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
Wrestling Hulka
May 17th, 2007
I blame Pixeleen Mistral for continue to post pro-abusive and repulsive child rape propaganda.
Brent Recreant
May 17th, 2007
I think they need to forget about Second Life unless it involves REAL crimes.
Lewis Nerd
May 17th, 2007
Instead of blaming Europe, why not blame the US for the messed up distinction between child porn (that involves real children) and child porn (which to all intents and purposes involves real children but doesn’t), then this wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
Face it. You’re just pissed that the US doesn’t get its way for a change. No doubt the only reason that Linden Lab are able to comply is because Germany isn’t well known for its oil deposits otherwise they’d have declared war on it.
Lewis
Prokofy Neva
May 17th, 2007
Once again, as I’ve had to say each time someone invokes “Ashcroft”: that decision was made about material that in no way resembles what we have in Second Life, but was made about 17-year-old school-girl types, and once the courts begin to look at the material of SL, this concept that the U.S. Supreme Court will adopt the licentious extremism of SL sectarians who say “they are only pixels” will be sorely tested.
Indeed, once any court has to begin to look at this very issue you raise, Carl, of “indistinguashable”; once they have to look at the test for obscenity, they may rule differently. You can’t predict this though you might speculate. Legal opinions not by bloggers by real lawyers will differ on this.
2. I think it’s very important, given the lack of actual clarity in Robin’s blog about the German incident, to look exactly at the words Robin said later in her officer hour as carried on Second Citizen (it would be nice to have an official transcript of this meeting but this is all there is).
I’ve clipped the relevant bits, they did not come uninterrupted in this fashion:
Robin Linden: Let me make something clear here — there was both age play and actual child porn involved in the incident with the German press
Robin Linden: They told us about the avatars, and they sprung the actual photos on me during the interview – a rather cheap trick if you ask me.
Robin Linden: So in the US we’re not liable for content, but in Germany we are
Ryozu Kojima: Robin, Could you please clarify the exact reasons the 54 year old man and 27 year old woman were banned from Second Life? Were they German residents?
Robin Linden: They were banned because they were engaged in sexual behavior where one was playing a minor child.
Robin Linden: It’s very unclear what the law is in the US, and our advisors think it’s possible that it will be considered illegal in the US as well as in various EU countries
Robin Linden: Ryozu, some are making the case that it’s a precursor to actual pedophilia. I’m sure that’s arguable, but it is at least the concern of some.
Tiberious Neruda: exactly, so who is being harmed if two ADULTS , using whatever avs they care to wear, decide to engage in consentual sex-roleplay?
Robin Linden: Tiberius that’s a question for the German authorities.
So Carl, whether you and other would-be civil libertarians like it or not, whether you are personally finding the First Amendment test is met here or not, here’s what you will have to accept:
1. Linden Lab has advisors that have cautioned them — and rightly so! — that in fact some of the ageplay content within SL *may* meet the test for obscenity in the US, and may not be protected by the overturn of “Ashcroft”. They’re obviously going to listen to legal advisors, and not bloggers. They’re obviously not going to simply hector and lecture and affirm aggressively “but it’s only pixels,” but instead will take a very somber real-life look at how real-life law-enforcement will view this.
2. Linden Lab made a judgement that the German tabloid TV claim was serious enough to immediately ban the players in question, whether or not they could themselves tie the RL porn to these people — and pre-emptive action like that in cases that may lead to court convictions are instances when the Lab will be right to act pre-emptively. Robin also says here that this couple was connected to RL porn, so this constant blogosphere indignation that people were expelled for ‘only pixels’ isn’t washing.
3. LL took this incident hugely serious as literally threatening not only the German presence in SL and the access of Germany to SL but all of SL. Furthermore, they took seriously the claim from law-enforcers that actual case-work shows a correlation between use of porn and predatory contact. so they can’t afford to toy with something like that.
4. LL, even being in the U.S. is liable for content viewed in Germany because it is viewed in Germany. You can wave all kinds of past precedents around about servers and downloads and everything else but the fact is, the *law for 3-d streaming multiple player online worlds are evolving* and *you can’t know in advance how it will shake out*.
You can be unhappy about these developments; they are all going to make our lives much more difficult, to be sure. But you can’t fault LL’s actions, in my view, as being the ones that a business has to take on the Internet.
Truly, the irony for me is that this threat to the creativity of SL — if we are to posit that it is — comes not from the religious United States with its Moral Majority but from the supposedly more liberal and secular Europe. Go know.
SoboSobocinski
May 17th, 2007
As a Scandinavian (Danish) I believe we are not in any way behind the US with regards to freedom of speech. But reality shows that the line between freedom of speech and abuse can be extremely difficult to draw in real life. Last year a Danish newspaper published some cartoon drawings about the prophet Muhammad. It caused an uproar in the Islamic world, demanding the Danish government to ban the newspaper and punish the artists. Obviously the Danish government was not in a position to do so. The drawings were caricatures, and as such not “worse” than if they had depicting Jesus Christ (as had happened several times before), the Danish prime minister or an American president.
Most European countries supported Denmark’s stance on the right of freedom of speech at that time. And many Americans too – but not the American government. It had too many interests at stake in the Islamic world to stand up with it’s small ally in support of such a fundamental right. To my own biggest disappointment, even former president Clinton cursed the Danish government for not taking steps against the newspaper. At the same time German, French, Dutch and many other European countries spoke up in support of one of the most fundamental civil rights. The Danish government was not supporting any rage against Muslims, but had no power to interfer with a newspapers publishing of some cartoons, which were on line with many other cartoons like that, but touched a subject that seems to be accepted as a taboo. The only thing the newspaper was doing was actually to test its own rights of freedom of speech. At that time the freedom prevailed in Europe and unfortunately lost in the US.
This should not be a discussion about Islam, and I hope that that is understood. I try to make it clear that the line between when you have the freedom to speak up and express yourself, and when you are actually abusing others is not alway very clear. In both Europe and the US we have the right to follow any religion we want and we have protection of children against abuse from adults.
I don’t think it is fair to make this article about civil rights in the US and the lack of the same in Europe.
In all our countries child pornography is illegal, and strong measures are taken to fight it. Then in (at least Northern-) Europe the attitude is that it should never be “OK” to abuse children. Sure, places (like a location in SL) where adults are abusing children will be banned – whatever the people behind the child avatars are actually adults too. I guess most people here would find that such behavior is sometimes acceptable, then we will just have a new line to make. When can we be sure that all the child avatars are controlled by adults. Wouldn’t it be so much easier for those players to take the next step in Thailand or another place with less protection of children than we enjoy in our countries.
So, you are right! Servers hosting age play in Europe could be taken down by the authorities. That is not bad and it has, in my opinion, nothing to do with freedom of speech. What about a classroom in TUI, SL, where students could learn to make explosives and learn how to bring it in to public spaces. They are not terrorists of course – just playing. I think most of us would find that it does not belong in SL.
Prokofy Neva
May 17th, 2007
SoboSobocinski, I’ve heard this view from Europeans before and I think there’s some nuances you aren’t grasping about how this was viewed in the U.S.
It doesn’t matter what the official government spokesmen said about it, or the government’s own view. Had any American newspaper decided to publish the cartoons, they would not have been shut down, and their First-Amendment rights would be fully protected. But voluntarily, they didn’t do that, anymore than they’d publish the writings of Holocaust deniers as front-page news “as is”.
And while I realize it’s facile to attribute everything the U.S. does as some vulgar and rapacious quest for oil (as in Lewis’ inane comment about invading Germany), there are other things at stake as well, and it’s not always so crude.
In the U.S., the entire history of the First Amendment is about religious freedom more than anything. That is, America is founded on the principle that all of these religious communities that fled persecution they experienced *in your Europe* would find safe haven and tolerance, and that no single one of them could prevail. Here’s the text:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Note what is in the first place: no respecting an establishment of religion, i.e. no making of an official church religion as they have in Iran, Russia, and even England. That’s because there were so many competing religious sects. And while they could hate each other, they could concede a point of commonality: that each religion had to be allowed to be free to pursue its teachings by the light of its own conscience.
That forms the environment for which one has to understand the Danish cartoons issue in the U.S.
In secular Europe, any religion is funny and to be ridiculed by the agnostic or even anti-religious left and liberal intelligentsia. In religious America, you may not all share the same religion, but you accept that everybody has a religion made up of stuff that others should respect. That is “everybody” by public opinion polls of 75 percent who say they believe in some sort of God, and the minority of non-believers concede that.
In that cultural climate, which is informal, and not codified as such, there is a kind of unspoken and unwritten norm that you don’t make fun of people’s religions. You don’t ridicule their sacred objects. You don’t go out of your way to step on their sacred corns. You leave it alone. You leave all of it alone.
A paper like The New York Times or the Los Angeles Times therefore would simply made a prudent and cultural editorial judgement, despite their fervent commitment to freedom of speech and their own First Amendment lawsuits: that you do not gratuitously mock another’s religious sanctities.
That’s why you didn’t find everybody rushing to publish the cartoons and try to outdo each other in being politically correct about showing their bravery. If anything, for them, the politically correct thing was NOT to publish them, especially given that in any given large city, you’d have a Muslim population that you had no objective reason to piss of *in this way*.
I realize it’s hard to accept that people informally, voluntarily, culturally, simple devise a system: we don’t piss on each others’ religions. But that’s how it works.
By the same token, you can find a completely different attitude in American about headscarves for Muslim women by contrast with France. The attitude of a city school or an employer like Kinko’s is to say — let them wear the scarf as long as it doesn’t physically interfere with the operation of equipment or something. There isn’t the heavy ideological stake in making the symbol of secularness and civicness be absence of religious symbols. Rather, it’s the concept that a multiplicity of religious symbols will be all competing in the civic space without fear or favour. That’s why you see some communities have the ACLU battle with removing the Christmas creche completely out of the public commons, and others simply make a funny amalgam of winter seasonal emblems from a Christmas star to a Hannukah drindl to try to accommodate everybody’s thing.
Misty McConachie
May 17th, 2007
Sexual ageplay is also likely to be illegal in Australia under existing Crimes Acts in several states.
From a recent ABC news interview:
REPORTER: “While it seems that virtual depictions of child pornography in the United States are not illegal, Conor O’Brien from the Victoria Law Society believes that here in Australia it would be.”
CONOR O’BRIEN: “Section 67 of the Victorian Crimes Act defines child pornography as a film, photograph, publication or computer game that describes or depicts a person who is or appears to be a minor engaging in sexual activity.
So from that it’s a very, very specifically drafted definition, and anybody who falls foul of that can be charged.
In the situation where we have virtual sex, if it’s an adult who’s pretending to be a child, then there’s an arguable case that a person could be found guilty of producing child pornography.”
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1920981.htm
*cough*
Still think my claim that sexual ageplay could be illegal in Australia is completely groundless Angel?
Inigo Chamerberlin
May 17th, 2007
‘Secular Europe’? Oh! You mean METROPOLITAN FRANCE?
Don’t make the mistake of believing that the EU is a huge uniform state, though the EU administration would very much like that to be the case, it isn’t.
There are huge differences between, for example, the southern European states (Italy, Spain, Portugal) and the northern states. The southern states, indeed, the southern part of France for that matter, are much less secular than the northern states for example.
Holland is amazingly secular and liberal – Germany much less so. The UK, well, madly politically correct would be an apt description. Scandinavia tends to be more balanced. The former Warsaw pact countries are amazingly varied, staunchly religious Poland, the Balkan states where intolerance recently reached a high not seen since WW2, and the remainder, fairly middle of the road.
No, Europe can by no means be described as ‘Secular’. Any more than America can be described as ‘Religious’, despite the deals it’s current leadership entered into to secure their position.
In the same way that you need to move about America and experience the mix of cultures to attempt to understand what the situation is. After all, a southern ‘Bible Belt’ state will give a very different impression to, say, California? You also need to do the same in Europe. Poland for instance would give you a very different view to Holland, and France is in fact split in it’s attitude between the Metropolitan Elite of the north, and the rural south…
Labels can be very misleading. Especially when applied to larger populations than the US.
SoboSobocinski
May 17th, 2007
Prokofy Neva. I agree with you. Nothing is holy here. What I meant is that we treat everybody alike. Some can say that the paper was “pissing on Islam”, but here it is part of “freedom” to question anything including what ever Christianity or any other religion on the same line as questioning political leaders of any observance. From people here it is not considered especially aggressive to any one, but merely a right to point out you opinion. It has been likes this for decades, and, in my opinion, the only danger is, if it becomes OK to question one religion and not the other. Of course this thing about ridiculing religions is easier in a country where few really believe in anything even most of us would say we are Christians if asked directly. Maybe that has also a historical side. Today it is “only” about faith, but you should only go a few centuries back, and the the Church was a real power factor in Europe. The Church collected taxes, and had courts. It could even put the death sentence on peoples heads. Keeping that in mind it is not much different to challenge the Church (or Islam which still today have those powers in some countries) than to challenge any other authorities. And that is why I think that it is acceptable.
And I hope that people also in the US understand that this was not a Crusade against Islam, but merely a defense of of the right of freedom of speech as it is seen in our country. Still many places in the world today, religion is not only faith, and challenging the local religion in power can be a matter of life and death. Of course you should not insult people for fun, but it is acceptable to question powers that can pose real threats to people, whatever those powers are political or religious. The whole thing in Denmark was ejected by real threats to people for stating their fair opinions, including a murder on a Dutch film maker. I know that those views are very different in Europe and the US, probably due to our different backgrounds. But as you know, many Americans fled Europe centuries ago due to persecution from religious powers of those times. You solved this by creating a society of multiple religions. We solved it in our own backyard by simply slowly taking away the powers of the church until it is what it is today. So of course we are a bit on our marks when introduced to a new religion (new for us that is)which still contains many of the traditions the Church used to have and which we have successfully overcome.
Anyway, this should not be about religions. I just wanted to say that, yes we have different views about certain things, but that does not mean freedom of speech is valued less in one country than the other. The issue is protecting children against abuse, and here the general attitude is that accepting it in even a cartoon will make it a little more acceptable for some people. And this problem is not just a game. It is the reality for thousands of children, not only in remote places of the world, but even in our own back yard. So, in my eyes, the right for protecting real innocent people, especially children, against abuse comes forward. That is why I think it is OK that the authorities take an aggressive stance against pedophiles. Not very different than the war against terrorism, which also by many people (maybe especially in Europe) is seen as very intrusive with the increased surveillance and logging of almost anything that is taking place on the internet. But we all agree that it is done to protect life and health of innocent people, and therefore acceptable for most of us any way as a necessary pest of our lives.
humanoid
May 17th, 2007
This is a motive I’ve suspected from the start. Though I don’t understand why they’re so hot to open an overseas office, other than to ease receipt of subscription payments. I haven’t heard complaints about server latency from non-USA users.
I certainly wouldn’t want to compromise the integrity of my civil rights by opening a branch outside of the USA, but they apparently think the degradation of free speech rights is worth it. This would bother me less if SL didn’t depend so much on freedom of expression for its worth as a product.
But LL isn’t the first internet company to go this route. Yahoo and eBay were perfectly glad to bend over and take it from the Euros when their thoughtcrime enforcers whined about WW2 memorabilia auctions. And they’re all working overtime to play the part of stool pigeon in red China.
Lucius Nesterov
May 17th, 2007
I’m really surprised that the US hasn’t produced more hysteria regarding age-play, considering the over-reaction to ‘hot coffee’; where a game that includes excessive violence, drugs and crime is rated for 17+, but when some simulated grinding (without penis attachments) is discovered there is government involvement and legal action to move it to 18+. It’s a fact that there are minors currently in Second Life, and LL may already be breaking US law by exposing them to adult material.
As for asking why the two adults involved in age play were banned, the quote of Robin Linden posted by Prok that they had actual child porn images seems justification enough. You can say “they were consenting adults”; yes consenting adults that acquired and decorated their surroundings with images of child abuse while acting out similar scenes.
LL had to restrict casinos because they broke US law, and now they’re having to restrict age-play because it breaks several other countries laws. SL is accessed internationally so its expected. However, the implementation of age-verification and self-enforced parcel labelling will allow LL to wash their hands of it to some extent. If someone is accused of breaking a law, LL can say “this is the person that owns that land, here are their registration details, they’re the one’s you should prosecute”.
Ultimately though, if US citizens in SL are in the minority, then your laws and values become the least significant. If the UK, Germany, Australia, The Netherlands etc, think its illegal, but the US doesn’t, then I’m afraid you’re out-voted. Maybe you’ll just have to wait until the server becomes open-source to make your child brothel.
Joshua Perenti
May 17th, 2007
Frankly! Well said Inigo. Some people really do misunderstand europe!!! And I think some US people may need to step out of thier bubble and reflect on how the US actually operates and conducts it self now! And more so who it apears to the rest of the world.
Joshua Perenti
May 17th, 2007
How* not who sorry
Prokofy Neva
May 17th, 2007
Sobo, I realize you’re still fighting the crusades, but they’ve been over for some centuries — or I take that back, perhaps you’ll need to fight another round of them, who the hell knows. The point is, the Church is not a reality anymore as it once was as some kind of oppressive phenomenon and Americans don’t perceive it that way. There are churches in America with lesbians for the pastors and gay men’s choirs. There’s just about every single belief system. And even those who are in mainstream religions like Catholics don’t practice the Catholicism purveyed by the Pope from the Vatican, but widely believe in the use of birth control and find nothing so terribly about sex before marriage. So the climate can still be about religious belief, spirituality, yet not be about some kind of oppressive stifling *state power* as you perceive it.
The Church isn’t collecting taxes anymore, take a deep breath.
Of course you should not insult people for fun, but it is acceptable to question powers that can pose real threats to people, whatever those powers are political or religious. The whole thing in Denmark was ejected by real threats to people for stating their fair opinions, including a murder on a Dutch film maker.
The Dutch film-maker story is more complex as it seems, as he himself was as a figure. I guess I’m not seeing the “powers” that are represented by millions of poor Muslim immigrants. I guess the way that the U.S. handles millions of poor Muslim immigrants is so different that the society doesn’t come to perceive them as some “power or threat”. And what is that handling? A freer economy than what is available in unionized and socialist Europe, for one, where there are many more odd jobs and entrpreneurial opportunities for starting a small business, getting a loan, runnning a taxi cab. People in business whose livlihoods depend on tolerance of a variety of faiths tend to have to get along with their neighbours and tend not to put money in the collection box on Saturdays at the mosque to blow them up.
>I know that those views are very different in Europe and the US, probably due to our different backgrounds. But as you know, many Americans fled Europe centuries ago due to persecution from religious powers of those times. You solved this by creating a society of multiple religions. We solved it in our own backyard by simply slowly taking away the powers of the church until it is what it is today.
And you get what you get. Europe is a burnt out place.
>So of course we are a bit on our marks when introduced to a new religion (new for us that is)which still contains many of the traditions the Church used to have and which we have successfully overcome.
Well, what is the solution? Have no immigration? Europe takes in far less immigrants than the U.S. And also some countries like France seem to hold them on public welfare far longer than the U.S. does, and maybe all these policies need to be revisited.
>Anyway, this should not be about religions. I just wanted to say that, yes we have different views about certain things, but that does not mean freedom of speech is valued less in one country than the other.
Actually, it is Europe that has collectively less tolerance for freedom of speech of the First Amendment type. That’s why people take their libel suits to London to venue-shop.
And this problem is not just a game. It is the reality for thousands of children, not only in remote places of the world, but even in our own back yard. So, in my eyes, the right for protecting real innocent people, especially children, against abuse comes forward. That is why I think it is OK that the authorities take an aggressive stance against pedophiles. Not very different than the war against terrorism, which also by many people (maybe especially in Europe) is seen as very intrusive with the increased surveillance and logging of almost anything that is taking place on the internet. But we all agree that it is done to protect life and health of innocent people, and therefore acceptable for most of us any way as a necessary pest of our lives.
Well, ultimately it is a longer conversation to have with Europeans about their propensity for extremist ideologies such as we saw in the totalitarianisms in the 20th century, but it’s a conversation more addressed to Old Europe of Germany, France, and Great Britain, and not Scandinavia.
Prokofy Neva
May 17th, 2007
‘Secular Europe’? Oh! You mean METROPOLITAN FRANCE?
Don’t make the mistake of believing that the EU is a huge uniform state, though the EU administration would very much like that to be the case, it isn’t.
Well, Inigo, no need to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian and ignore the numerous polls out there, such as by Pew Charitable Trust etc etc. that plainly explain all this for those who bother to look into it: broadly speaking, Europe is secular, and broadly speaking, America is religious. The numbers of Europeans who check off a poll saying they are believers is far lower than the 75 percent in the U.S. That may shock you because YOU aren’t in those broad democraphics but a bit of cursory Internet googling will show you that this is the case.
Of course Catholic Poland or secular humanist San Francisco are the polar extremes here, but they are just that — polar extremes and not the broad norm.
>There are huge differences between, for example, the southern European states (Italy, Spain, Portugal) and the northern states. The southern states, indeed, the southern part of France for that matter, are much less secular than the northern states for example.
So? And your point is…what? It’s more secular German that made the big fuss about the ageplayers we’re all looking at. Go know.
>Holland is amazingly secular and liberal – Germany much less so. The UK, well, madly politically correct would be an apt description. Scandinavia tends to be more balanced. The former Warsaw pact countries are amazingly varied, staunchly religious Poland, the Balkan states where intolerance recently reached a high not seen since WW2, and the remainder, fairly middle of the road.
This is an inaccurate characterization, to say the least. Holland has a huge very fervently religious Muslim population — are you not counting them now all of a sudden? Germany has a hugely liberal population — what, you’re counting only some village? Intolerance about ethnicity doesn’t always track on religious grounds but the fact is — in the Balkans the Muslims, Catholics, and Orthodox all remain very religious and the communist past didn’t make as much of an inroad there as elsewhere.
>No, Europe can by no means be described as ‘Secular’. Any more than America can be described as ‘Religious’, despite the deals it’s current leadership entered into to secure their position.
Of course it can. Because broadly speaking polls show that. One country has “In God We Trust” printed on the dollar and many towns with four churches on the four corners, and the other continent has no religious symbolism on the money and no church-goers. This has nothing to do with the current leadership, for which you like to blaim all ills.
>In the same way that you need to move about America and experience the mix of cultures to attempt to understand what the situation is. After all, a southern ‘Bible Belt’ state will give a very different impression to, say, California?
Again, I have no doubt in my mind, that even in secular liberal GLBT San Francisco, stop the average person on the street, show them a video of ageplay in SL, and watch the frown of consternation on their face. They will not support it. It is not a majority point of view, even among the liberal secular humanist demographic. It is an extremist and sectarian view. People are forgetting that and losing track of their bearings in this discussion — they are suffering from the SL bends where it seems as if one shout is way too loud and one molecule of oxygen is enough to double you in half in pain.
Everything is exaggerated.
>You also need to do the same in Europe. Poland for instance would give you a very different view to Holland, and France is in fact split in it’s attitude between the Metropolitan Elite of the north, and the rural south…
And I have no doubt that the broad masses even of the more secularized would NOT repeat NOT be mounting this sectarian and extremist belief that “it’s ok because it’s only pixels”.
>Labels can be very misleading. Especially when applied to larger populations than the US.
No, they are useful for understanding what’s going on here. And part of the problem for Europe is that precisely because they’ve chased religion out of civic life for the reasons Sobo outlined, they have no dimension for the moral and the spiritual to take place. That is why the moral and the spiritual then creep into other venues of tabloid TV and politics and morality issues like child porn rings can become hugely exaggerated litmus tests for how moral the society it is and how well it will take care of its most vulnerable.
Jo Newell
May 17th, 2007
I agree with everything in the issue apart from blame Europe for this issue arising.
How quickly people forget that the reason casinos and honest betting is all but gone is due to US law which in some areas seems entirely based on christian teachings. As well as this i expect the US would look to be quicker to condem age play than the EU.
Yes age play is a sensitive subject and i have no argument about that. What i dont like is blaming europe for it which throughout the article becomes more making Europe a scapegoat for an activity which a small minority of a multi national secondlife community takes part in.
Phantom
May 17th, 2007
I’m a little rusty on my business laws, but if I remember. Your only responsible for the laws where your business is operating. in other words, LL is right now (unless I missed something) only operate from the US, and so only have to deal with US law. how ever LL wants to place some servers over in EU, so they will have to deal with the laws in what country they put up shop.
and again, there was real child porn in this case, illegal in the US. you may say that LL is afraid because they physically have it on there hard drivers, but remember this is the virtual world, and you can take legal action when some one prim copies your items. so why can’t some one take legal action against you if you have in your inventory child porn?
Pauleh Kamachi
May 17th, 2007
Ageplay is plain sick, no need to tip toe around it.
Inigo Chamerberlin
May 17th, 2007
‘Well, Inigo, no need to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian’ – Oh? ‘Contrarian’ am I? Well, hello there pot…
To pick but one of your factoids:
‘One country has “In God We Trust” printed on the dollar and many towns with four churches on the four corners, and the other continent has no religious symbolism on the money and no church-goers.’
Indeed, ever hear of the Roman Catholic church? The Quakers, The Methodists, The Church of England, a growing Muslim population’s mosques, a growing Hindu and Sikh population’s temples – and that’s without minority religious groups?
All in insignificant ruins I suppose, due to lack of support because no one in Europe goes to church?
As for the coinage, the first coin that I pull from my pocket is a current issue English one, running around the perimeter are the words ‘ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA FIDEI DEFENSOR’ – I’ll assume you have sufficient education to know what that means?
And the rest of your specious arguments are no more accurate. Still, one can only suppose you work on the basis of ‘If I don’t know – I’ll just make something convincing up’.
Which really does confirm what I’ve thought for some time – you don’t argue from conviction, moral superiority, or a position of greater knowledge, but merely for the sake of argument. Which makes discussion involving you utterly pointless.
Oh, and this is the point at which you generally begin hurling personal abuse – feel free – I believe we all recognise that’s your last resort.
Lucius Nesterov
May 17th, 2007
Prok, you have a long track record of turning neutral people into adversaries, and I’d prefer not to be one of them, but saying “Europe is a burnt out place” runs close to trolling.
shockwave yareach
May 17th, 2007
If LL wants to say that Ageplay is verbotten because of their company policies, then so be it. And really, the only sleep I’ll lose over the loss of the sexual ageplayers is the sword now hanging over all our collective heads. Tomorrow someone in some European backwater may decide that violent videogames are no different than murder, which is exactly the language in this issue. So all the combat and weapons will be ordered out then? The French may object to all the Gorean subjection of women even though it is consensual. All the goreans gotta go then to keep some French PM happy? What, are we going to allow Jordan to tell us all that every female AV has to wear a veil or burka next because their laws require it?
Where is LL going to draw the line? I mean, really draw the line? You can make some people happy all the time or all people happy some of the time. But it is impossible to make all the people happy all of the time. Just because I find ageplay distasteful doesn’t mean I agree that SL has to kowtow to every cretin who might be offended that someone somewhere in the game is doing something they don’t like. And if you think the effort to Disneyfy SL is going to end here, read a history book – give someone an inch of power and they take a mile.
Hazim Gazov
May 17th, 2007
>>I blame Pixeleen Mistral for continue to post pro-abusive and repulsive child rape propaganda.
Posted by: Wrestling Hulka | May 17, 2007 at 12:45 AM <<
I’d hardly say that’s pro-abusive and repulsive child rape propoganda. I challenge you to find a section of that article where Pixeleen advocates or downplays any fact about ageplay, or promotes child abuse.
Unlike your typical article by Prokofy, the article was relatively unbiased with several references listed.
I don’t know what article you’re reading, but it’s obviously not the same one as I am.
Joshua Perenti
May 17th, 2007
@Lucius Nesterov I agree, i remain neutral, i read the stories and the blog everyday and rarely comment. However a headline “Blame Europe” and comments such as “Europe is a burnt out place” I find offensive.
Just hammers home the reason why the vast majority of Europe, Middle East, and Australasia think the USA is a bigoted, self-righteous nation. Who think they are the best, the know what is best for all of us. Second life is a great place as it mixes every one, sex, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation together and for the best part works pretty well. It’s a society of many not few. It’s a shame to have the Americans labelling us – again!!!
By the way my comments are not aimed at the majority of Americans, I have a great number of friends in the US RL & SL, just a shame the most ‘outspoken’ are the ones who help us frame such a negative image of a country on the brink.
Hazim Gazov
May 17th, 2007
Personally, I love Europe! Without Europe, we wouldn’t have Russia, and I do so love my Lenin!
Uncle Smellypants
May 17th, 2007
At what age is it okay to have sex with an AV? What if the AV *looks* 18 to some, but looks 16 to someone else? Is it all about breast size?
Is it still okay to have sex with a 38 year old midget AV in boy scout uniform?
What about a sexy AV that appears distinctly over 20 but has a childish speech impediment and calls you daddy when she orgasms? “Who’s your daddy?” – “Oh papi, you are, you are!” – “Thas right!”
Or lets say you pick up an old decrepid hooker and she suddenly morphs into a 12 year old AV in the middle of it to extort money?
Is there an AV age identifier? Do we cut it in half and count the rings?
If I were you perverts (and I’m not), I’d demand a document outlining exactly what constitutes an underage AV and what doesn’t – with pics of course.
Can you still pretend to brutally murder a child AV? Is that still okay?
What if we leave a child AV in a car for several hours in the hot sun? Can they get you for that?
Lets say a Child AV teleports to your land and her shoes and hair get shoved up her butt – can she report you?
So many unanswered questions! I think we should just simply make another “Teen Grid” and let the Europeans use that. Hell, they don’t even speak English anyways – its some form of Polish or French or something, I don’t know what it is – it just sounds funny.
csven
May 17th, 2007
Personally, I find *all* displays of public affection offensive, so I’ll be glad when India becomes the largest market and we can ban public kissing.
Now excuse me while I log into HL2, grab my crowbar and beat other (more realistic) avatars into bloody piles of quivering gibs.
Lewis Nerd
May 17th, 2007
Wake up America… there is a lot of world outside of your borders, and the world does not revolve around you, your laws, or your standards.
I guess nobody else noticed that “speech” is words, either in written or vocal form. Since when has making a child avatar been a form of “speech”?
Lewis
Hazim Gazov
May 17th, 2007
>>I guess nobody else noticed that “speech” is words<<
There’s also a freedom of expression.
Uncle Smellypants
May 17th, 2007
Lewis – I haven’t even had my coffee yet. Give me a few mins I’ll wake up.
In America, we have what are called “laws” that are clearly defined, not based on arbitrary thoughts. “Hmm – looks like a drawing of a duck – so it’s a DUCK! Get the bread!!!”
Haha – just ribbin’ ya Lewis. I know you guys over there in Europe aren’t exactly cavemen.
Just leave it to us Americans to run the world – we know what we’re doing. And we have big giant A-Bombs.
And if you look at the way the equator wraps around the globe, you will realize that yes, the world DOES indeed revolve around us. Actually it turns and spins with us careening around the outer edge. We all hang on in the middle and hope we don’t fly off and land in Hanover or someplace like that.
Besides – Europe is so tiny compared to us – it barely even covers China fer cripes sake. Maybe instead of 2 grids, they could fashion the SL world to have the same contenents as the real globe and everybody can live in their own part of the world with their own rules. Burkas for people in Iraq and full cavity searches for foreigners entering or leaving the USA part of the grid/globe.
(I hope you’re not taking me seriously, I’m just in the mood for some some dumb amerikan humor to break up the seriousness here and maybe get Prok to yell at me)
csven
May 17th, 2007
“I guess nobody else noticed that “speech” is words, either in written or vocal form.
Piarowski v. Illinois Community College, 759 F.2d 625, 628 (7th Cir.) -”The freedom of speech and of the press protected by the First Amendment has been interpreted to embrace purely artistic as well as political expression.”. cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1007 (1985).
Serra v. United States Gen. Servs. Admin., 847 F.2d 1045, 1048 (2d Cir.1988)”…artistic expression constitutes speech for First Amendment purposes…”.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989)”We have long recognized that its protection [the First Amendment's] does not end at the spoken or written word.”
Lewis Nerd
May 17th, 2007
Ah well… more fucked up american laws I guess.
Lewis
Rebel Television
May 17th, 2007
The point someone made about Hot Coffee in GTA: San Andreas was interesting. Jack Thompson has yet to take an interest in Second Life, probably because despite all the attention from CNN and Reuters and Digg and whatever, the average person hasn’t even heard of it. I think that would change if someone waved the ONE MILLION ACCOUNTS!!! number in his face, and showed him that German investigation. Maybe he’d make an avatar, and we could all cageorbit him >:)
csven
May 17th, 2007
“Ah well… more fucked up american laws I guess.”
Many of which had their roots in or were preceed by European laws (Copyright, Child Labor, aso). Perhaps *freedom* of expression didn’t, but then monarchies tend to suppress that sort of thing, don’t they?
Personally, I’m with you, Lewis. Those people in Thailand making funny pictures of their ruler and getting YouTube banned for showing them? OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! (or maybe we can use crowbars and beat them into little gibs of quivering flesh and bone which is acceptable to everyone I’m sure)
csven
May 17th, 2007
“Ah well… more fucked up american laws I guess.”
Many of which had their roots in or were preceded by European laws (Copyright, Child Labor, aso). Perhaps *freedom* of expression of the sort now codified in the U.S. didn’t, but then monarchies tend to suppress that sort of thing, don’t they?
Personally, I’m with you, Lewis. Those people in Thailand making funny pictures of their ruler and getting YouTube banned for showing them? OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! It’s fucked up not to let the ruling class decapitate people for expressing themselves with funny pictures.
Kahni Poitier
May 17th, 2007
REQUIRE a credit card, and MANDATORY age verification.
Nothing can be said to have been done with a minor then. Consensually, or non.
Uncle Smellypants
May 17th, 2007
Weird laws in the US? Hmmmm…
Well, according to http://www.strangefacts.com, in Miami, Florida, it is forbidden to imitate an animal. So if you’re a furry from Miami, you’re BUSTED, Jack! Up against the tree!
In West Virginia – only babies can ride in baby carriages. Ageplayers must walk (crawl, or toddle).
In Washington State, it’s illegal to carry a concealed weapon over 6 ft (2M) long. Weapons developers in SL better pay attention to where their customers live.
In Phoenix Arizona it’s illegal to walk through a hotel lobby with spurs on – bling and poofers are okay. No spurs – got that Tex?
In Hollywood, you can’t herd more than 3000 sheep at a time down the street. I only mention this one because I know some of you perverts have probably already considered it. Don’t do it!
There are SOO MANY cool laws we can enforce – why focus only on the ugly ones?
Staheli
May 17th, 2007
So we discuss, what continent is better?
Lets protect children everywhere, but not prosecute adults for their fantasy.
After this we may condemn different laws.
btw: I’m from Europe.
NigrasOnMyLawn
May 17th, 2007
i lol at the fags that want to rape children in SL
FrizzleFry
May 17th, 2007
you shouldnt be whineing about ur rite to rape children on ur computer, you should be asking yourself why you want to rape children in the first place
FrizzleFry
May 17th, 2007
spelling ftw
Prokofy Neva
May 17th, 2007
<"I guess nobody else noticed that "speech" is words, either in written or vocal form.
Um, but you forget Brandenberg v. Ohio — and if you want to play dueling Supreme Court decisions, at least find lawyers to play, don’t play at home, kids.
Csven, you’re playing Internet lawyer again. You are not a lawyer in RL and you don’t even play one in SL.
You can’t know how THIS MATERIAL will be reviewed once courts focus on it. It’s very immersive, realistic, and may very well be correlated to real pornography in higher percentages than anyone is willing so far to admit.
Your desire for freedom of speech is touching. I share it. However, at a certain point, licentiousness of speech verges into crime when it becomes incitement or obscenity, even by Supreme Court lights.
AND, more to the point, college campuses, offices, clubs, aren’t obliged to enforce First Amendment *speech* protections of their members, as that would conflict with the *other piece* of the First Amendment many would like to forget which is *freedom of assembly*. So in order to have the *freedom of your group to do what it wants* that means you as a group — or company, in this case — may decide that “ageplay” is just not something you wish to tolerate, and then you are not somehow obliged to make *within the confines of your group* those rights available to all, who, after all, if they don’t like YOUR group can go make ThEIR OWN with their own website and virtual world to accommodate their own concept.
See how it works? This constant banging on “fucked up American laws” by yahoos like Lewis are forgetting that freedom means freedom from political correctness, too.
Carl Metropolitan
May 17th, 2007
Lewis Nerd wrote:
“Instead of blaming Europe, why not blame the US for the messed up distinction between child porn (that involves real children) and child porn (which to all intents and purposes involves real children but doesn’t), then this wouldn’t have happened in the first place.”
I might disagree with you here Lewis, I had any clue what you meant. I’ve read that sentence several times and still am not clear on what you are saying.
Lewis Nerd wrote:
“Face it. You’re just pissed that the US doesn’t get its way for a change. No doubt the only reason that Linden Lab are able to comply is because Germany isn’t well known for its oil deposits otherwise they’d have declared war on it.”
No–I’m wrote an analysis of the difference between European laws and US laws on the subject and how that difference likely impacted Linden Lab’s recent policy change. You are free to take it as some sort of advocacy piece, if you choose.
As for declaring war on Germany–isn’t twice in one century enough?
Lewis Nerd
May 17th, 2007
It’s quite simple Carl. If there wasn’t the distinction in US law between ‘actual’ children and what looks like children, then the US laws would be the same as they are in Germany.
There’s only one thing the ‘free speech’ gang forget. SL is a private place, so the US constitution does not apply.
Lewis
Pedobear
May 17th, 2007
Aww… I was SO looking forward to that aspect of SL!
Carl Metropolitan
May 17th, 2007
Prokofy Neva wrote:
“Once again, as I’ve had to say each time someone invokes “Ashcroft”: that decision was made about material that in no way resembles what we have in Second Life, but was made about 17-year-old school-girl types, and once the courts begin to look at the material of SL, this concept that the U.S. Supreme Court will adopt the licentious extremism of SL sectarians who say “they are only pixels” will be sorely tested.”
I think you may be confusing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) with another case. Ashcroft did not arise out of an appeal of a child pornography and/or obscenity prosecution, but from a lawsuit against the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) itself by the Free Speech Coalition (a porn industry trade group). This was not a case where a court had to apply the Miller test to determine whether something was obscene or not.
In a pre-enforcement challenge, the FSC applied to the Northern District of California for an injunction against enforcement the provisions in question of the CPPA. In Free Speech Coalition v. Reno (1997), that court granted a summary judgment to the government declaring that the CPPA was constitutional. The FSC appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the lower courts decision. From there the case went to the US Supreme Court where it was decided in favor of the FSC in a 6 to 3 decision. Though lawyers of both sides of the case offered examples of materials that hypothetically might or might not be covered by the CPPA in their arguments, none of the courts involved decided the case based on any specific instance of “virtual child pornography”.
Prokofy Neva wrote:
“Indeed, once any court has to begin to look at this very issue you raise, Carl, of “indistinguishable”; once they have to look at the test for obscenity, they may rule differently.”
Keep in mind that in the article above I was only addressing the overturning of the CPPA based on based on First Amendment law. The Supreme Court has long held there exists a class of works that are obscene and not protected by the First Amendment. If something like the sexual “ageplay” that (sadly) exists in Second Life were prosecuted as obscene, the case might have turned out differently—and a similar case still could in the future. I’m guessing that such a case would turn on both Miller test issues and whether such sexual “ageplay” were considered a public performance.
Prokofy Neva wrote:
“You can’t predict this though you might speculate. Legal opinions not by bloggers by real lawyers will differ on this.”
Absolutely right—this is speculation and analysis. I make no pretense to anything else. I’m not a lawyer; I’m not even a blogger…
Prokofy Neva wrote:
“So Carl, whether you and other would-be civil libertarians like it or not, whether you are personally finding the First Amendment test is met here or not, here’s what you will have to accept:”
Just a point here–my article was in no way intended as any sort of moral or ethical defense of sexual “ageplay” in Second Life. As far as I’m concerned, there is none. It was intended a look at some of the legal issues surrounding the practice and how they may have impacted LL’s decision making.
Prokofy Neva wrote:
“But you can’t fault LL’s actions, in my view, as being the ones that a business has to take on the Internet.”
I’m not faulting Linden Lab’s actions here; if I was running Linden Lab, I’d have banned sexual “ageplay” under existing ToS and Community Standards back when it first reared its appalling head. Just because something is not illegal, does not mean any organization has a duty to facilitate it. Though I will admit to a bit of amusement at how fast their former laid-back, California-style, “it’s all consenting adults” attitude evaporated.
Prokofy Neva wrote:
“Truly, the irony for me is that this threat to the creativity of SL — if we are to posit that it is — comes not from the religious United States with its Moral Majority but from the supposedly more liberal and secular Europe. Go know.”
Threat to the creativity and openness of Second Life comes if Linden Lab ends up applying other restrictive European laws, such as those affecting some types of political, religious, and cultural debate.
Prokofy Neva
May 17th, 2007
Carl,
I think you may be confusing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) with another case. Ashcroft did not arise out of an appeal of a child pornography and/or obscenity prosecution, but from a lawsuit against the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) itself by the Free Speech Coalition (a porn industry trade group). This was not a case where a court had to apply the Miller test to determine whether something was obscene or not.
No, I’m not confusing it. And no, I’m just as much of an Internet lawyer and Internet googler as you are. And yes, I can read the entire case, and yes, I can see that where the CPAA *case* did not hinge on the Miller test for obscenity, *any new suit that made allegation about SL material would be perfectly free to invoke a Miller test for obscenity*. I’ve made this point everywhere about 10 times now and I don’t get why it’s so hard for people to accept.
A Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land. But nothing stops you from mounting a new case, with new allegations, with new claims, and new calls for a new obscenity test. The CPAA lawsuit is a counter suit against a ruling trying to get it overturned. But a new case in a lower court would involve getting SL material declared obscene and objectionable as child pornography, and upon appeal, it could make its away back up to the Supreme Court again in theory where these prior rulings would be no protection, IMHO, because the nature of the material being presented is DIFFERENT IN KIND AND SEVERITY AND COULD MEET THE TEST.
BINGO. And that's my point. In that countersuit to overturn the application of a law, it's one thing what they presented to make the case there, and the case didn't hinge on obscenity tests. A new case with new material with new points COULD.
As far as I'm concerned, there is none.
Carl, you and other bloggers -- and you are a blogger if you publish an article in the Herald! -- are having an awfully hard time being able to CONDEMN the ageplay stuff in your zeal to protect civil rights. We all want to have protection of freedom of speech. Why can't we ALSO, even while affirming these freedoms, condemn what is despicable? That's not a loyalty test, that's not MacArthyism, it's just community condemnation of what should not be allowed in Second Life, which, after all, is not yet proven to be the common carrier and Mall of America that everyone wishes it were, but is still like the Boy Scouts in terms of case precedents and analogies. And maybe that's a good thing, I'm not certain.
>I’m not faulting Linden Lab’s actions here; if I was running Linden Lab, I’d have banned sexual “ageplay” under existing ToS and Community Standards back when it first reared its appalling head. Just because something is not illegal, does not mean any organization has a duty to facilitate it. Though I will admit to a bit of amusement at how fast their former laid-back, California-style, “it’s all consenting adults” attitude evaporated.
I’m curious why you didn’t feel comfortable SAYING this exactly as you just did in your essay then, Carl. Is it that you feel uncomfortable in this rah-rah zealous atmosphere that has formed around this issue, whereby if you don’t look like you are genuflecting in four compass directions to the almighty First Amendment, you are some kind of repressive net-nanny? The repressive net-nannies are ageplayers who inflicted this issue on us in their selfish zeal to enlarge their own dubious “freedoms” and who now risk the the overall boundaries of expression and access because of it.
I’m not saying that each and every issue has to be looked at as the “communnnnity” and anyone jeopardizing the “commuuuunity” — I think there are a wildly differing variety of communities and SL can only at best be a public commons. But some *compliance with law* and some *moral self restraint* could have long ago been imparted to this world if its makers were not dope-smoking hippies.
as for the rest of the freedom of speech stuff, I remember trying in vain to explain this to Philip Linden at SLCC 1, and he even got sort of chagrined and disappointed that I wasn’t just listening to him with my mouth open in awe, but was trying to set *him* straight.
He had this utopian vision of the platform open to everyone all over and this utopian space where a France or a Brain or a Belarus for that matter couldn’t come after SL with its more restrictive libel laws or even draconian press laws because they wouldn’t apply, the citizen would be in a space and expressing in a space that was unreachable. At least, that’s what I gathered he was saying. But he also seemed to apply that IF those communities had to apply those local laws, well, they would, but that would never impact *the rest* of SL. This was probably his accelerated vision of the open-sourced host-your-own SL that he was always walking around with in his head and thinking about in that way, before we ourselves were thinking of it and trying patiently to explain to him the realities of the world as we saw it actually “on the ground” so to speak (in the air?).
And now we see that in fact German child porn laws can not only impact Germans, they can overthrow licentious Californians and get them to roll back their options. What next, some fussy British or French politician who feels that some resident from their country who doesn’t like their phony campaign promises should be sued for libel, and surprised Linden Lab, living in the land of Times v. Sullivan, decides they need to curb this speech for all of us in SL because of these flightly Euros? (Actually, I’d urge them to look at Lingens v. Austria in the European Court of Human Rights before they get too far with imposing that on SL).
Angel
May 17th, 2007
Misty, Yes, I still dispute that pixelated sex in SL is illegal in Victoria despite you pulling a quote verbatim from the news. Based on real world legal advice from the same act:
—————————————————————–
(1A) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against sub-section (1) to prove, in the case of—
(a) a film; or
(b) a photograph contained in a publication; or
(c) a computer game—
that at the time of the alleged offence the film, publication or computer game was classified other than RC or X or X 18+ or would, if classified, be classified other than RC or X or X 18+.
——————————————————————–
At this time in Victoria SL is not classified RC, X or X18+, therefore this defense overrides the section 67A definition of child pornography.
Pixel children having sex is only illegal if the computer game is R rated or worse.
That said… the definition in Section 67 is definately interesting and provides maybe another defense. It specifically states two things, that the pixel image represents “a person” and that person “appears to be under 18″
I’m not a person in SL (I’m over 200 years old – as stated in my profile) and my age based on appearance is a grey area, in terms of my species I am fairly young, but then our species lives for millenia.
So, I am not “a person” and my age “appears to be within a few centuries” of 18.
csven
May 17th, 2007
“Csven, you’re playing Internet lawyer again. You are not a lawyer in RL and you don’t even play one in SL.”
Please note that I didn’t offer up an opinion on American law. “Yahoo” Lewis did that all by his little self. Maybe *he’s* playing Internet lawyer? So why not take this up with Lewis? Maybe he needs to be told the obvious: that he’s “not a lawyer in RL and [doesn't] even play one in SL”.
-
“You can’t know how THIS MATERIAL will be reviewed once courts focus on it. It’s very immersive, realistic, and may very well be correlated to real pornography in higher percentages than anyone is willing so far to admit.”
I don’t recall saying I did know. Please point out where I claimed anything of the sort or STFU.
-
“Your desire for freedom of speech is touching. I share it. However, at a certain point, licentiousness of speech verges into crime when it becomes incitement or obscenity, even by Supreme Court lights.”
Don’t get all wet, Prok. I’m not at all interested in touching you and certainly have no interest in *being* touched by you.
That out of the way, you seem to be contradicting yourself yet again. I mean, one minute you blather on how I can’t know how the courts will finally rule on this issue and the next you’re suggesting that the Supreme Court *must* see that this passes some “certain point”.
Hello?
-
“AND, more to the point…blah, blah, blah”
Actually, you’ve once again gotten OFF the point.
Let’s review, since you’ve obviously lost the brain cells to retain this for any length of time:
a) Lewis tried to be cute and inform everyone that the First Amendment uses the word “speech” and that (somehow) anything else wouldn’t be covered.
b) I provided references indicating that the issue had, in fact, been addressed.
c) Lewis, realizing he wasn’t so cute after all and not having anything else cute to say, decided to simply offer his overly broad and essentially worthless opinion on American law.
d) I informed Lewis that many American laws are based in European laws, hoping he had the intelligence to realize that if American laws were fucked up, then there was a good chance that European laws were equally fucked up.
That’s it.
Note, I never said there weren’t fucked up American laws and I never got into the issue you’re blathering on about. So wipe the foam off from around your mouth. Take a breather. Maybe head back over to Clickable Culture and vent your little mind over there. You never did offer a reply to our last exchange and running away is so unlike you. …. Okay. That’s not true. You seem to run away from our arguments more and more. Guess there *is* some sense left in that rotting grey matter you’re fermenting.
So, unless you want to put more words in my mouth, we’re done here.
warm fuzzies
May 17th, 2007
>Instead of blaming Europe, why not blame the US for the messed up distinction between child porn (that involves real children) and child porn (which to all intents and purposes involves real children but doesn’t), then this wouldn’t have happened in the first place.<
Agreed 100%. AgePlay has nothing to do with “freedom of speech”. It has to do with freedom of perversion. It is an amazement that people argue that “real” pedophelia is reprehenisble, wheras “playing” at pedophelia isn’t. Kahlil stated, “As a man thinketh, so is he.”
We have seen Linden Lab do a complete 180 degree turnaround in this issue. They’ve known about ageplay for months and months. There were forum and blog protests. There were pickets on SL against AgePlay. Linden Lab’s response was their typical “do nothing” reaction, leaning on their TOS and waving the “freedom of speech” flag as a rationalization for them not getting involved.
Now that the German government… which DOES have restrictions against virtual pedophelia, has gotten involved, suddenly Linden Lab is all “Oh… we would NEVER allow such terrible things here!” and to make their position absolutely understood, they ban two people for engaging in a practice that Linden Lab has accepted on their board for more than a year.
I hate pedophelia yeah. But I find hypocrisy and corporate propaganda somehow equally objectionable. Linden Lab has knowingly allowed just about every perverted activity on their board, including murder-rape clubs. For them to do a sudden 180 because oh no, our fat is in the fire, is almost laughable. I for one, hope the German government doesn’t buy that crap.
csven
May 17th, 2007
“It’s quite simple Carl. If there wasn’t the distinction in US law between ‘actual’ children and what looks like children, then the US laws would be the same as they are in Germany.”
Imagine that: a distinction between what’s “actual” and what’s “fantasy”. And the world wonders why the U.S. is a superpower. Thanks, Lewis. With people like you, the State Department doesn’t need a PR agency.
-
“There’s only one thing the ‘free speech’ gang forget. SL is a private place, so the US constitution does not apply.”
Still playing “Internet lawyer”, Lewis? hahaha. Good for you. If nothing else, it’s amusing.