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
Prokofy Neva
May 17th, 2007
“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’s disgusting and you’re a disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself, but them, you have no shame.
>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?
No contradiction. And no “must” except in your head. MAY. And I suggest they WILL see it’s different and the “fantasy/reality” distinction and firewall will not hold in the way everyone imagines.
“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
Lewis is right in the sense that the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court rulings about free expression may NOT apply as if SL is a club, or a private body like the Boy Scouts, as I’ve said a 100 times, and not the Mall of America. Honestly, csven you are so dense. You have to concede that YOUR vision of SL as a public mall and a common carrier isn’t legal and recognized reality yet. It remains to be seen. Even LL doesn’t quite make these claims, and with membership requiring verification more and more, it’s becoming harder and harder to claim it’s not a club in fact.
LL as a private corporation offering a private membership service is free to say that it does not wish to interpret simulated child pornography “liberally” or “like all the kewl kids” but wishes to ban it on its servers, full stop. The First Amendment *protects* free speech but it doesn’t enable zealots to *impose those extreme standards on others’ expression*. Try to grasp that distinction.
Prokofy Neva
May 17th, 2007
>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.
Oh, I don’t run away from arguments, but I can get busy and forget to follow up, or simply realize that you’ve already made yourself look so fucking ridiculous with your insane parsing of the drinking laws of America that I can only do one thing, and tell you to watch that dude down south on YouTube talk about that time he ran into the truck with the hogs on I-40 on the way to his son’s birthday, too bad I lost the link.
Morgana Fillion
May 17th, 2007
“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.”"
mm. I can find something reprehensible without regarding is as something that should be illegal (engaging in virtual pedophelia, where the ‘victim’ is a consenting adult). I don’t get it, I don’t like it – but I am far more outraged at what is suggested by your use of Kahlil’s aphorism.
Are you seriously suggesting that it’s appropriate to start down the path of penalizing people for thought crimes, based on your assumption that if they think it, they are it?
Are we going to round up all those video game players who have ever pretended to shoot someone, steal their car, or what have you? Is it better to enjoy blowing people’s virtual heads off than it is to plant a dimunitive avatar onto a poseball?
Morgana Fillion
May 17th, 2007
Mind you, if that dimunitive avatar is typing in fakey idiot-child lisps, then off with her head, because there is no excuse for that.
csven
May 17th, 2007
“It has to do with freedom of perversion.”
The Taliban seemed to do a decent job repressing anything resembling perversion ( http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F07E2DC1538F936A25752C0A9649C8B63 ). Maybe we should adopt their values.
-
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.”
“Real” pedophilia is… um… real. Playing at pedophilia is just… creepy, afaic. I think lots of things are creepy. That doesn’t mean I want to throw “creepy” people in prison. If we gave that power to the public, I’d venture most everyone in SL would be behind bars.
-
“I hate pedophelia yeah. But I find hypocrisy and corporate propaganda somehow equally objectionable.”
Gee, somehow I don’t come even close to equating pedophilia with hypocrisy and corporate propaganda. You’re opinion on this is… well… creepy.
csven
May 17th, 2007
“Oh, I don’t run away from arguments, but I can get busy and forget to follow up,…”
So you still think in legal terminology (or any jargon for that matter), “drinking” is the same as “purchasing”? Oh-kay.
Exactly what are the professional requirements for being a U.N. translator?
Right now the impression I get is that maybe the problems with the U.N. start with a bunch of translators who can’t tell the difference between words like “drinking” and “purchasing”.
Prokofy Neva
May 17th, 2007
xactly what are the professional requirements for being a U.N. translator?
Right now the impression I get is that maybe the problems with the U.N. start with a bunch of translators who can’t tell the difference between words like “drinking” and “purchasing”.
I’m not ” a UN translator”. But it’s not your business, anyway. And the requirements in fact are consistent with my abilities, anyway, and the distinction of common, ordinary terms like “the drinking age” which everyone knows means PURCHASING not literally “drinking privately where I may not be caught”. Indeed, teenagers having a party in their private home who are not yet of age and merely “drinking” what they have not “purchased” and got “other people to purchase” would still be liable for arrest by the police.
Your notion of “drinking literally in your family” is one that *even* the hog-guy in I-40 realizes is too literal a concept, and most Youtubers are with him — they realize that the law is the law.
warm fuzzies
May 17th, 2007
>mm. I can find something reprehensible without regarding is as something that should be illegal (engaging in virtual pedophelia, where the ‘victim’ is a consenting adult).Gee, somehow I don’t come even close to equating pedophilia with hypocrisy and corporate propaganda. You’re opinion on this is… well… creepy.<
Csven, maybe you wouldn’t find it so creepy if you’d more closely read what was said. I didn’t equate pedophelia with corporate propaganda and hypocrisy. I referred to Linden Lab’s total turnaround of shouting “freedom of speech” and “extreme tolerance” to “Hey, you two are banned!” for doing something SL had long known was going on, just because LL got some bad press. No warning, no “Hey, we want people to stop this practice.” I don’t support what those two people were doing, but neither do I support banning them for something that LL had tolerated for months. Not to mention the fact that all they have to do is switch to one of their alts. If they’re stupid enough to continue supporting Second Life after being treated in such a way.
warm fuzzies
May 17th, 2007
(I’m sorry, for some reason the system totally crunched my message and cut out a big chunk of it. No idea why. Here’s the full, intended message.
((mm. I can find something reprehensible without regarding is as something that should be illegal (engaging in virtual pedophelia, where the ‘victim’ is a consenting adult).))
Ok Morgana, think this through. Despite LL’s face-facade of a “teen grid”, it is a known fact that all adolescents have to do to get on the grid is provide a just-created Yahoo email address and lie about their age. So there is no way to guarantee that “real” children are not involved here, either in AgePlay or in other online sexual activities (which is agreed, a problem of the internet in general, but in this case, has to do with a specific company). So burying our head in the sand and believing that real life children are not involved in SL sexuality isn’t realistic.
As for feeling uncomfortable with my quote of Kahlil… exactly what do you think he was talking about? Or do you expect me to believe that people that enjoy pedophelia RP on SL have no true pedophelia tendencies or desires? I would find that hard to swallow.
As for relating pedophelia role play to PvP gaming, there is a whole big controversy over that, but I for one think pedophelia RP is just a little more “telling” than “playing with guns”. To put it a little more genre-specific, I would consider two warrior going head to head in Halo to be a very different mentality than a guy going out and taking a shotgun to prostitutes in more socially objectionable games. And I would question the mental balance of anyone who would think that blowing away prostitues is fun. That’s Jack the Ripper mentality, whether it is a game or not. It’s a whole different level of thought process.
((Gee, somehow I don’t come even close to equating pedophilia with hypocrisy and corporate propaganda. You’re opinion on this is… well… creepy.))
Csven, maybe you wouldn’t find it so creepy if you’d more closely read what was said. I didn’t equate pedophelia with corporate propaganda and hypocrisy. I referred to Linden Lab’s total turnaround of shouting “freedom of speech” and “extreme tolerance” to “Hey, you two are banned!” for doing something SL had long known was going on, just because LL got some bad press. No warning, no “Hey, we want people to stop this practice.” I don’t support what those two people were doing, but neither do I support banning them for something that LL had tolerated for months. Not to mention the fact that all they have to do is switch to one of their alts. If they’re stupid enough to continue supporting Second Life after being treated in such a way.
csven
May 17th, 2007
“And no “must” except in your head.”
You need a new prescription, Prok. I didn’t post “must”. I posted *must*. Get your eyes checked.
-
“And I suggest they WILL see it’s different and the “fantasy/reality” distinction and firewall will not hold in the way everyone imagines.”
But they haven’t yet. And as of today, victimless, “virtual” child porn is *not* illegal in the U.S. That’s all that matters right now. Today. What happens tomorrow is pure speculation.
-
“Lewis is right in the sense that the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court rulings about free expression may NOT apply as if SL is a club, or a private body like the Boy Scouts, as I’ve said a 100 times, and not the Mall of America. Honestly, csven you are so dense.
Honestly Prok, you’re such a predictable dumbshit.
What part of “Still playing “Internet lawyer”, Lewis? hahaha. Good for you. If nothing else, it’s amusing” do you specifically disagree with in relation to Lewis’ claim?
Oops.
I didn’t offer an opinion on the topic. Ergo, you don’t *know* shit about what I’m thinking on the matter.
-
“You have to concede that YOUR vision of SL as a public mall and a common carrier isn’t legal and recognized reality yet.”
“YOUR vision”? Still putting words in other people’s mouths, Prok?
MY vision – and I’ve said it before – is that SL will likely be gone or supplanted by a competitor in a few years. Consequently, I don’t have a “vision of SL as a public mall and a common carrier”. Where on earth do you get this shit? Is this the misfirings of neurons in a fermented brain?
-
“Try to grasp that distinction.”
Try to grasp that you’re running on at the mouth. There’s a *reason” I didn’t offer an opinion, Prok.
Lewis offered up an overly broad statement that’s factually inaccurate, but which *specifically* may be true in ~this~ case. Your words:
“in the sense that… may NOT apply”
In other words, I can agree with the specifics of what you said and still disagree with Lewis’ overly broad statement.
Can you grasp that?
csven
May 17th, 2007
“Csven, maybe you wouldn’t find it so creepy if you’d more closely read what was said. I didn’t equate pedophelia with corporate propaganda and hypocrisy.”
Your words: “I hate pedophelia yeah. But I find hypocrisy and corporate propaganda somehow equally objectionable.”
Let me read the words more closely then… “equally objectionable”.
“Didn’t equate” — “equally”.
Hmmm?
Yep. Still creeps me out.
csven
May 17th, 2007
Looks like a post got dropped. It was just a link to Clickable Culture for those interested in what Prok is rambling on about wrt “drinking age”: http://www.secretlair.com/index.php?/clickableculture/entry/linden_lab_lays_down_law_give_your_id_or_give_up_adult_content/
Nicholaz Beresford
May 17th, 2007
>> 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 < <
Right, that press thing was about both but ...
>> Robin Linden: They were banned because they were engaged in sexual behavior where one was playing a minor child. <<
I am rather sure that those two were only engaged in age play and not RL child porn, because in that blog post back then LL said the players were banned but they still did not find the RL pictures in order to remove them.
I may be wrong, but if these pictures were linked to those people, it should have been easy to locate them in terms of creator- ownership because at that time they knew the accounts already (because they were banned).
Nicholaz Beresford
May 17th, 2007
(repost, because the system messed up my comment)
)) 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 ((
Right, that press thing was about both but that may well have been they saw those avatars here and the child porn there. I’d not be amazed about that, given the reputation of that particular TV show.
)) Robin Linden: They were banned because they were engaged in sexual behavior where one was playing a minor child. ((
I am rather sure that those two were only engaged in age play and not RL child porn, because in that blog post back then LL said the players were banned but they still did not find the RL pictures in order to remove them.
I may be wrong, but if these pictures were linked to those people, it should have been easy to locate them in terms of creator- ownership because at that time they knew the accounts already (because they were banned).
Morgana Fillion
May 17th, 2007
“Ok Morgana, think this through. Despite LL’s face-facade of a “teen grid”, it is a known fact that all adolescents have to do to get on the grid is provide a just-created Yahoo email address and lie about their age. So there is no way to guarantee that “real” children are not involved here, either in AgePlay or in other online sexual activities (which is agreed, a problem of the internet in general, but in this case, has to do with a specific company). So burying our head in the sand and believing that real life children are not involved in SL sexuality isn’t realistic.”
Whoa… I’m well aware of that. That is why my children aren’t on the Teen Grid, even though I know they’d have a blast. As it’s currently set up, I don’t see any aspect of SL as being child safe.
But because I am very aware of what teens can and will do, I’m pretty comfortable believing that childplay in SL is not the way minors are engaging in sexuality. If that’s the issue in this case – and it’s not – then the answer is to eliminate all forms of sex because odds are much higher that the buxom blonds and the conan males are teens then the child avs. Kids aren’t going to play kids here if they want sex.
In the case of the couple that were banned, they were adults. Fact. And it’s an educated premise to assume that if other avs that are engaging in sexual activities with child avs (a small percentage of those who use child avs) are likewise adults.
I’m not burying my head in the sand. I think this requires some alert thinking that gets beyong visceral emotional response.
“As for feeling uncomfortable with my quote of Kahlil… exactly what do you think he was talking about? Or do you expect me to believe that people that enjoy pedophelia RP on SL have no true pedophelia tendencies or desires? I would find that hard to swallow.”
And again, you seem to be catching only a portion of what I said – I am not uncomfortable with the quote – I’m uncomfortable with the call to arms you are issuing based on that quote. Do I believe they have some tendencies and desires? Yes, I do, obviously. Do I believe that it’s a good idea to start regarding desire to commit an act the same as commiting one? Absolutely not. History has never shown that to be a pleasant or worthwhile idea.
And that is the context for what you want to minimize below. People engage in games that involve all sorts of violence and deceit as a necessary component for beating the game – that includes everything from the hardcore ‘kill the prostitute’ games you note to oldschool D*D slash and hack scenarios. By your logic, are we to assume that a person who gets pleasure from maiming an opponent or stealing without consequence is one who desires to main or steal in their real life and therefore should be treated as a murderer or thief even though they haven’t engaged in the activity other than in fantasy?
If not the same applies. And no, I flatly disagree with you that virtually killing people is merely ‘playing with guns’ but adjusting some sliders to create a small av and engaging in sexual play that is allowed if you throw those sliders up the scale and add some giant breasts is fine and appropriate.
Do you know that you can’t even search on the word ‘Lolita’ in SL anymore? In spite of it being a clothing style and a well regarded book, it along with who knows how much else is now deemed ‘age play’ and therefore on the level of actual pedophilia.
Dunno who else here is old enough to remember AOLs fiasco with putting the word ‘breast’ onto their list of prohibited words in discussion lists (thereby wiping out a major cancer support group) but this is silly-season ridiculous.
Yes, pedophilia is creepy. Now everyone back up and stop thinking with your shudder-factor before the solutions turns out to be more destructive than the problem.
Prokofy Neva
May 17th, 2007
And that is the context for what you want to minimize below. People engage in games that involve all sorts of violence and deceit as a necessary component for beating the game – that includes everything from the hardcore ‘kill the prostitute’ games you note to oldschool D*D slash and hack scenarios. By your logic, are we to assume that a person who gets pleasure from maiming an opponent or stealing without consequence is one who desires to main or steal in their real life and therefore should be treated as a murderer or thief even though they haven’t engaged in the activity other than in fantasy?
Yes, that actually might not be a bad idea. But I think there’s a very big difference in the culural dynamics here.
Mass television has already schooled the public culture — for better or worse one can argue, of course — that shooting and violence and killing for the sake of a story line is OK. So people grow up seeing thousands of deaths and killings on TV and in the movies, and they are in a cultural context where it is not identified as a taboo, and where the lines are drawn around it as “that’s what’s on TV, not real life” very clearly.
Ageplay is not something on TV and in the movies except possibly some XXX movie (and I don’t mean “Lolita” but far more extreme stuff like what is depicted in SL). It’s not cultural acceptable. There isn’t a place it’s demarcated as “this is ok here, and that’s not ok in real life”.
Therefore, it has a completely different dynamic — it is far more clearly taboo, on the one hand, as never being depicted in tv and not the norm, and it is not the equivalent of murder on TV, which has its cultural context of “that’s on tv, and we know that’s only on TV”.
>If not the same applies. And no, I flatly disagree with you that virtually killing people is merely ‘playing with guns’ but adjusting some sliders to create a small av and engaging in sexual play that is allowed if you throw those sliders up the scale and add some giant breasts is fine and appropriate.
It sounds to me like you have a demonstrable need to minimize and rationalize “ageplay”. And that’s because you don’t believe there’s any connection between actual pornography and real-life attacks on children.
Yet not only is that demonstrated by studies, it’s something you really have to ponder. A person shooting in a game merely wants to play a game. He doesn’t likely own a gun in RL. He knows the limits, he won’t killing a next-door neighbour because there are clear sanctions and he doesn’t have a gun.
But…the person playing “ageplay” in SL doesn’t require “a gun”. The weapon is his desire, which he cannot turn off. The nextdoor neighbour is a child who is vulnerable. A very different context.
>Do you know that you can’t even search on the word ‘Lolita’ in SL anymore? In spite of it being a clothing style and a well regarded book, it along with who knows how much else is now deemed ‘age play’ and therefore on the level of actual pedophilia.
That’s because the people who introduced ageplay into SL — pedophiles — didn’t care about protecting the freedom of people to make clothes and read and discuss well-regarded books, they cared about their own selfish disputes.
>Dunno who else here is old enough to remember AOLs fiasco with putting the word ‘breast’ onto their list of prohibited words in discussion lists (thereby wiping out a major cancer support group) but this is silly-season ridiculous.
Well, if Lolita is what it takes to get rid of hidden “ageplay” advertising that has run undergruond because of policing of the more obvious terms, that’s what it takes. Yes, it’s sad that people run underground and require those trying to draw the line to draw it even further.
>Yes, pedophilia is creepy. Now everyone back up and stop thinking with your shudder-factor before the solutions turns out to be more destructive than the problem.
I don’t seen anything especially destructive here except a thwarting of the desire of very organized, determined pedophiles to have their way in SL. And I don’t see why we have to stand aside for that.
Prokofy Neva
May 18th, 2007
>(repost, because the system messed up my comment)
>)) 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 ((
>right, that press thing was about both but that may well have been they saw those avatars here and the child porn there. I’d not be amazed about that, given the reputation of that particular TV show.
>)) Robin Linden: They were banned because they were engaged in sexual behavior where one was playing a minor child. ((
>I may be wrong, but if these pictures were linked to those people, it should have been easy to locate them in terms of creator- ownership because at that time they knew the accounts already (because they were banned).
Nicholas, you seem to have a great deal accepting the story that Linden Lab was confronted with real-live pedophiles in Second Life, the kind that have child pornography AND ‘ageplay’ in Second Life. That’s because you’re in denial. And that’s because you believe there’s a bright red line to be drawn, and that those who indulge in “ageplay” draw it.
But we have absolutely no reason to believe they *do* draw it, just because you’d like to stay in that illusion and it makes you feel better.
Sure, tabloid TV is tabloid TV everywhere but do you REALY think they had no connection between real pornography and these people?
If those people were the innocent “ageplayers” not possessing any real pornography, don’t you think it *odd* that they themselves aren’t speaking up to the media, not getting other media to make their case, not getting their lawyers to scream?
It seems likely that they had pornography on them, a, and b, that even if they did not, it didn’t matter because in Germany, where they were found, they were committing illegal acts.
Your persistence in trying to wish these truths away is troubling, to say the least.
You’re “being sure” of these two not possessing any porn is not backed up by any facts. LL may not have found what they whisked off their parcels in SL, but police may have found it on their hard-drives who knows? You can’t know, so don’t insist you are right. The allegation has been made by the TV, and tabloid that it is, it hasn’t been refuted by anybody, lease of all LL, which merely indicated it hadn’t found the pictures.
Last August 2006, I saw with my own eyes, how ‘ageplayers’ in the house under attack had real-life porn, and how quickly they wisked it off the walls when Lindens and angry neighbours with pitchforks came calling.
Prokofy Neva
May 18th, 2007
csven has truly lost it, truly.
He’s been ranting about enforcing the distinction between “real and phony child porn” as if it mattered for SL — as if they were a public mall. But…they aren’t. Of course, he hasn’t conceded that yet, but has done another distraction trick, going off and talking about how he has no vision for SL, because he believes it won’t exist in a few years.
Anyway, the good news is I found THE PERFECT video for csven:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0q8iFjT8yFQ
The hogs are the ones I’m worried about. What’s their drinking age? And to think one dead already.
csven
May 18th, 2007
“He’s been ranting about enforcing the distinction between “real and phony child porn” as if it mattered for SL — as if they were a public mall.”
Actually, as if Second Life were a unique application that might be involved in setting some wider precedents. But that sort of thinking would require some imagination on Prok’s behalf.
-
“… but has done another distraction trick, going off and talking about how he has no vision for SL, because he believes it won’t exist in a few years.”
Oooooooo. Watch out, everyone. I got me a “distraction trick” up m’ sleeve.
hahahaha
Damn, you post some funny crap.
Nicholaz Beresford
May 18th, 2007
)) You’re “being sure” of these two not possessing any porn is not backed up by any facts. ((
That was a bit unclear I admit. What I wanted to say was that the real world child porn in the movie (from in-world) was not theirs, so very likely the movie threw things together. If it was theirs, Linden would not have been searching for it when they made the blog post, but could have happily announced that the content was found and all was well.
I’ll leave it to everybody to draw conclusions about that … I’m certainly not discussing these things with you because I know I can’t out-debate you and rather spend my time in other things which you equally despise and where our views are equally orthogonal.
Fwiw, we (you and me) will hardly be able to agree on anything around SL, because besides having liberal views on this particular issue, I’m also one of those open source terrorists (I am looking into fixing SL bugs at the moment).
Prokofy Neva
May 18th, 2007
>our views are equally orthogonal.
absolutely. And I invite you, as you fool around with your open-source terrorism, to try to think how you’ll escape the RL authorities when you host your own, if anything, they’ll even more up your ass than they are now with LL shielding you.
Brace
May 18th, 2007
” Posted by: Lucius Nesterov | May 17, 2007 at 10:28 AM
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.”
Zackly
Prokofy Neva
May 18th, 2007
>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.
Actually, the people who were given power long before there was a private little start-up called “Linden Lab” were the democratically-elected legislatures and law-enforcers of these countries.
Hello? Or are you suggesting that just because a group of tekkies has a utopian ideal they get to run stuff and scorn democratic politics?
And…we are supposed to allow one company in California and their hangers-on to rule the world?
Where is Urizenus? I’m paging him to this and related threads.
Lucius Nesterov
May 18th, 2007
It seems the majority of people are happy to have age-play out of SL. Perhaps the title of the story should be changed to “Thank Europe”.
shockwave yareach
May 18th, 2007
“Actually, the people who were given power long before there was a private little start-up called “Linden Lab” were the democratically-elected legislatures and law-enforcers of these countries.”
And whenever I’m in Germany, I’ll obey German laws. If I’m sitting at my computer desk in lovely SpaceCity Texas however, I don’t give a hoot what someone in Germany thinks about someone’s furry gorean homosexual mecha ageplay – now with extra squid! It’s none of their business and their law doesn’t matter on US soil. Period. And if the Germans think their laws were broken, the US State Dept. and the FBI are in the phone book. The only response LL should have to someone screaming “Z is illegal in my country! You must ban it!” is handing them business cards to the US State Dept.
LL is a private company and may set the rules however they like and for whatever reason they like. However, there is NO WAY they’ll be the basis of the next generation webbrowser if they try to make it a fancier version of ToonTown. LL has reached a fork in the road and the decisions it makes now will decide its future and its ultimate fate. If they state that “Users are expected to obey the laws of their land,” and not turn into a virtual police state for the rest of us, people will stay and it will survive. If they decide that adults shouldn’t have the freedom to build and roleplay anymore — to appease prudish critics who don’t even play the game or pay the bills — then people will leave in droves and LL can fold its tents. If the German govt. forbids Z then let them investigate their own citizens — I as an American Citizen can partake of Z, Q, 3.14, and even a 4way version of H if I am so inclined.
LL is going to have to grow a backbone and a bigger pair if it expects to lead us into the bright and better future.
warm fuzzies
May 18th, 2007
>Yep. Still creeps me out.<
Let it. LOL. Maybe that’ll cause you to think more about the problem. Like so many people, you focus on tearing other people’s comments apart, rather than on the issue at hand. What I find “equally” objectionable from a personal standpoint isn’t the issue here Csven
Why do I find corporate propaganda and hypocrisy so objectionable? Because like pedophiles, it is an uncaring, unconcerned attitude that harms other people for its own gain. And while pedophelia yes, carries a certain outrage along with it, whether you harm a child or an adult, it’s still harm.
warm fuzzies
May 18th, 2007
((And that is the context for what you want to minimize below. People engage in games that involve all sorts of violence and deceit as a necessary component for beating the game – that includes everything from the hardcore ‘kill the prostitute’ games you note to oldschool D*D slash and hack scenarios. By your logic, are we to assume that a person who gets pleasure from maiming an opponent or stealing without consequence is one who desires to main or steal in their real life and therefore should be treated as a murderer or thief even though they haven’t engaged in the activity other than in fantasy?))–Morgana
You made many valid points in your post Morgana. And I’m not advocating a ‘call to arms’. The whole purpose of my post was to point out the sheer hypocricy of Linden Lab’s current about-face and banning. Should those people have been banned? Some will say yes, some no. My PERSONAL preference would be that all depiction of rape/molestation/pedophelia/torture be completely banned from SL. A lot of people would disagree.
The whole point of my post was LL allowing this for so long, against the protests of many customers, then suddenly playing the innocent act and without warning banning two players just because the matter hit the media. I mean, how two-face can a company get?
Either they allow it, or they ban it across the board. I don’t think I have to point out that not all countries or government’s agree with the United States position that depictive pedophelia is OK. Maybe that’s because they have the good sense to recognize a cancer when they see it.
warm fuzzies
May 18th, 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?))
Brace, I’m not arguing with your post here, so don’t get me wrong. Good and valid points, all.
But just as a consideration… imagine for a moment Second Life without AgePlay, without the heavy predominance of sex, without skin and sex-animation vendors everywhere you visit. Imagine Second Life without the murder-rape clubs, where weapons simply don’t work outside of specific areas (to an extent, LL has fixed that already and it was a good decision, I have to say), a Second Life where the basic idea is to meet, chat, build, script and enjoy the company of others. Imagine a Second Life where the main thought is to create and associate, not figure out how to get into someone’s pants (which in fact are often already missing).
Bottom line question: Would Second Life be worse off… or BETTER, without all the perversions currently on the board?
(and yes, I know “perversions” is a subjective term).
There ARE games that totally forbid such things, games that DO draw the line. And while yes, sex does sell, there are those who have proven beyond doubt that it’s not necessary to use sex to sell. It’s kind of like singers who strip near naked to become popular and sell songs, and then wind up being less popular and successful than those who refused to prostitute themselves to the public… singers who just write and play music. That kind of thing.
Am I advocating totally removing all such things from SL? I’m not sure such would even be possible other than an overall “Anyone caught in sexual activities on SL will be banned without warning” TOS addition. And that would certainly bring massive outrage (and probably a bit of applause as well. Whether it would be for better or worse would remain to be seen). If they did ban such, some other board would pop up focusing on those things. So am I advocating mass censorship? Although I *personally* believe SL would be far better off if they’d do a massive housecleaning, it’s not really my place to tell LL anything. But I can sure call out rampant acts of hypocrisy when I see such. “This is OK, but hey, we can ban you instantly if we change our minds.”
Does Second Life have to be perverse to work? Nah. Linden Lab COULD draw the line, if they wanted to. They had a chance long ago to draw the line with AgePlay and they refused to do so. Now it seems, that line is being drawn for them. That’s all fine and good. What happens, happens. It’s the LL innocent act and “Oh my, this is terrible!” posturing that grinds my grits.
warm fuzzies
May 18th, 2007
((Hello? Or are you suggesting that just because a group of tekkies has a utopian ideal they get to run stuff and scorn democratic politics? And…we are supposed to allow one company in California and their hangers-on to rule the world?))
I have to agree there Prok. Someone back there erroneously said (paraphrase) “This is a private club and LL can do what it wants.” Sorry to burst that person’s balloon, but even private clubs have to follow GOVERNMENTAL LAWS. duh. Linden Lab is not the United States, they are not Germany, England or France, and despite the apparent god-complex they are not God and no, they cannot do just whatever they want. There ARE laws involved and since LL touts themselves as an “international” company, there are INTERNATIONAL laws involved.
But beyond that, getting down to nitty-gritty, there are such things as basic ethics people. Anyone who believes that simulated pedophelia isn’t “real” pedophelia has been spending waaaaaay to much time on their computers. It may or may not involve a “real” child, but the very concept and deptiction (in any form) of pedophelia surely is beyond question morally and socially questionable… and objectionable. And frankly, I don’t care whether it is “legal” in the US to “artistically” depict pedopehlia activities, it’s NOT ok in the laws of other countries, and it’s not ok by me. Because shocking as it may seem, the U.S. isn’t God either. There are other countries involved here and there are the consciences of the citizens of the world involved.
But even more importantly, the safety of our children are involved, and any toleration whatsoever of pedophelia activities, whether RL or VR, threatens that safety.
csven
May 18th, 2007
“I find corporate propaganda and hypocrisy so objectionable”
You conveniently left out a word, big guy. Let me add back in for you:
“I find hypocrisy and corporate propaganda somehow equally objectionable”
Don’t forget the “equally”.
brrrrrr
Blinders Off
May 18th, 2007
Hey why don’t we just be honest here. Some guy shoving his dong up another guy’s crap hole is already socially acceptable. So why don’t we just take off the gloves and add pedophelia and incest to the pot. It’s time for society to stop hiding behind any claim of morality and just return to totally animalistic concepts.
Let’s stop pretending. The world is morally bankrupt. So lets throw away all pretense and make all this stuff legal and then throw in murder and rape as a bonus. Then we can rid this world of this putrid species and let the planet get back to healing.
csven
May 18th, 2007
“It may or may not involve a “real” child, but the very concept and deptiction (in any form) of pedophelia surely is beyond question morally and socially questionable… and objectionable. And frankly, I don’t care whether it is “legal” in the US to “artistically” depict pedopehlia activities, it’s NOT ok in the laws of other countries, and it’s not ok by me.”
So is mindless killing okay with you? After all “the very concept and deptiction (in any form) of [murder] surely is beyond question morally and socially questionable.”
Isn’t it???
I find murder more offensive than ANY other crime. We even have capital punishment in most of the U.S. for murder. By your logic shouldn’t we ban first person shooter videogames? If not, please explain why one arguably victimless crime is verbotten while another victimless crime is acceptable entertainment.
warm fuzzies
May 18th, 2007
((Don’t forget the “equally”.))
You know csven, you’re pretty close to an obsessive-compulsive psycho. Why dont you try making a real point for a change.
warm fuzzies
May 18th, 2007
((So is mindless killing okay with you? After all “the very concept and deptiction (in any form) of [murder] surely is beyond question morally and socially questionable.”
Isn’t it???
I find murder more offensive than ANY other crime. We even have capital punishment in most of the U.S. for murder. By your logic shouldn’t we ban first person shooter videogames? If not, please explain why one arguably victimless crime is verbotten while another victimless crime is acceptable entertainment.))
Oh, he CAN make a real point! LOL
See you’re just not getting it. I didn’t say that murder is less offensive than pedophelia. What, you want me to make a big long list of the things that really are not healthy to depict in video games?
We’re discussing pedophelia here. That’s the theme. And we’re discussing Linden Lab’s position in regard to that and international government law and in the case of my post… the hypicrisy and sudden about-face they did at the cost of the membership of two users who probably thought what they were doing was totally sactioned by Linden Lab. Now suddenly they’ve lost their accounts… which is the equivalent of virtual murder yeah?
For the record, YEAH, virtual murder is objectionable too. You have GOT to be aware that this is a HUGE area of social controversy– violence in video games, television, movies and books that are easily accessible by impressionable pre-adults. The point you make is valid– but perhaps not in the way you intended. You seem to be all for allowing such activities. Which might explain why some of your posts are just a bit skewed and obsessive. What’s up, protecting a favorite pastime?
csven
May 18th, 2007
“I didn’t say that murder is less offensive than pedophelia.”
I don’t recall saying you did. I asked three questions:
1) “So is mindless killing okay with you?”
2) “Isn’t it???”
3) “By your logic shouldn’t we ban first person shooter videogames?”
And then I asked you to explain your position on the topic. I did not, as you’re suggesting, make a statement qualifying your position on this matter.
Perhaps this is why you apparently have trouble understanding the points I make: they require some level of reading comprehension. It also perhaps explains why you make slips like *equating* pedophilia with corporate propaganda (a truly, truly bonehead comment).
Try to be more careful. After all, we’re discussing putting real people in prison for arguably victimless, virtual activities. The least you can do is pay proper attention.
-
“The point you make is valid– but perhaps not in the way you intended. You seem to be all for allowing such activities.”
What I’m *for* is punishing people for crimes in which there is a definitive and identifiable victim.
Go figure.
-
“Which might explain why some of your posts are just a bit skewed and obsessive. What’s up, protecting a favorite pastime?”
It might. But it doesn’t. I just get obsessive about things like throwing people in prison for victimless crimes, giving them lethal injection when they’re not properly represented in a court of law, aso. You know. Little things.
Let me ask you: are you doing what so many anti-homosexual activists do – railing against a behavior to which you’re secretly attracted? That would explain to me how you could slip up and casually equate pedophilia with corporate propaganda.
bubbles
May 18th, 2007
BLAME CANADA
warm fuzzies
May 18th, 2007
((Let me ask you: are you doing what so many anti-homosexual activists do – railing against a behavior to which you’re secretly attracted? That would explain to me how you could slip up and casually equate pedophilia with corporate propaganda.))
LOL. Cute, but unoriginal, eh? I wasn’t flaming you Csven, just throwing your own trash back at you. The points you make are valid, you just can’t seem to make them without taking a personal stab in the process. Add to that the annoying habit of thinking you’re cute by harping on the same thing over and over again, and you become oh so dull. And the real point you’re trying to make becomes secondary because well, who wants to waste time wit ya?
csven
May 18th, 2007
“LOL. Cute, but unoriginal, eh?”
About as original as your saying, “What’s up, protecting a favorite pastime?”
-
“I wasn’t flaming you Csven, just throwing your own trash back at you.”
Sorry. Equating pedophilia with corporate propaganda still creeps me out.
-
“The points you make are valid, you just can’t seem to make them without taking a personal stab in the process.”
The difference between my personal stab and the one’s people supporting criminalization of virtual activities, is that you don’t wind up in prison for your thoughts.
-
“Add to that the annoying habit of thinking you’re cute by harping on the same thing over and over again, and you become oh so dull.”
Not a habit at all. I just find that some people need repetition. And sadly, it’s arguably dull to think before acting. It’s so much more fun to just string someone up, isn’t it?. My apologies for making you think first.
-
“And the real point you’re trying to make becomes secondary because well, who wants to waste time wit ya?”
You.
Malroy May
May 18th, 2007
Given the current Flickr feed on the Second Life site I for one would like to have the website owners verify their ages.
Its not healthy I tell you… pretending to be a child; whoever heard of such a thing.
Anonymous Avatar
May 18th, 2007
“”Is Crackdown on “Ageplay” the First Step to Complying with European Laws?”"
A step forward. If LL doesn’t comply, they could be banned.
Because LL doesn’t need to comply with American laws, the idea, that it has to comply with European laws, must be a shock to them. And to Americans.
Age verification has nothing to do with ageplay except few same letters. (DisIntegrity probably pays LL for the information.) Using DisIntegrity might be a step backward for LL – DisIntegrity might be banned in the EU.
I recommend Vatican as the colocation of LL’s servers in Europe. Vatican doesn’t have any modern restrictive sex laws unlike for example the Netherlands which has a brothel in every corner.
LL was very slow to reveal that most of the customers came from Europe. The figures collected by ComScore spyware are indicative, but almost right. Basically ComScore says that Germans have relatively more spyware, and the growth of spyware is fastest in the USA.
The figures show that Europeans have better computer hardware than Americans – Europeans spend more on hardware and are readier for SL. But trying to squeeze a euro out of a European by selling a service on the internet is completely another challenge.
warm fuzzies
May 18th, 2007
((Sorry. Equating pedophilia with corporate propaganda still creeps me out.))
That’s fine. Apparently you just don’t think it through enough to see the point.
(See how easily those little barbs get turned on ya? No, probaby not).
So let’s think it through Csven. Hitler used propaganda… and wound up in turning an entire nation against Jews because they weren’t awake enough to smell the garbage. The Gas corporations are using corporate propaganda to raise prices to the point that people can’t get to work, so they lose their jobs, so they either wind up on welfare or their children go hungry. Children die of starvation every day in this country, and tenfold in other countries. Because of Corporate propaganda that ruled for decades, millions of people died of lung cancer caused from cigarette smoke, and their CHILDREN died from second-hand smoke.
So I’m sorry that equating corporate propaganda with pedophelia creeps you out but see, I look at the whole picture. Viscious harm is viscious harm, no matter what source it comes from and no matter who it’s done to.
((The difference between my personal stab and the one’s people supporting criminalization of virtual activities, is that you don’t wind up in prison for your thoughts.))
I don’t think that is what anyone is proposing here. I believe you’re hypervating much less drastic measures and far less drastic suggestions. Making AgePlay illegal on SL is far different from sending people to prison because they have a negative thought or two. And that’s the issue here that I mentioned to you earlier, whether you’re discussing the real problem here or going off on an obsessive tangent.
The issue I brought up wasn’t whether AgePlay should be totally banned or not (but for the record, I think it should). The point I made was LL turning a blind eye to it for so long, despite outcries, outrage and all forms of protest by their customers, then out of the blue banning two people just because the matter hits the media. No warning, no set of absolute policy and then banning when someone breaks it, just “Hey, we’re on the hot plate, we changed our minds, you’re out of here!” If AgePlay had already been declared banned, that would be one thing. But for Linden Lab to refuse any kind of action and then suddenly change their policies (to the “murder” of two avatars) is hypocritical to the max. I am in NO WAY condoning AgePlay. I do condone reasonable and known company policies– one of them to not be two-faced.
((Not a habit at all. I just find that some people need repetition. And sadly, it’s arguably dull to think before acting. It’s so much more fun to just string someone up, isn’t it?. My apologies for making you think first.))
And what, they need “repetition” and need to “think” because they don’t agree with your personal opinion? This may come as a shock to you Csvar… but we understood the first time. And your opiniion of needing to slowly-repeat-what-you-say-so-others-can-understand doesn’t make me agree with you any more, nor does it make your points any more valid.
(Oh, btw, it’s arguably dull to think before acting? I think I’m seeing a pattern… LOL)
And for the record, this is a Blog, not a thesis assignment. People write this stuff on the fly and stuff doesn’t always come out EXACTLY as they mean it. Which is why ignoring the major points and harping on the minor points is so trite. That said, I’m sticking by my statement of Corporate propaganda being as offensive as other crimes. It may seem less direct, but it can do just as much damage in the end game.
warm fuzzies
May 18th, 2007
Now to legitimize a valid question you asked Csvar…
You mentioned that murder is just as objectionable if not moreso than pedophelia. You then asked if all PvP games and activities should be banned as well. To answer, let me first state a fact and ask you a question in return:
In the Columbine murders, the two moronic socoipaths who killed all those people were found to be steeped in ultra-violent videogames and videos. Now, if they had NO access to such violent material, if they had never played violent PvP, or had access to slasher flicks, if their parents had “censored” their activities and tried to ensure their recreation, association and entertainment was of a mentally healthy nature, would the Columbine murders still have happened?
If you can answer that question sensibly, logically and believably and without the superior attitude… I will answer your question.
warm fuzzies
May 18th, 2007
Argh… Csven, not Csvar. Legitimate mistake from not back-reading prior signatures. No offense intended.
Carl Metropolitan
May 18th, 2007
Bubbles wrote:
“BLAME CANADA”
Finally someone got the reference in my article’s headline!
shockwave yareach
May 18th, 2007
warm fuzzies:
Would Columbine still have happened if there had been no videogames? Without a parallel universe to examine, one cannot answer _either_ way with any certainty. But the evidence strongly suggests yes, it would have happened.
- the sociopaths were sociopaths because they were unbalanced.
- they were treated poorly by schoolmates so had scapegoats to target.
- they believed they had nothing to look forward to in life.
- both had access to large weapons supplies.
So none of the triggers were the videogames. All the games did was let them practice their murderspree ahead of time. While games may have reinforced their hateful view of humanity, they weren’t the cause of it and they weren’t the reason those two went off the deep end.
Proof of that claim?
- Whitman, 13 dead at UT tower, 1966
- Speck, 8 dead nurses, 1966
- Frazier, killed whole family, 1970
- Allaway, killed 7 in Univ. Cal. library, 1976
- Jones, killed 909 in 1978
and on and on and on. Very easy to go further back than this, too. Every incident on this list (and many more) takes place before video games more advanced than Pong even existed. So while there may be evidence to support the claim that sociopaths gravitate toward playing violent games, clearly the crime predates the games.
The very first murder was done with a rock. I’ve yet to see anyone try to ban rocks.
Carl Metropolitan
May 18th, 2007
Carl Metropolitan wrote:
“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:
“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 was trying to write the article as more of an analysis piece than an opinion piece. However, in practice that line is far from clear, and I probably would have been better off ending with a stronger paragraph–closer to what you quoted above instead of how I ended it.
As for the First Amendment issues, I will also admit to some mixed feelings on the subject. I am a very strong believer in freedom of expression. But even from such a libertarian perspective, I see a ban on the production and distribution of child pornography as absolutely justifiable. The principle of self-ownership is vital to libertarianism, and child pornography abrogates than in an especially cruel manner, dragging children, who are incapable psychologically, emotionally, and legally of any true consent, into a world of adult sexuality. It is truly depraved.
But in a situation where there are no real children involved, I have mixed feelings about the use of state power to criminalize such behavior. It is certainly abhorrent, but is it abhorrent enough to send people to prison for? I can certainly see the other side of this issue as well. “Virtual” child pornography (such as sexual “ageplay” in Second Life) can easily act as a training ground for pedophiles, allowing them to act out their fantasies in such a way as to erode any remaining inhibitions that prevent them from victimizing real life children.
My gut reaction is to make such materials illegal, to err on the side of caution. I’m normally inclined to accept slippery slope arguments in the area of civil liberties, but when they begin “first they came for the pedophiles and child pornographers”, my response is “okay–not seeing a problem here.” But I can certainly understand how intelligent and ethical people might come to the opposite conclusion.
Carl Metropolitan
May 18th, 2007
Malroy May wrote:
“Its not healthy I tell you… pretending to be a child; whoever heard of such a thing.”
There is a difference between sexual “ageplay” and pretending to be a child in a game. I know a number of people who use child avatars in Second Life and they are among the most vocal opponents of people engaging in sexual “ageplay”. Quite often people even use child avatars to distance themselves from the sexual side of Second Life–as a way of saying “no–I’m not interested in bumping pixels with you; don’t even ask.”
csven
May 18th, 2007
“Hitler used propaganda… and wound up in turning an entire nation against Jews because they weren’t awake enough to smell the garbage.”
Ah. So we’re now equating “corporate propaganda” with Nazi genocide.
Y’know, imo, there’s thinking things through, and then there’s stretching them beyond all reason. Personally, I’d be embarrassed to make such a far-fetched association.
-
“So I’m sorry that equating corporate propaganda with pedophelia creeps you out but see, I look at the whole picture.”
Apology accepted.
-
“Viscious harm is viscious harm, no matter what source it comes from and no matter who it’s done to.”
And EXACTLY who is the “viscious harm” done to in this case? Which child was hurt by the virtual role-playing of two consenting adults? Is there a name?
Just wondering.
-
“Making AgePlay illegal on SL is far different from sending people to prison because they have a negative thought or two.”
Is it?
If Linden Lab identifies to the German government the RL *adult* individuals behind the virtual age-play being discussed here, and they’re German citizens, will they be incarcerated?
Let’s stretch this a bit (not quite as much as you probably would, but just a little).
If someone in Second Life creates an avatar that looks like the ruler of Thailand, and puts on a clown nose and makes funny but offensive noises that effectively poke fun at him, and the Thai gov’t says to LL, “That’s in violation of our laws so please identify this person” and it turns out this individual lives in Thailand, what happens then?
What exactly is the law in Thailand for making fun of the king in Second Life? Is it a minimum of 7.5 with a maximum of 75 years in prison ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6440645.stm )?
Maybe the king of Thailand thinks making fun of him is “perverse”. I guess that makes the punishment fair, huh?
All a matter of perspective (though please don’t bring in the Holocaust).
-
“The issue I brought up wasn’t whether AgePlay should be totally banned or not (but for the record, I think it should). The point I made was LL turning a blind eye to it for so long…”
And all I did was tell you I thought your comment was creepy.
-
“And what, they need “repetition” and need to “think” because they don’t agree with your personal opinion?”
Nope.
-
“This may come as a shock to you Csvar… but we understood the first time.”
Although I was only talking to *you*, I’m shocked.
-
“And your opiniion of needing to slowly-repeat-what-you-say-so-others-can-understand doesn’t make me agree with you any more, nor does it make your points any more valid.”
I agree, valid points don’t increase in validity through their repetition.
-
“People write this stuff on the fly and stuff doesn’t always come out EXACTLY as they mean it.”
Why not just say this instead of trying to defend equating child porn with corporate propaganda?
-
“I’m sticking by my statement of Corporate propaganda being as offensive as other crimes. It may seem less direct, but it can do just as much damage in the end game.”
There you go trying to amend what you wrote. You didn’t say corporate propaganda was “as offensive as other crimes”. You equated corporate propaganda to pedophilia. Why do you keep trying to amend what you said instead of just saying it was a mistake???
Don’t bother answering. I think I know the real answer.
csven
May 18th, 2007
“Now, if they had NO access to such violent material, if they had never played violent PvP, or had access to slasher flicks, if their parents had “censored” their activities and tried to ensure their recreation, association and entertainment was of a mentally healthy nature, would the Columbine murders still have happened?”
I believe so.
Feel free to respond to shockwave yareach’s comments.
Anonymous
May 18th, 2007
Just face it, most of the people here bitching about this are mad that they can no longer fuck virtual children with out consequence.