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
csven
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.”
Excellent. This is ~so~ much more emotionally charged than saying, “Just face it, most of the people here bitching about this are mad that [consenting adults] can no longer [animate pixellated images of cartoonish figures bearing some remote semblence to uninvolved real children] with out consequence.”
Nicely done. Just makes ya want to mindlessly hand over all your rights to the Man, don’t it? My compliments.
archie lukas
May 18th, 2007
I agree that the blood thirsty gun toting Yankies are all upset and throwing their toys out of the pram because Europe not only lacks the gun toting general public; but that we also ban sick people who think child sex is a normal thing to do.
These RL people who resemble something nasty I occasionally step in in the gutter are in extreme danger of incarceration in their own country as we strive to protect vulnerable children.
The fact that they van come onto SL and practice their nasty little habits just serves to give them a false sense of normality, which they can then practice with lethal effect in the real world.
There is only one answer, castration.
remove their goolies and cease hormone production and stimulants to their tiny brains – roughly the size of aaforementioned testicles funnily enough.
I am medically qualifies to do this function for them, but I have no anaesthetists – what the hell, we don’t need one to give them a sensation similar to their nasty activities on children.
Blame Europe, then go and explain your decision to your children, or your sisters children, or the now childless couple downtown…….
Morgana Fillion
May 18th, 2007
Post like that, chock full of venom and squawking hyperbole and impotent threats sound ever so much better if you imagine them shouted in the voice of Donald Duck.
csven
May 18th, 2007
I’m curious. What other “crimes” are on the list for Second Life? I’d like to hear what the “List of Second Life Perversions” includes, so let’s make one.
Just copy and paste the below and add the “perversion” for which you want to incarcerate someone. And add the word “Pretend” to the beginning of each one, because for this list, there *can’t* be an identifiable victim. It’s strictly the *behavior* that gets a *pervert* thrown in prison.
And no subtracting from the list; only adding.
I’ll add one that has a related news article ( http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/index.html?eref=rss_topstories ).
-
List of Second Life Perversions
1) Pretend Inter-Religion Dating
2)
3)
…
Mark
May 18th, 2007
“I am medically qualifies to do this function for them, but I have no anaesthetists – what the hell, we don’t need one to give them a sensation similar to their nasty activities on children.”
You’re nearly as sick as the activity you’re complaining about.
Fantasizing about castrating people without anesthetic is just…
Whatever man.
warm fuzzies
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.”– warm fuzzies
“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.” — csven
I don’t think you could make such an association csven, because it doesn’t seem you think beyond your own ego.
If you can’t see an attitude correlation between tobacco companies intentionally killing millions of people to make a profit and Hitler’s genocide of the Jews in order to gain prestige and power, that’s just pathetic.
And since you seemed unable to answer my points or questions without the “attitude” previously mentioned, I decline to answer yours. It’s not worth the time and without doubt would be a waste of effort.
csven
May 18th, 2007
“I don’t think you could make such an association csven, because it doesn’t seem you think beyond your own ego.”
Well then, I thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for my having a sufficiently healthy ego so that I don’t make similarly ludicrous associations.
-
“If you can’t see an attitude correlation between tobacco companies intentionally killing millions of people to make a profit and Hitler’s genocide of the Jews in order to gain prestige and power, that’s just pathetic.”
“attitude correlation”?
Actually, it wasn’t the tobacco companies that threw me for a loop. It was the gas companies in this part of your post:
“Gas corporations are using corporate propaganda to raise prices to the point that people can’t get to work…”
So let me get this straight: someone who wants to make a few bucks selling gas to customers is essentially no different than the people who used gas to commit genocide.
Oh-kay. Yeah. You lose me there.
-
“And since you seemed unable to answer my points or questions without the “attitude” previously mentioned”
Hmmmm. How did I answer that post? Let’s see…
“I believe so” and “Feel free to respond to shockwave yareach’s comments.”
Yep. Terrible. Just terrible. Look at all the “attitude” in those words.
warm fuzzies
May 18th, 2007
((You’re nearly as sick as the activity you’re complaining about. Fantasizing about castrating people without anesthetic is just…)) Mark in response to a post from archie.
Mark, while I sympathise with your repulsion at this post, I can’t really respond much to archie’s post because I’m not sure whether he’s serious or being satyrical.
It is however, of interesting note that just such action has been a solution to such problems throughout history. Anesthesia is a relatively recent development, and in many parts of the world the punishment for rape or child molestation was total castration. It is unfortunate that it didn’t always solve the problem, but it usually did… especially in the case of the people who died from the process. This may seem cruel, but then, so is rape. Some people would consider this “punishment befitting the crime”.
Not personally condoning such action. Just making a historical observation.
warm fuzzies
May 18th, 2007
follow up: However, I would wager that if total castration was the required-by-law modern-day solution to rape, rapists would think twice before commiting such acts. LOL
Morgana Fillion
May 18th, 2007
So the SL version is to ban them from attaching their strap on penises?
warm fuzzies
May 19th, 2007
LOL Morgana.
Yeah, and without anesthetic. XO
Rumgoat Pugilist
May 19th, 2007
“Hitler used propaganda… and wound up in turning an entire nation against Jews because they weren’t awake enough to smell the garbage.”– warm fuzzies
Well, Godwin’s Law proves true again. In accordance with the laws of the internet, it looks like warm fuzzies loses this one. Okay, no more comments, move along now.
Prokofy Neva
May 19th, 2007
>1) Pretend Inter-Religion Dating
csven is truly off his meds these days.
Mark
May 19th, 2007
Oh will ya look at that! Prokky breaking his own rule about armchair psychology.
Prokofy Neva
May 19th, 2007
Yes, sometimes you have to make a citizen's arrest in an emergency. And...I don't have a "rule" about armchair psychology. I merely point out that I admire what Uri says about it, that no one who makes these mean-spirited comments are qualified to tell people to "get help," and real psychiatrists wouldn't use the method of being mean-spirited on a forums.
But in csven's case, it's time to become mean-spirited and tell him he's off his meds, as he's been completely outrageous to me for, oh, 2 years now? And has really beaten all records over at Clickable Culture, go and see the threat there, it's totally bizarre.
csven
May 19th, 2007
Prok, if you’re going to tell people to go to Clickable Culture, you should at least provide a link.
http://www.secretlair.com/index.php?/clickableculture/entry/linden_lab_lays_down_law_give_your_id_or_give_up_adult_content/#5006
(btw, I include links to some informative, independent sources that people might enjoy. Prok does provide one link to a source, only it happens to support my position)
And for those of you who can actually bother to read through all of it, you might find a few admissions by Ms I-Live-In-Second-Life-But-Actively-Seek-Mainstream-Media-Recognition Prokofy Neva; such as:
“I corrected myself then in a follow-up post.” (though she tried to bury her mistake in her typical avalanche of verbage)
“Apparently we don’t disagree on that” (a conclusion she miraculously comes to after spewing for days when what she’s figured out we agree on is in one of my first sentences).
Please. Take the time to read the whole thing. I think sometimes it’s necessary for a blowhard to be countered. Form your own opinion of how “poorly educated” I am and how brilliant [sic] Prokofy Neva is.
Morgana Fillion
May 19th, 2007
Couldn’t there be an ongoing Prok post so that every single post thread doesn’t devolve into who said what in some other ancient dispute?
csven
May 19th, 2007
@Morgana – my link is to a current debate revolving around the same topic.
Jessica Holyoke just posted a good comment that’s worth reading: http://www.secretlair.com/index.php?/clickableculture/entry/linden_lab_lays_down_law_give_your_id_or_give_up_adult_content/#5009
Morgana Fillion
May 19th, 2007
I was referring to “he’s been completely outrageous to me for, oh, 2 years now?”
That stuff can be entertaining, so keep a Prok thread for the amusement factor, but once it goes there, the current discussion is over.
And it always goes there.
Darkfoxx
May 19th, 2007
Great how you always hget your facts straight.
“Virtual child pornography also is illegal in the Netherlands”
is NOT TRUE. The Dutch government has indeed discussed this, but there IS NO LAW against child porn if there’s no real children involved.
The same misinformative untruth has been used in the past when LL banned all advertisements regarding sexual ageplay.
But again, such a law does NOT EXIST in the Netherlands.
Simply because we got both feet firmly on terra forma, and realize very well that it isnt “ZOMG CHILD RAPE!!!!” if there is no actual child involved.
(and usually, those people who cannot make the distinction between ‘pretend’ and ‘real’… well there’s medications and therapy to help cure that.)
Mark
May 19th, 2007
“That stuff can be entertaining, so keep a Prok thread for the amusement factor, but once it goes there, the current discussion is over.”
Yes. Prok never forgets all teh perceived slights. I am sure he can tell you name of that little neo-bolshevik that picked on him in primary school.
And Prok, thanks for reinforcing my point that you are a hypocrite.
You “admire” Uri’s take on armchair psychology, yet you engage in it yourself, and often, I might add. For that matter, so does Uri. But people who are highly educated, drive ST’s and wear Armani are apparently above the rules they suggest for the rest of us hoi polloi.
Go fuck yourselves sideways you unmitigated classist snobs.
csven
May 19th, 2007
Well, Prok is now going after Jessica Holyok and continues to dispute a state coalition’s findings as to whether all states have complied with a federal law. hahaha
That thread is definitely high on amusement factor. I’m so glad I decided to “play” when she veered so completely off-topic. It’s a drain to try to keep up with her ramblings, but sometimes it’s well worth the effort.
Bart in SL
May 19th, 2007
Blame Europe?
The Second Life Herald is running an article named Blame Europe about the virtual child pornography by Carl Metropolitan (who dislikes it clearly) reported by German reporters.The main thesis is this:Sexual ageplay in
Prokofy Neva
May 19th, 2007
>Yes. Prok never forgets all teh perceived slights. I am sure he can tell you name of that little neo-bolshevik that picked on him in primary school.
We didn’t have any neo-Bolsheviks in my primary school.
>And Prok, thanks for reinforcing my point that you are a hypocrite.
You “admire” Uri’s take on armchair psychology, yet you engage in it yourself, and often, I might add. For that matter, so does Uri. But people who are highly educated, drive ST’s and wear Armani are apparently above the rules they suggest for the rest of us hoi polloi.
I’m not sure Uri’s typist actually wears Armani, that may be fiction. And whether or not he doesn’t doesn’t take away from the validity of his point — and I don’t see that he engages in those two crimes of forums, whereby people say “you’re off your meds” and “get help” as if they can make diagnoses, or as if real doctors would do that — they wouldn’t, if they were professional.
I’m not a hypocrite, and I abide by these rules, too. I don’t claim 100 percent compliance, but my compliance is far better than most. When it comes to an obvious escapade like csven’s however, where on two forums, he is relentlessly, viciously, deliberately attacking, trolling, humiliating, even sexually harassing — ugh — at a certain point you do have to say, hey, what the fuck is up with this? Is this *animal* perhaps in need of medication? Because his behaviour is so obsessive, compulsive, vicious, and relentless.
>Go fuck yourselves sideways you unmitigated classist snobs.
Um, that might be hard to do! But as I’m not classist and not a snob, I don’t have to worry about it!
csven is continuing to imagine that he has somehow “bested” me in this argument and that my own sources that I myself source through my curiosity and my investigation springing from my inquiring mind (the kind that csven does *not* have — his mind is merely prosecutorial and obsessive) are going to prove me as a “hypocrite”.
But they didn’t. States had differing drinking ages. And they still do! Some nominally raised their age to 21 — but they thought up all kinds of exemptions like “buying if accompanied by a parent” or “military personnel”.
In the era of the Iraq war, exempting military personnel is a pretty big exemption. So in fact, the very issue that prompted all the gasping and gotchas at the start of the thread — that gosh, evil Amerika sends its boys to kill other people yet won’t let them have a beer turns out to be entirely a fabrication.
In fact, evil Amerika sends its boys to kill AND lets them have a beer in some states, and in others, the states don’t comply, and in still others, it’s fairly easy to get around.
So, I’m glad that we’ve now been assured that evil Amerikans are not only killerz but they are drunks, too, and it’s all legal, and there is no discrepancy. Happy?
Leah
May 19th, 2007
Whoever is getting sexualy turned on by pretending to have sex with a child is sick in the head. End of story. For this reason alone, all age play should be banned.
There is a reason child porn, child abuse and having sex with children is illegal in almost every country in the world.
These people were operating a child porn ring in SL, uploading images and holding secret parties according to the real life newspapers.
I don’t know what possessed you to come up with the title of the article in the first place. If you have a need to blame someone why don’t you blame the Pedophiles who are using SL as safe haven to get sexually excited over sexually abusing little children, and then crying out that it’s their freedom to express themselves?
Pathetic.
csven
May 19th, 2007
Well, since nobody is adding to this list, I’ll add some “perversions” being raised by other people.
List of Second Life Perversions
1) Pretend Inter-Religion Dating
2) Pretend Homosexual Behavior
3) Pretend Slavery (Gorean)
4) Pretend BDSM
The last two come courtesy of Prokofy via the Clickable Culture thread. I added the second one based on some other comments I’ve read here and elsewhere. Feel free to add more. They don’t have to be your own. If someone says something is perverse and/or should be illegal, feel free to add it here.
Remember, everything starts with “Pretend”.
It’ll be instructive to see how many things people want to outlaw.
csven
May 19th, 2007
Prokofy caught lying: http://www.secretlair.com/index.php?/clickableculture/entry/linden_lab_lays_down_law_give_your_id_or_give_up_adult_content/#5037
Prokofy Neva
May 20th, 2007
Too bad that my rebuttal to *cven lying* by claiming he has “caught me lying” (ROLF) won’t post, and I can’t even read the threads at CC due to some internal server error message.
So to summarize:
1. Csven has not been able to prove that the Wisconsis legislature did NOT pass the bill to exempt the military.
2. I made a claim military were exempt based on an article that said 3 states had it. If they didn’t, so what? If I cited an incorrect fact, so what? That’s not “lying” which implies some deliberate cover-up of truth, truth which is in fact known, and cover-up with a lie. But I researched this in good faith; furthermore, I gave the same links to research and am capable of reading the same PDF files. Nothing in what Csven cites days they did NOT pass the law.
3. If they didn’t, and I’m wrong, that’s not lying and…if it turns out not to be correct…so what? My points are 1) federal central powers aren’t what they are wished to be by csven, in his tekkie utopianism — they break down, some states make exemptions in practice, or by mounting challenges in the state legislature. It’s a dynamic process and 2) the laws, even when different between state and nation, are
When I commented on Ace’s country’s laws, I said this country doesn’t have laws *like that* which has to do with a *national law prescribing all aspects of drinking*. What we have is DIFFERENT. We have STATES’ laws, even with a national drinking age, which create EXEMPTIONS. Furthermore, it’s with a history of these states having their own laws, and being induced to change them only by having road funds cut off.
It’s funny, the tekkie mind sometimes grabs at the federalized power as the analogy for their own tribe and their own code-as-law as the power that be, if that will rein in dissent below in various components. Other times, they celebrate individual states’ rights, and host-your-own server rights, against the evil Man in the game company, if THAT will help their own tribe and code-as-law rein uber alles.
It’s a completely different world outlook then the one I articulated which explained there wasn’t even any significant difference in these “wildly” different laws. Both laws seek to PROTECT. One law protest by parental intervention. Another by state intervention. Both are about protecting children from malevolent things, done in good faith. Neither are so widely differing that a general norm can’t be set.
And in the SL context, the local RL state law will prevail. as it should. BEcause nobody voted an international virtual world run by tekkie assholes into power. Hell, no.
Another chief difference in my outlook and method has to do with the distinctions between the closed mind and the open mind, and the closed society and the open society.
The hallmark of the open society, says Karl Popper, is the ability to mount a false thesis, and unsupportable hypothesis is what I believe he calls it. The right to *think* and *debate* by trying out this or that hypothesis or thesis, and to be able to state what appears to be false not only as part of free will but as far as the process of finding out the truth.
The tekkie closed mind works differently, furtively scouring and churning and finding 100 percent true theses to expound like giant hammers on people’s heads. then they can’t disagree!
If anyone says something *wrong* or tries out *an unsustainable hypothesis,* then they might be lying! They must be pounded!
If I say that Wisconsin in fact exempted the military from the drinking age, that will be what csven seizes upon. But whether it turns out to be “false” or not, the greater truth excapes him: Wisconsis had a bill that came about because people weren’t happy at the military and drinking age discrepancy. csven wasn’ the only brains to huff and fume about this.
In csven’s world, he lives in fear waiting to be caught out, knowing that he is using ruses, strategems, dodges, distractions,bluffs instead of free and logical thinking. That’s how he can ascribe that to others.
In my world, I hardly care if someone finds out that a magazine article I found from quickly googling terms turns out to be wrong or superseded by somebody else’s googled magazine article. The point is to find the truth.
If we find that Wisconsis passed no law, and csven can gloat and post like graffiti everywhere the false statement ‘Prokofy lied!” what has he accomplished? Making himself look like a dick.
Whereas I can only say, interesting, and yet they wished to pass it, like New Hampshire, and that shows you that federal stuff isn’t working so hot. Which was my point to start with. The bill need not become a law to bolster my point here.
Prokofy Neva
May 20th, 2007
2) the laws, even when different between state and nation, are
*are not so far as to be incomphrensible and be a valid reason for never making a federal norm or a norm in a virtual world, for that matter.
Prokofy Neva
May 20th, 2007
For some reason, Tony’s site is erroring on me, and I can’t read or post on it, but I get the posts in email. So I’ll answer Jessica here.
Jessica is one of these modern malevolent minds that we really have to watch out for on the Internet. Trained in law — almost — and smart enough in a cunny fashion, she will use her “law school” and her wits, such as they are, to argue in favour of her own hedonism. Most hedonists in SL just use the blunt weapon of “I get to do WTF I want, fuck off”: Jessica puts a legal patina on it and wraps it in that ever-popular trick of trying to hoist the liberal by his own petard.
The title of the entry is:
Linden Lab Lays Down Law: Give Your ID, Or Give Up Adult Content
You can see the comment at the following URL:
http://www.secretlair.com/index.php?/clickableculture/entry/linden_lab_lays_down_law_give_
your_id_or_give_up_adult_content/
The comment reads:
>Nobody limited CONTENT, Jessica. This is New York City. If you don’t think there >aren’t a million civil rights attorneys and civil libertarian activists on this, you’re hugely >mistaken. But it’s also a city with cases of child molestation and even murder, and cases >of AIDS. So it’s a BALANCE, a concept that the licentious rarely understand.
>So, the NYC porn stores are a bad example of content providers if only because of previous mob involvement. After all, that can be the only reason you would mention that those types of stores must be outlawed to contain murder, right?
These are both non-sequiturs. Why would the involvement of the mob in porn stores — or lack of involvement — be relevant to regulation of their activity? It would not
And what is this half-witted effort at a clever repartee, “this would only be the reason to outlaw murder”? We’re talking about porn here, and the mob is irrelevant, and murder is a different discussion I’ll pick up in my blog.
>Magazines are free to publish what they will. A porn shop must have proof that a person >is 21, however. That’s not limiting *content,* it’s limiting *exposure to content*.
And by limiting “exposure to content”, you are limiting “content.” Because by placing limits on how things can be heard, you are limiting the message being broadcast.
Actually, no. I’m not aware of any such doctrine. In the U.S., there’s no “prior restraint” that would be applicable to the First Amendment where it is applicable (i.e. not inside the Boy Scouts) and there isn’t any mandate by any entity to enforce the First Amendment by making sure broadcasters have “access” in some broad fashion. That is, the FCC has its regulations. And there are things like equal time for political candidates as a norm that might be followed.
But the government is not obliged to make sure a media has outlet. The law would be neutral about how the negative right of the state getting out of the way of exercising a right would be fulfilled. The state does not get in the business of supplying avenues of expression for those who wish to express (except in some concept like a national arts foundation, but that’s not what Jessica is implying).
No limit is placed on any media here. Rather, a limit is placed on minors themselves. Big difference. You cannot argue from the placement of an age limit that content in media has been abridged. It hasn’t. Go back and ask your law professors about this.
>>Second, I limit any inquiries about my real life for a number of reasons. alf of the reasons for which can be identified by your experiences.
>I don’t care. Keep whatever privacy you want. People are fucktards and will stalk you. Don’t imagine I’m going to stalk you or are prying for RL details, however, with that innuendo. I’m not.
>And I wasn’t saying that you were. I was referencing your experiences as a good reason why as to not give out my RL information.
AND for good measure you’re trying to set up a one-two Hyprokisy punch, trying to make me out to be prurient if I inquire about credentials and scream that I’m outing privacy like my own privacy is outed — but…I don’t pretend to be a lawyer like you and try to trump arguments like you do by credential-waiving. Suck it up.
>I’m saying that you will endlessly open yourself up to questioning by taking these harsh, literalist interpretations in the name of licentiousness.
>And my responses in the various forums should show that I’m not avoiding being questioned and that I take steps to answer any questions presented.
Do we need such lawyers, that look to law to bend to their own licentiousness? This would be a matter for the society at large to debate.
>You can’t seem to wrap your mind around the idea of porn shops as being actually places that the town fathers wish to limit the access of *children* to for a variety of *legitimate* reasons.
I’m not questioning that children should not be exposed to pornography, they shouldn’t. But limiting the ability of others that are otherwise should be able to make their own decisions is a concern.
And that’s happening…um…where? In Second Life? No, LL is telling people that they must answer to the laws of their country. They are not responsible for protecting people from the enforcement of their laws. Therefore, they give them responsibility. If they wish to be in compliance with their local law, they will flag their lots and card adults. If they wish to risk prosecution, they can’t run to LL to shield them.
Where are the people who couldn’t make their own decisions? Either you are arguing that 18-year-olds should be able to read pornography, or even younger, or you are arguing that somebody should take the responsibility for bearing the brunt of prosecution while others are free to do what they wish. You can’t have both.
Should 18-year-olds be legally entitled to read pornography? and buy it? I really don’t have an opinion on this, not studying the issues. They read it *anyay*. The issue of the stores seems reasonable in my community to avoid creating traps all around schools and colleges to keep luring people into spending time in porn shops which are not only places of purchase of porn, but pick-up joints and by their nature as being regulated, a place whether in general, the seedy activities of the society tend to gravitate, whether for drug sales or prostitution.
>Lawyers do not scare, neither Internet lawyers, or RL lawyers with credentials. Any one of us can become a “street lawyer” and learn the law as it applies to them and study the jurisprudence. Lawyers do not make law. Legislators do. Legislators are elected by people. Never forget that.
>What the hell does that mean?
Law is made by legislatures? Pretty straight forward. Three branches of government. Did you study that part in college? And governments that issue regulations that legislators don’t have oversight of, and don’t participate in, and where people also have a role with elected representatives, can’t expect to go on imposing draconian law forever, people rebel and organize the communities freely sooner or later, sometimes much later, but just law comes from democratic legislatures, not from committees of tekkie experts coding up a voting machine where you can only vote “yes”.
>I’m actually more annoyed by your “never forget that.“ Because there were times when you got all lofty on me about
evidence and judges and juries deciding the law, apparently on their own without lawyers. Then you say that legislators make the law. Of course, they make the law, but lawyers, judges, and juries all help shape the law.
Let’s go over the three branches of government, shall we? There’s the legislative branch. Elected by the people and for the people. They draft and pass laws. The executive branch signs them in many cases. It appoints the judges in some countries. The judges the interpret the law. These branches are checks and balances on each other. Lawyers and judges shape law, but they don’t draft and pass it.
Of course I’m going to get all lofty on you because I’m very much for the rule of law. The rule of law to which the executive branch itself must conform, as the other branches. If a society only has magistrates before whom hapless citizens are thrown, they have no recourse for a just and adversarial defense. On the other hand, a judge is able to interpret the law on its own terms and by precedent and can prevent a frivolous lawsuit. I don’t know what your actual reference is to judges, but all parts are needed in the system. Media coverage becomes yet another factor.
>First, you attack me because of my possible lack of credentials. I provide them to you. Then you say what I have is a bunch of crap and that my credentials don’t matter. If they didn’t matter, why were they so important to you?
I see the tekkie literalist disease invades even those who are in the field of law, which should suffer as much from this diease. I asked for your credentials. So many people google and paste. I’d like to know if you actually studied law formally or had credentials. If you didn’t graduate from law school yet, or didn’t pass the bar yet, I can’t exactly give a ringing endorsement for your credentials, now, can I?
Is it now your position that the only people that can question you are legislators as far as interpretation of laws go?
What kind of nutty statement is that? Is this something you get from TV? Legislators can exercise oversight of the enforcement of laws the pass, and judges can interpret them. What is the “you” to which you refer? N ot literally me, but to the public? The will make its will felt in various ways.
>I might wonder if an actual legislator shows up on the boards, you’ll discount their opinions because they aren’t a judge.
Why would I do that? Because you’d merely like to ascribe wacky opinions to me? I just explained about the three parts of government. Do they still teach that in school?
>You are a technician with rote knowledge. Anybody who has a rich enough daddy or willing to go into debt enough who get pass an LSAT and entrance requirements can go to law school. It’s not a guild in World of Warcraft. It doesn’t require an impressively complex set of skills, necessarily, but just the wealth and staying power to read a lot of rote knowledge (rather like computer science).
You have no clue, no clue whatsoever about law school. If law school is not about rote knowledge. Its about being able to look at a problem and analyze it with the legal tools that you have.
I have plenty of clue about law school, hon. More than you can imagine. And it is rote knowledge. It requires mastering a lot of rote concepts and facts and research tools. Yes, it’s about being able to think critically once you have mastered that literature, but not everyone shines in this department, and many a dull and serviceable corporate litigator has merely mastered a lot of droning stuff, not illustrated himself to be of keen and penetrating mind.
If looking at a problem and analyzing it with tools you have results in you telling me a blooper like it’s somehow an offense against the First Amendment to limit the exposer of teens to porn content, and that there’s some obligation by the state to ensure the reach of printing materials by not keeping teens or people YOU feel are adults away from it, I can see that we have a case here of bad tools, bad analysis, and probably some really wierd critical Marxist professor somehow lurking about. Whatever it is, it’s not law but ideology. The ideology cloaking itself with the law to justify the world’s oldest profession, which happens to be your profession in Second Life.
>I have watched you, time and again, talk out of your ass about the legal system and what constitutes the rule of law. When confronted by someone with actual legal training, you dismiss everything that they say because they are not as lofty as you. I now see you as pathetic.
Hardly. I think you have no clue about the actual rule of law and your own requirement to submit to it and to understand that interpretation of the law is a dynamic process and can change with the community’s own needs, yet it is not something that is so fungible that every passing whore can bend it to her delight. I hardly see any example of being “confronted by someone with legal training” somehow trumping me or pwning me — I see a college kid who can’t grasp the basics about the free press, for starters.
It’s actually the case, however, that a number of lawyers, including those that gravitated to SL for whatever reason, are not as lofty as me. I’m pretty lofty when it comes to keeping the Lindens paws off third-party blogs. That’s vital to our Second Life. You don’t seem very concerned about that, with all your zeal about prior restraint and post-induction of access. You probably think the law in service of political correctness is just the ticket.
When I asked people in the various legal lists the other night to care about this, only one wrote me and said, thanks for caring about our freedoms in SL. The rest shrugged, said “we don’t do those windows” or “not for us” or “it won’t affect me, I’m not publishing chat logs on my blog, I’m a good boy” or whatever variant thereof. it was actually the usual sorry sight, as civil rights lawyers are a different animal than lawyers used to functioning in large corporate settings where they do the corporate bidding.
BTW, lawyers aren’t where you go to uphold law abstractly, as you might go to a jurist and philosopher about law, or to a judge or other great thinker. A lawyer is a technician. His job, above all, is to serve his client. His client is paramount. If serving the client involves shading this aspect of the law or dramatizing the other, that’s what will be done.
>I fail to see how you imagine, given the knowledge you should have, that you will be able to keep your Second Life activities a secret from the bar or future clients forever. I wouldn’t count on that.
And how is that exactly? The knowledge that I have? If I gave up everything tomorrow, there is no record of what I did on SL, only these forums, of which I’ve used the name of my avatar, not my real identity.
I guess you’ve failed to see all these articles in the Herald about how information gets leaked, how people track IP addresses and match them with the appearance of that address elsewhere on other sites where a different name might be posted, where within the space of an hour, an assiduously-guarded Linden alt was outed. Good luck, and as I said, don’t bet on it.
>You have an agenda. That agenda is the adult business of Second Life. Therefore you have a bias in trying to a) get the most bang for the buck out of Linden TOS and law interpretation and b) bang on anybody in a forums that you think isn’t giving you the licentiousness you need. Now we’re clear on that, it’s not an especially interesting discussion, because you aren’t interested in creativity for artists or freedom of speech or the community as a whole, you’re interested in the adult business because you find it er, liberating, or whatever you find it to be in your own subjective set of interests.
>So in your words, my interests must be out of self-interest alone and not for any other reason. How many assumptions about me are you really going to make Prok?
I think I’ve pretty much got it on the money here, as your zealousness and need “to be right” is evident to all here. Everybody always claims they are helping the masses. Let’s here it for how you are helping newbies. Do you have freebies?
Darkfoxx
May 20th, 2007
The only children on SL that I see that we need to get rid of, are the ones bickering in the posts above me.
Then, the rest of us can go back to whatever kinks we all have, and we can stop rolling our eyes at well… everything in the comments section.
Hang on, I can stop doing that now!
*logs on to SL, back to his adult gay club filled with pretend animals having sex*
Whooo pretend zoophilia!!!
Kim Dingo
May 20th, 2007
The crucial issue that seems to be running through this argument seems to be, whether the “Authorities” or the individual has the last word on what is moral or acceptable. In an area where a subject is less loaded, the individual seems to have more of a say in this. In areas where a subject is highly charged, the “Authorities” seem to take over.
What does this have to do with anything? I think there IS no “Europe” to blame for this, only specific Europeans. And the climate in Europe is such that people are not prepared to PERSONALLY deal with the questions – so the Authorities take the question away from individual judgement, and make it a morally pre-decided issue. There are many in Europe, which individuals may not personally evaluate or research in order to form their own opinions – but that is true in all communities.
The Europenas have their framework set by their respective communities, and have to live with that – or get THEIR legislatures to change that. As long as the indiviual Europeans are not prepared to bring these “pre moralised” issues to a public forum and clean them up with rationality and the light of day, these issues will stay pre-moralised; bat that applies in any community.
You get these laws in areas where you refuse to take full responsibilty for the issues at hand. Then Daddy tells you what you can and cannot do. If you DO take full responsibilty for the WHOLE issue, Daddy can’t do that… Cos you are All Grown Up Now.
csven
May 20th, 2007
“1. Csven has not been able to prove that the Wisconsis legislature did NOT pass the bill to exempt the military.
2. I made a claim military were exempt based on an article that said 3 states had it. If they didn’t, so what?.”
I’ve not bothered trying and I never made a claim necessitating I bother.
Prok made a claim about how the states have rebelled against the “iron fist” (or something) of the Federal government, essentially claiming that laws had been changed. Only she provided no source for this claim.
When asked to provide one, she launched into more diahrea of the mouth which amounted to saying… nothing.
She provided a source and it provided… nothing.
When she provided her source, she admitted that it provided… nothing.
So her rabid “Prok”clamation was just a lie (in the language of common people).
So here you have it: PROKOFY NEVA ADMITTING TO A LIE.
Treat that FACT as you see fit.
csven
May 20th, 2007
@Darkfoxx – Feel free to add “pretend animals having sex” to the list. I’d debating whether to add a few more (things that are illegal in many parts of the world but which have recently been made legal in the U.S.). I’m also considering adding “Pretend Use of Sex Toys”, because that’s illegal in some states iirc.
Prokofy Neva
May 20th, 2007
Here’s a very good article with all the arguments solidly rebutted on “ageplay” that points out that all this crap about the “outlawing of pretend furry sex” and all the rest of it that determined pedophiles and their apologists like csven are completely full of holes.
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/05/the_pedophiles_.html
Prokofy Neva
May 20th, 2007
@Darkfoxx – Feel free to add “pretend animals having sex” to the list. I’d debating whether to add a few more (things that are illegal in many parts of the world but which have recently been made legal in the U.S.). I’m also considering adding “Pretend Use of Sex Toys”, because that’s illegal in some states iirc.
Yes, I’m quite sure that we’ll discover that, oh, wheeling a wheelbarrow on Main Street with a pig in it is illegal in Nebraska. Or that possession of a Fourth of July sparkler is illegal in New York. Or that a man’s hair below the collar is actionable in, I dunno, Albequerque. And…all those silly old-fashioned offenses are um…so much *like* child molestation, aren’t they? I mean the Silly Laws of the United States are really so *parallel* to the act of harming a child since they all involve, oh, young defenseless beings without protection, um, right?
ok, carry on!
csven
May 20th, 2007
I was thinking more along the lines of:
Sodomy
Inter-racial Relationships
Stuff like that. While there are certainly some stupid laws on the books, I doubt people would call “possession of a Fourth of July sparkler is illegal in New York” perverse. Then again, in the fermenting brain of Prokofy Neva…
Prokofy Neva
May 20th, 2007
“1. Csven has not been able to prove that the Wisconsis legislature did NOT pass the bill to exempt the military.
2. I made a claim military were exempt based on an article that said 3 states had it. If they didn’t, so what?.”
>I’ve not bothered trying and I never made a claim necessitating I bother.
So…where is it? The proof that Wisconsin’s law didn’t pass, and will never pass? Hello?
>Prok made a claim about how the states have rebelled against the “iron fist” (or something) of the Federal government, essentially claiming that laws had been changed. Only she provided no source for this claim.
But they have. They disobey the law. It took some of them kicking and screaming til the last minute, even losing millions of dollars in highway funds. And two of them immediately (at least two, probably more) set about making exemptions for military in bills on the the state floor. And so on. My God, that part isn’t at all hard to demonstrate!
In fact, it is our friend csven who rebelled against the state’s iron centralized fist by huffing and puffing and young boys going to war but unable to quaff their thirst with a beer before departure. And…perhaps he means to litigate against war, and not alcohol, but he winds up rebelling against a power that can’t let soldiers have a beer so that means…he is opposed to the federal drinking age. Glad we cleared that up!
>When asked to provide one, she launched into more diahrea of the mouth which amounted to saying… nothing.
>She provided a source and it provided… nothing.
Uh, well, I guess two states mounting bills to create exemptions and all kinds of other exemptions getting into the law anyway here and there doesn’t count. Oh, well.
>When she provided her source, she admitted that it provided… nothing.
Nothing of the kind.
>So her rabid “Prok”clamation was just a lie (in the language of common people).
No, not a lie, as i’ve indicated in detail here.
>So here you have it: PROKOFY NEVA ADMITTING TO A LIE.
Treat that FACT as you see fit.
Gosh, engage in circular reasoning and by gosh, come back to the place you started at!
csven
May 20th, 2007
“So…where is it? The proof that Wisconsin’s law didn’t pass, and will never pass? Hello?”
This is how it works:
a) Person makes claim.
b) Person provides substantiation for claim.
This is *not* how it works:
a) Person makes claim.
b) Person ignores providing substantiation for claim.
c) When questioned, person demands someone else *disprove* the claim.
All I’m reasonably asking is for you to provide PROOF of your claim. Can you or can you not do that? You’ve already ADMITTED that you CAN’T. Thus, your claim is a LIE.
(btw, you’re reverting into a worm again. This “and will never pass” crap is just more wiggly wiggly, wormgirl.)
csven
May 20th, 2007
Prok whined: “So…where is it? The proof that Wisconsin’s law didn’t pass”
Just for fun I thought I’d play again. Here’s the proof:
“Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution” – http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/AB141hst.html
(that took all of ten minutes to find; found the link through this article: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=328253 )
btw, all this nitpicking about variation in laws and resisting a uniform age… it supports the original point I was making. Thanks, Prok. Your flip-flopping has been a big help.
Angel
May 21st, 2007
5) Pretend interspecies (HAWT!)
6) Pretend Capture/Rape
7) Pretend Capture/Rape of a Sub human by a Dom canine
Prokofy Neva
May 21st, 2007
“Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution” – http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/AB141hst.html
(that took all of ten minutes to find; found the link through this article: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=328253 )
btw, all this nitpicking about variation in laws and resisting a uniform age… it supports the original point I was making.
Actually, no — it’s not “nitpicking” but legitimate questioning and in fact the existence of not one but even two states trying to buck this with exceptions, and lots of anecdotal reports of non-compliance and liberal enforcement with these “family exceptions” invoked — all that lets us know it isn’t the slam-dunk that csven imagines.
Glad you had the time and energy to go following more links from the jsonline article which I left off at — because I do have better things to do. And surely your work and family life are suffering with these kinds of wierd obsessions with comments on blogs, that you spend hours trying to pound people into the ground on them.
Because the fact is, you are no more persuasive for finding this than you were at the beginning. Because as I already pointed out, the very existence of the senators in Wisconsin willing to take this on, and getting a certain ways with it, s a tribute to the fact that people not only ask on blogs “why can they go to war but not have a beer?” they try to take action on it. In at least two states, if not 3 or more. And they work to make other exceptions. Because they don’t feel the federal government should tell them what to do as a state. And that’s why federalism, as much as a utopianist would like to see it, to have excessive and harsh powers, can’t succeed in the end unless it has the consent and cooperation of the states.
What’s even MORE hilarious about csven’s obsessive convulsion here in the weeds of drinking laws is that he’s absolutely lost sight of how all this in fact could well support what Linden Lab is doing! They, as the federal force equivalent, recognizing there are all kidns of variants, recognizing there are state’s rights, nevertheless institutes a policy against ageplay advertising and bans some ageplayers. How do you like that! So much for csven’s belief that they should be hobbled by a thousand subjectivities than can never end up to be a policy.
I argued against csven’s claim in the beginning that the laws were so different, that they couldn’t be acted on by federal power. Indeed I said they *were not* so different and that in any event, there’s a challenge here — federal power doesn’t work on them anyway (it only succeeded by actual threat of removal of highway funds) — and by extension — federal power has to work hard to get the consent of the governed.
Meanwhile, csven was arguing for doing nothing, and having no policy about anything, because there are wacky laws on the books, a million subjectivities, and interracial dating, banned in some states in some obscure law somewhere, is something that people do in Second Life, so GASP they may be violating the law in Missouri or some place.
In fact, as I pointed out making up laws about wheelbarrows and pigs, the Lindens aren’t being asked about interracial dating. They aren’t scratching their heads over being 18 and going to war and not drinking a bear.
They’re taking a stand against pedophiles — and that’s a good thing!
csven
May 21st, 2007
“Actually, no — it’s not “nitpicking” but legitimate questioning”
…about something that
a) isn’t directly relevant to my point
b) supports my point
-
“Glad you had the time and energy to go following more links”
It was a worthwhile ten minutes. It’s actually pretty amazing how quickly you can find something with the right combination of “literalist” words and a search engine.
-
“because I do have better things to do.”
Like write whinescrapers elsewhere?
-
“And surely your work and family life are suffering”
Not at all. But is this the best you can do? Is this effort indicative of how desperate you are?
First it’s suggesting I’m on medication (I’m not), now it’s making other pathetic statements in an effort to wiggle your way out of a truth you don’t like having to face: you lied and you were caught.
You’ve proven yourself to be as bad as those you’ve often criticized. I’d say you no longer have the high moral ground you often claim to have.
-
“with these kinds of wierd obsessions with comments on blogs”
Only two atm, and usually at this level for only a week or so. After all, if I kept this up at your level, something might suffer. How do YOU do it?
-
“that you spend hours trying to pound people into the ground on them.”
Just you, wormwoman.
-
“Because the fact… people not only ask on blogs “why can they go to war but not have a beer?”"
Part of the original point I was making.
-
“Because they don’t feel the federal government should tell them what to do as a state.”
Exactly. However the Federal government DID coerce the states. YOU didn’t believe it and called me “nuts”. And NOW you’re agreeing with me.
You’ve wiggled your way over to my point of view. Nice.
-
“And that’s why federalism, as much as a utopianist would like to see it, to have excessive and harsh powers, can’t succeed in the end unless it has the consent and cooperation of the states.”
Only YOU’RE the one arguing for something closer to Utopia than I am. My point was that if RL laws can’t align, then LL’s attempts would be a mess. YOU’RE the one saying how the laws aren’t so different and that SL can solve all those issues. You’re the one sounding like a techie-wiki utopian! hahaha
-
“this in fact could well support what Linden Lab is doing! They, as the federal force equivalent, recognizing there are all kidns of variants, recognizing there are state’s rights, nevertheless institutes a policy against ageplay advertising and bans some ageplayers.!”
“nevertheless”
Linden Lab’s action here – in the face of all these variations – sounds an awful lot like that Federal law you’re arguing against.
-
“(it only succeeded by actual threat of removal of highway funds)”
And banning isn’t a threat?
Revealing identities isn’t a threat?
-
“Meanwhile, csven was arguing for doing nothing, and having no policy about anything”
I don’t recall “arguing for doing nothing”.
ANOTHER LIE, PROKOFY?
Provide the relevant quote or admit to lying yet again.
-
“They’re taking a stand against pedophiles — and that’s a good thing!”
Correction: They’re taking a stand against PRETEND pedophiles. It’s hard to be real pedophilia when there aren’t any real children involved.
csven
May 21st, 2007
{Just adding Angel’s additions to the list (5-7) and adding 8 as there’s plenty of people who find that perverse – reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation }
List of Second Life Perversions
1) Pretend Inter-Religion Relationship
2) Pretend Homosexual Behavior
3) Pretend Slavery (Gorean)
4) Pretend BDSM
5) Pretend interspecies (HAWT!)
6) Pretend Capture/Rape
7) Pretend Capture/Rape of a Sub human by a Dom canine
Pretend Inter-Racial Relationship
Mark
May 21st, 2007
“And surely your work and family life are suffering with these kinds of wierd obsessions with comments on blogs, that you spend hours trying to pound people into the ground on them.”
*Busts a gut laughing at the irony!*
SexCrimeDefender
May 22nd, 2007
Ageplay
I think as computers and graphics design software becomes more powerful the issue of ageplay in online games like Second life will become more common. The Second Life Herald has been extensively writing about the issue in posts like this
Hazim Gazov
May 22nd, 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.
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).
Comment spam lulz.
Blinders Off
May 23rd, 2007
“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.”
Sobo
That’s a good point. Takes a totally conceited ass to insult people for the kicks of it… which is something seen on these blogs all the time. So glad you said this. Also good to question the “powers”.
I don’t comment all that often on these blogs, but I couldn’t help be interested by the idea likening corporate attitude to Hitlers regime, and the posts that followed. I don’t find that idea all that absurd. Corporate attitude murders people every hour of every day. Whether you murder people in gas chambers or sell the gas to murder them, you’re still engaging in genocide. Whether its for power or to line your own pockets, it’s still as wrong. The point about tobacco companies intentionally killing people just to get richer was right on. We may not consider these things to be as bad as pedophelia or Hitler but I bet more people have have been killed by tobacco than Hitler ever dreamed of murdering. And I bet tobacco has ruined more lives and families than all the pedophiles ever put together. Yes pedophelia is really, really bad. So is intentionally killing other people for the almighty dollar.
The tobacco companies knew it was deadly but even added extra nicotine to make the stuff more addictive. So I found it funny that the people mentioned above completely missed that point. LOL
csven
May 24th, 2007
“idea likening corporate attitude to Hitlers regime, and the posts that followed. I don’t find that idea all that absurd. Corporate attitude murders people every hour of every day.”
And the corporations only have the power that consumers and the government (via taxpayers) give them. That includes most, if not all, of us.
- Do you drive a car or bicycle?
- Do you own any petroleum-based products (e.g. plastic)?
- Do you use electricity from a service provider or generate your own?
- Do you buy any food whose products are the result of corporate farms that use insecticides?
Your answers to those questions will help us to determine ~your~ culpability.
-
“Whether you murder people in gas chambers or sell the gas to murder them, you’re still engaging in genocide.”
Don’t disagree. But exactly what kind of gas are you referring to??? Are you associating Hitler’s “gas” (like zyklon B, an insecticide) with the stuff companies sell for us to use in automobiles???
For reference, this was the line: “The Gas corporations are using corporate propaganda to raise prices to the point that people can’t get to work”
You do realize there are different kinds of “gas”. That the air we breath is a “gas”. And that the fuel we put in our cars is, technically, not a “gas” but a liquid. And if that were the intended comparison, insecticide companies would have been the more accurate choice here (hence the question above).
-
“The tobacco companies knew it was deadly but even added extra nicotine to make the stuff more addictive. So I found it funny that the people mentioned above completely missed that point. LOL”
Are you referring to me? And did you, perhaps, not notice that I left the tobacco part of the argument out (and called attention to that omission) because I *do* see a closer relation in that particular comparison?
For your reference, this is what I said: “Actually, it wasn’t the tobacco companies that threw me for a loop. It was the gas companies”.
Given all these issues, I look forward to reading your reply. “LOL”
Karen Palen
May 24th, 2007
he point is that the “California laid back types like Philip Rosedale talk a good line about freedom of expression, but when it comes to “unpleasant” ideas like small avatars he folds.
The word for that is hypocrisy!
For example, exactly WHAT *IS* the “simulated age” of an avatar?
When this whole fuss started I discussed this with a 50 year old woman who is 4ft tall in real life.
She claimed that the real discrimination was not age but height! If you are 4ft tall you *MUST* be a child – no debate allowed!
I have had the privilege of knowing this woman for over 20 years now and have had the opportunity to witness this discrimination first hand.
At her suggestion (insistence?) I adopted her “persona” as my Second life Persona – Karen Palen.
I can now personally bear witness to the pain she faces every day!
Dumb things like having her 25 year old daughter told to “make your child behave”! Serious things like not being believed when she reports an attempted rape.
The fact is that “freedom of thought” means nothing unless the most extreme and upsetting thoughts are protected!
The standard of “appears to be a child” is totally unworkable as the US legal cases clearly demonstrate. The “short person” persona is simply another example of the absurdity of such a standard!
It is conceivable that the European courts will somehow come up with an answer to this objection, but somehow I doubt it – there are just too many problems with this “standard”.
All we are left with is “*I* didn’t like it and *I* am the one who decides …”