to be very polite, particularly the well-moderated ones. Flamming, griefing, and trolling are generally limited to outside agitators who disagree with the fetish(es) or lifestyle(s) that the community caters to. This is because members of these communities tend to be supporting and tolerant.
European person
May 26th, 2007
European here:
I don’t give a shit what happens.
csven
May 28th, 2007
For some reason Prok has decided not to continue this on the Herald (maybe too many SL people were watching and calling out her hypocrisy), but the action continues on Clickable Culture:
http://www.secretlair.com/index.php?/clickableculture/entry/linden_lab_lays_down_law_give_your_id_or_give_up_adult_content
Blinders Off
May 29th, 2007
FROM CSVEN: “And the corporations only have the power that consumers and the government (via taxpayers) give them. That includes most, if not all, of us.
- Do you drive a car or bicycle?
- Do you own any petroleum-based products (e.g. plastic)?
- Do you use electricity from a service provider or generate your own?
- Do you buy any food whose products are the result of corporate farms that use insecticides?
Your answers to those questions will help us to determine ~your~ culpability.
“Whether you murder people in gas chambers or sell the gas to murder them, you’re still engaging in genocide.”
Don’t disagree. But exactly what kind of gas are you referring to??? Are you associating Hitler’s “gas” (like zyklon B, an insecticide) with the stuff companies sell for us to use in automobiles???– end quote
Dude you are so whacked. You couldn’t find your butt with both hands and a guide. The guy didn’t say ALL corporations are murderers. I got lots of friends who own corporations. They don’t sell addictive carcinogens to line their pockets. And yeah, people buy tobacco. People also buy cocaine. Does that make the drug lords good guys? Man, you talk just to hear your lips flap. Sad part is you probably think what you’re saying has value. LOL. I’d call you a degrading name here but no need to shout the obvious. LOL
Blinders Off
May 29th, 2007
From hyzmarca: “The only reasonable basis for moral restrictions is harm caused. If something causes harm then it is probably bad. If something doesn’t cause any harm then it is most certainly okay. One may find it repugnant, but repugnance has no place in logical discourse.
If consenting adults want to play a sexy game with electronic puppets, it harms no one.” — end quote
How do you know that hyzmarca? You have a social doctorate? Hey, I know this is your opinion and I’ll fight for your right to voice that any day. But I don’t think you, or me, or anyone else here has the right to claim that we can predict what effect simulated anything has on anything, especially when it comes to simulated pedophelia.
Are you willing to bet YOUR child that simulated pedo will have no effect on RL? That’s the whole thing about this. People cry FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM. News flash: freedom doesn’t mean the right to do any freaking thing ya want. Freedom is the right to engage in socially accpetable, reasonable activities without fear for your personal safety from people like murderers, rapists and yeah, pedophiles. In that respect, society has the right to judge what is acceptable and what is not and it has the right to restrict individual “freedoms” for the greater good. True freedom always has boundaries. Freedom without boundaries is anarchy and chaos. Anyone here want our cushy American lives replaced by anarchy and chaos? Any hands? Get a flippin clue.
This thread has pointed out that although simulated pedophelia is not illegal here in the U.S., the U.S. is not the dictator of the world (well not yet anyway) and that other governments just might disagree with the US. Anyone that thinks the U.S. is some kind of shining outpost of good judgement and sensible moral guidelines is just out there in space somewhere LOL. Just because something is “legal” by the laws of this particular government doesn’t make it right. At times the U.S. Supreme Court has overruled its own decisions. Government law is not the code of the universe. But down deep, if we have a single set of working brain cells left, there is a part of us that says, “Hey, this is just plain wrong.” And if pretending to have sex with children doesn’t trigger that set of brain cells, dude, you might as well hang it up. You’ve lost it.
(I don’t mean you personally hyzmarca. But, if you don’t find something wrong in that, hey, if the shoe fits…)
Blinders Off
May 29th, 2007
From hyzmarca: “”Taken as a whole” is the important part here. You can’t just pick out a scene from a movie and say “this is obscene”. You must prove that the whole movie is obscene. -end quote
Sure you can dude. If a really great movie has this extremely repulsive and graphic scene of a child being brutalized (I won’t go into graphic detail) then you can’t say “Oh it was a great movie except for that one scene of extremely gratuitous and vulgar obscenity. The whole movie becomes a loser. How do you people come up with this stuff? I have to wonder, is this really how your minds work?
Just more proof that people who live online lose touch with reality. LOL
Hey, really, no offense intended. I’m yanking your chain just a little to make a point. Nothing personal. I’m not saying you’re a bad guy and I appreciate you’re speaking your mind. But sometimes we do need to question ourselves and see if our opinions and thoughts really match up with real life and the way things are. Too bad there isn’t some kinda litmus test we could all take every day to see if our opinions match the way things are. It ain’t easy being human.
From hyzmarca: “As for German law. Screw German Law. I had a nice little quip about how I would respect German Law as soon as German law makes six million Jews rise from the dead; but, this quip is sort of offensive and really doesn’t express my position.”
Now this part I’ll have to view as a just plain bigoted hate post. By your own rules Hyz, one insane despot does not a whole country make. Yeah, Germany has a bad history that forever marks their nation. Not every German is Hitler and German law isn’t governed by Hitler’s ideas. In case you forgot, the English nation subjugated 25% of the world. The Spanish nation allowed people to be raped, tortured and murdered for their religious beliefs. The United States dropped two ungodly bombs on a largely civilian population, the only use of nuclear weapons in history. Nations have their attrocities. Pointing to those to try influence a point regarding rape of children is just plain wack. Has to do with NUTHIN.
Blinders Off
May 29th, 2007
(And yeah Hyz, I know you stated “this quip is sort of offensive and really doesn’t express my position”. Which is kinda like a lawyer making a statement in court that is obviously objectionable then “withdrawing” that statement. He knows it will influence the jury, which is why he even said it.
Anonymous
May 29th, 2007
Quote from Csven: “seeing you two devolve into an argument”
But that was fun.
Some people play in SL, and I occasionally play with Prok on blogs. THAT’S Entertainment!:
Quote from me:
Takes a totally conceited ass to insult people for the kicks of it… which is something seen on these blogs all the time.
Hey whatever floats your boat man. But every time you switch from “intelligent poster” to “freaking ass” it kind of detracts from the point you’re making. Not that I’ve seen much from you in the “intelligent poster” area. LOL
Blinders Off
May 29th, 2007
Quote from Csven: “seeing you two devolve into an argument”
But that was fun.
Some people play in SL, and I occasionally play with Prok on blogs. THAT’S Entertainment!:
Quote from me:
Takes a totally conceited ass to insult people for the kicks of it… which is something seen on these blogs all the time.
Hey whatever floats your boat man. But every time you switch from “intelligent poster” to “stupid ass” it kind of detracts from the point you’re making. Not that I’ve seen much from you in the “intelligent poster” area. LOL
Blinders Off
May 29th, 2007
Hey people, sorry for the occasional double-posts. After all this time, finally figured out the bug. System cache doesn’t dump if someone presses the BACK button instead of the CANCEL button. Gotta love programmers and us fools that figure out how to mess ‘em up. LOL
Blinders Off
May 29th, 2007
From hyzmarca: “The key to prevent anti-social behavior in an online venue is good moderation. This is something that Second Life lacks by design. Outlawing ageplay won’t change that one bit. The Lindens cannot moderate the entire virtual world, obviously. They lack the manpower to do so. This really leaves us with community moderation being the only solution. The problem is that things are not currently set up to encourage community-level moderation.”
I agree and disagree. Yeah, Second Life lacks moderation and prevention of anti-social behavior. But saying they “cannot moderate the entire virtual world”? Sure they could. Board moderation has been in operation for decates and on boards much larger than Second Life. It’s pretty simple. You create a sweeping rule and then enforce it every time you come across a someone who violates it. “We know the ID of the computer you are using and if you tick us off, we’ll ban your butt.” But since Linden Lab doesn’t have the gnards of a gopher, they fail to enforce stuff they should. They should have realized from the very start that simulated child sex just might be a leeetle bit offensive to the public in general and set up a sweeping, across-the-board ban on such activities. Then they shoulda followed through on every instance that happened on their board.
I mean, it’s their board man. They don’t owe nuthin to no one except the people that are paying them for their services. And even those people have to operate by house rules. So if Linden Lab wants to declare something socially objectionable and “we ain’t gonna have that here”, they can do that. They just choose not to. Unless of course, the German government crawls up their tails, then they’re suddenly all self-righteous and like the man said above, “We would NEVER allow that here!” and they actually DO ban two people, with no warning at all. Did those people deserve what they got? Maybe. What they were doing was twisted. But hey, LL knew ageplay was going on for a long time. They set the rules and then they changed ‘em without any notice. And there’s no maybe about that being wrong.
I read somewhere that supposed these two people had real child sex pics on the wall. But someone else says there is no evidence of such. Sounds to me like a corporate butt-saving cover up. It’s always easy for a dishonest cop to plant grass in a car. Point is, up to that point LL had allowed such stuff, then suddenly they did a 180. Hey, kudos for finally doing what is right. Thumbs down for the way they did it.
csven
May 30th, 2007
“Dude you are so whacked. You couldn’t find your butt with both hands and a guide.
Congrats on conceiving of a NEED to go LOOKING for one’s own ass.
Meanwhile:
1) I wasn’t debating the tobacco issue so why you’re dribbling on about it is beyond me.
2) You’re supporting the original poster’s laughable argument equating “gas” companies (like British Petroleum) their control over prices for gasoline we need for our *cars*, to companies that provide the kind of “gas” (as in a by-product of an INSECTICIDE) used by the Nazi’s during the Holocaust.
Maybe you should go back to locating your body parts. You seem to have more success in that department.
csven
May 30th, 2007
“I read somewhere that supposed these two people had real child sex pics on the wall. But someone else says there is no evidence of such. Sounds to me like a corporate butt-saving cover up.”
And I read on Prok’s blog that she took screencaps of a scene in SL where there was *both* virtual and REAL child porn. Last summer. And then she just “forgot” about it as if it wasn’t that big a deal.
She *claims* to have erased the images from her harddrive. I don’t believe her – and won’t – until she PROVES it (though I’ll refrain from calling my belief a “fact”, which she argued on Clickable Culture is entirely permissable and which permits her to do the same to everyone else).
Maybe you should ask her to dig out those photos for you. If she’s just trying to save her own butt, you might be able to help locate it.
Prokofy Neva
May 30th, 2007
>And I read on Prok’s blog that she took screencaps of a scene in SL where there was *both* virtual and REAL child porn. Last summer. And then she just “forgot” about it as if it wasn’t that big a deal.
>She *claims* to have erased the images from her harddrive. I don’t believe her – and won’t – until she PROVES it (though I’ll refrain from calling my belief a “fact”, which she argued on Clickable Culture is entirely permissable and which permits her to do the same to everyone else).
>Maybe you should ask her to dig out those photos for you. If she’s just trying to save her own butt, you might be able to help locate it.
There’s csven, at it again, but I’m right back at him, because this kind of bullying and bullshit can’t be allowed to stand.
csven provides a tendentious and false portrayal of the story on my blog. I didn’t take any screencaps of RL porn, and never stated that. I *witnessed* the RL porn on the walls *being whisked away and deleted or put in inventory before my eyes* and didn’t photograph it. I photographed, as I clearly stated, the child avatars *and the blank spaces on the wall* left by what had clearly been something hastily removed. That was all stated in my blog.
csven is like these pedophiles who work overtime to discredit journalists merely covering the issue and trying to cover it in a critical manner. He’s willing to take their effort at *journalism* and try to trump up out of it some kind of crime of possessing or distributing child pornography. Now…how lame is that?!
I didn’t “forget” about this awful incident. First, I covered it — I was present. I thought about how to write about it. I couldn’t find a good way to write about it, frankly, and there was a lot of hysteria around the subject at the time which meant an endless wrangle with people like csven if I posted something. I covered it later on my blog, as can be seen. As much as I don’t shrink from controversy, there are times when I simply tire of the repetitive nature of it and tire of the constant deluge of personal attacks. At that time, there were full-bore campaigns everywhere which themselves became abusive. Suspected, not proven “ageplayers” were outed everywhere.
At that time, and during the time I thought about that subject, I adopted the liberal view du jour, too. I figured what people do in their own homes — no matter how horrible — was their business. I figured it was invasive of privacy as a concept and as a right to allow the encroachment of it. The Lindens seemed to follow that policy.
But the exception was obviously RL child porn. That was indeed on the walls back then, and was whisked away. At first glance, one might think, but putting child porn on the walls is part of that option of private life that people should be allowed to have, isn’t it? I didn’t think *deeper* at that time as I hadn’t researched the issue as much. I came to see that it was wrong even to concede RL child porn in the simulated world because that’s part of what feeds the whole sick machine of exploiting children. It’s part of the criminality, of course. And while those people who copied images into SL weren’t directly partaking of the crime, there’s no question that they were enabling it and fueling it because it’s viewers of such “productions” that enable the empires to keep going.
That’s why the fellow on my blog squawking about victimless crimes and the right to view porn as some kind of safe and “OK” activity is full of shit — it’s the viewing — anywhere, for free, for pay, as a copy, on the Internet, in RL, in SL, that is part of aiding and abetting the crime. We can all agree it is a crime (csven of course may be trapped somewhere in some backwater with a 13-year-old bride and may not agree).
Furthermore, after I researched the topic more thoroughly and thought about it, I could see a very rational argument being put forward by child psychiatrists, child protection agencies, law-enforcement personnel, various foundations and NGOs combatting child pornography. They said that creating an enabling environment by legitimizing, sanctioning, justifying the act of child molestation in simulation was making it easier for the individual to act on their criminal impulses. It was part of creating a support structure for his crime by seeming to decriminalize it. That made ample sense to me, and in fact that argumentation made ample sense to the Lindens who listened to their legal counsel. If there is even some portion of attacks on children that occurs by individuals led to commit this crime by the rationalization that simulation provides, then I think we are fully justified in removing simulated child porn and enabling it.
The Lindens in fact haven’t made such a ruling; they’ve acted in one case. We can’t know with them whether this is now a precedent always to be acted on; the Lindens say and do a lot of things inconsistently, i.e. they said you’d be permabanned from the world of SL if permabanned from the forums, but they dropped that misguided draconian policy in the case of Joshua Nightshade for some reason — maybe because he is friends of friends of Lindens or something.
At the time, I took pictures that I thought *could* go in the Herald, that weren’t the worst — not the RL pictures, but child avatars posing in SL. I simply decided not to write the article. I didn’t feel it was right to pump the rights of pedophiles to privacy and not to castigate the equally despicable vengeful types among the BDSM and other sectarians harassing them and trying to create a non-black kettle to call a pot black with. It was an ugly scene all the way around, with Linden inaction serving as the icing on the awful cake. I simply didn’t wish to do the story. It’s my right. I sent the pictures to the Herald. And no, I don’t have copies, as my hard drive was destroyed in a computer accident more than a year ago, so they really do not exist, good luck in trying to turn the Feds on me, csven.
Only after that reflection and thought process and deciding not to do the story did I move on and forget about the issue — it died down as that confrontation sent these “ageplayers” more underground for a time. Forgetting about this issue *as a story idea* doesn’t mean *not caring about* — that implication is just plain tendentiously stupid.
I see csven is an equal-opportunity abuser here of other posters, behaving like an ass. This, from someone who is supposed to have a respected blog and fine technical mind. Bullshit. He is untethered, and deranged. Someone should make an intervention.
More back on my blog, rebutting him line by line for his atrocious, outrageous abusive posts on Clickable Culture.
csven
May 30th, 2007
I won’t bury anyone with verbage; I save that for Prokofy. So short and to the point:
For reference, quotes from Prok’s own posts on HER blog:
-1-
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/05/breaking_clicka.html
“Prokofy: Um, there’s no “lie” here and no “hypocrisy” but a statement that I believed to be true. A statement I believe to be true *is* a fact until it is *disproven*.”
-2-
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/05/the_pedophiles_.html
“Last summer… I went out to investigate… I got there and found a house full of pedophiles hastily clearing out the *real-life very graphic child pornography” off their walls — they were photographs imported from real life porn and as they whisked them away, leaving holes in the spaces of the walls… I took a few shots… nobody felt like following up, the people sold their land and disappeared and the story was over. Possibly if the Lindens had decided to change their policy, and Lindens like Guy were empowered to act, the outcome might have been different. But they weren’t, and here we all are. … I forgot about the subject then with the crush of other stories,”
—————————————————
#1 is Prok’s distorted logic.
What it allows for is my saying that because I don’t believe she deleted the screencaps she took showing “child rape” in Second Life, it is a FACT she still has them.
That’s what happens when, as in Prok’s world, the burden falls on someone else to *disprove* something. And short of proof to the contrary, the supposition – the guess – somehow magically acquires factual status.
Her words again: “A statement I believe to be true *is* a fact until it is *disproven*.”
This and other screwed up approaches to logic are how Prok forms the basis for factual information in her own little reality.
-
#2 is Prok’s inexcusable negligence.
According to her account she saw REAL LIFE IMAGES OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. It’s clear she could have (if she wanted) collected information for later use by the authorities. She’s said she took screenshots. She doubtlessly had avatar names.
From her recounting the Linden arrived late, possibly *too* late to see the RL child porn.
So can I without question fault the Linden who came late?
No.
Can we, based on her account, fault HER for not acting and contacting the authorities after seeing REAL LIFE IMAGES OF CHILD PORN IN SECOND LIFE?
Absolutely.
In her account she says clearly, “I forgot about the subject then with the crush of other stories”.
Now she’s trying to wiggle out of her own words by claiming, “I didn’t “forget”.
NOW she’s trying to get tekkie-wiki literalist on us (surprise) and is saying: “Forgetting about this issue *as a story idea* doesn’t mean *not caring about* — that implication is just plain tendentiously stupid.”
Well, exactly how much does a person *care* if they DON’T contact the real life authorities, give a first person account of what was seen (regardless of what she claims to have gotten screen captures of), and then provide avatar identities so that the authorities can work with Linden Lab to find evidence (because Prok’s screencaps wouldn’t have tied individuals to ownership)???
Very little, imo.
It’s easy to say “I care”, but when actions don’t support the claim, I don’t BELIEVE the sincerity of the person making the claim. I think they’re lying. And using ProkLogic, my belief can be stated as FACT.
I believe Prok is lying. ProkLogic makes it a FACT.
Full stop.
Reality
May 30th, 2007
Hmm, just from the above comment I can see why Prokofy has such a hard time with reality.
I hate to be the one to break it to you Prokofy but no one has to disprove anything you type or say. You state your opinions as if they were facts – case in point little dear, I am still waiting on your proof showing that people can exist as energy within the massive network that is the Internet and thus exist only in Second Life as a bodiless entity – see, now as it stands you have no facts to back up your opinion. science however provides all the facts I need to state what I do.
Where are your facts Prokofy?
Jessica Holyoke
May 30th, 2007
Hi Prok and csven,
It seems like a long time since I’ve posted here. Trust me, nothing personal. I was doing some research, checking on Prokofy’s sources, when I found some interesting things.
First, 18 U.S.C. 1446a “(a) In general. Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1) [18 USCS § 2252A(b)(1)], including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
(Yes, its a cut and paste job but I didn’t feel like typing it all.) So what Prok observed during the anti-ageplay protest as reported in his blog was illegal in the US. This is in addition to the actual RL child pornography being illegal.
Second, I found a case where a man downloaded Hentai type porn and was prosecuted for child pornography. United States v. Whorley, 386 F. Supp. 2d 693 (ED Va 2005).
So what does this mean? It means the sexual ageplay as depicted by ARD may have been illegal in the US as well (obscenity typically being a jury issue). If it showed more sexual contact between the minor and the adult avatars, then it would be illegal in the US.
Of course, this raises another question, that I don’t have time now to research. Does the temporary nature of SL count as a “depiction.” But honestly, I would recommend erring on the side of caution and not engage in sexualized ageplay.
And while I don’t find the notion detestable, I believe that shutting down places like Hunter High, (disclosure, Hunter High is owned by Sarah Nerd, and I am an investor in Sarah Nerd Enterprises) is reasonable in order to prevent sexualized ageplay between minors, ie high school students. This is not due to a promotion of pedophilia, but in regards to current U.S. law that would attach to any SL resident’s activities. (The SL servers and the company that you are contracting with are all in the US. There is notice, included in the ToS, that California law would apply.)
Its one thing to protect unpopular legal speech. Its another point to try to actively change the law, which requires different methods and approaches if you are interested in changing the law.
Third, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 535 U.S. 234 (2001) was struck down as overbroad because it didn’t stop at obscene depictions as in the statute above, but rather all depictions of what might appear to be minors engaging in sexual activity, including “youthful adults.” 18 U.S.C. 1446a includes the requirement that the work must be obscene and without merit in order to be criminal. That’s why Ashcroft does not apply to the above statute.
I’ll end with this for Prok and csven. 18 USC § 1470 provides that the provision of obscene matter to a minor is illegal. The standard for that minor is that they are under 16 years old.
csven
May 31st, 2007
“Does the temporary nature of SL count as a “depiction.”
And *that* is the big unanswered question imo.
Well, that and how someone can turn a blind eye towards real child porn yet be obsessed with the make-believe activities of consenting adults.
Someone please read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/world/middleeast/29syria.html?ex=1338091200&en=11adb9d409d721b0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
and then, after a dose of related reality, come back and explain to me how one simply *forgets* about real child pornography; or at least how someone can *care* so little that they neglect to notify the real authorities to deal with it.
Maybe we have a wolf in sheep’s clothing, eh?
Hyzmarca
Jun 6th, 2007
There is a lot of arguing around in circles but one basic fact needs to be stated. Ageplay has nothing to do with pedophillia. It is, primarily, a about powerful differentials and, otehr than the trappings, is no different from any other D/s relationship.
In real life, you have middle aged men and women in diapers and childish dress getting spanked by their “mommies” and “daddies” because they get off on the sense of safety and loss of control that the faux parent-child relationship provides while the dominants enjoy the power and the control.
Here’s the thing, in real life it is impossible to mistake the a 40-year-old man in a diaper and a frilly pink dress for an actual little girl (unless that man has a congenital disease that prevents growth, such as Gary Coleman). In Second Life, people who enjoy this particular D/s lifestyle can look however they want to look.
Why not just make avatars that look like adults wearing children’s clothes, one might ask. I ask, why should people have to use such avatars if they don’t want to.
“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” – Salman RUSHDIE
And lets face it, hairy 40-year old guys dressed like preteen girls tend to look sort of gross.