Here’s the thing, in real life it is impossible to mistake the a 40-year-old man in a diaper and a frilly pink dress for an actual little girl (unless that man has a congenital disease that prevents growth, such as Gary Coleman). In Second Life, people who enjoy this particular D/s lifestyle can look however they want to look.

Why not just make avatars that look like adults wearing children’s clothes, one might ask. I ask, why should people have to use such avatars if they don’t want to.

“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” – Salman RUSHDIE

And lets face it, hairy 40-year old guys dressed like preteen girls tend to look sort of gross.

And *that* is the big unanswered question imo.

Well, that and how someone can turn a blind eye towards real child porn yet be obsessed with the make-believe activities of consenting adults.

Someone please read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/world/middleeast/29syria.html?ex=1338091200&en=11adb9d409d721b0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

and then, after a dose of related reality, come back and explain to me how one simply *forgets* about real child pornography; or at least how someone can *care* so little that they neglect to notify the real authorities to deal with it.

Maybe we have a wolf in sheep’s clothing, eh?

It seems like a long time since I’ve posted here. Trust me, nothing personal. I was doing some research, checking on Prokofy’s sources, when I found some interesting things.

First, 18 U.S.C. 1446a “(a) In general. Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1) [18 USCS § 2252A(b)(1)], including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

(Yes, its a cut and paste job but I didn’t feel like typing it all.) So what Prok observed during the anti-ageplay protest as reported in his blog was illegal in the US. This is in addition to the actual RL child pornography being illegal.

Second, I found a case where a man downloaded Hentai type porn and was prosecuted for child pornography. United States v. Whorley, 386 F. Supp. 2d 693 (ED Va 2005).

So what does this mean? It means the sexual ageplay as depicted by ARD may have been illegal in the US as well (obscenity typically being a jury issue). If it showed more sexual contact between the minor and the adult avatars, then it would be illegal in the US.

Of course, this raises another question, that I don’t have time now to research. Does the temporary nature of SL count as a “depiction.” But honestly, I would recommend erring on the side of caution and not engage in sexualized ageplay.

And while I don’t find the notion detestable, I believe that shutting down places like Hunter High, (disclosure, Hunter High is owned by Sarah Nerd, and I am an investor in Sarah Nerd Enterprises) is reasonable in order to prevent sexualized ageplay between minors, ie high school students. This is not due to a promotion of pedophilia, but in regards to current U.S. law that would attach to any SL resident’s activities. (The SL servers and the company that you are contracting with are all in the US. There is notice, included in the ToS, that California law would apply.)

Its one thing to protect unpopular legal speech. Its another point to try to actively change the law, which requires different methods and approaches if you are interested in changing the law.

Third, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 535 U.S. 234 (2001) was struck down as overbroad because it didn’t stop at obscene depictions as in the statute above, but rather all depictions of what might appear to be minors engaging in sexual activity, including “youthful adults.” 18 U.S.C. 1446a includes the requirement that the work must be obscene and without merit in order to be criminal. That’s why Ashcroft does not apply to the above statute.

I’ll end with this for Prok and csven. 18 USC § 1470 provides that the provision of obscene matter to a minor is illegal. The standard for that minor is that they are under 16 years old.

I hate to be the one to break it to you Prokofy but no one has to disprove anything you type or say. You state your opinions as if they were facts – case in point little dear, I am still waiting on your proof showing that people can exist as energy within the massive network that is the Internet and thus exist only in Second Life as a bodiless entity – see, now as it stands you have no facts to back up your opinion. science however provides all the facts I need to state what I do.

Where are your facts Prokofy?

For reference, quotes from Prok’s own posts on HER blog:

-1-

http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/05/breaking_clicka.html

“Prokofy: Um, there’s no “lie” here and no “hypocrisy” but a statement that I believed to be true. A statement I believe to be true *is* a fact until it is *disproven*.”

-2-

http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/05/the_pedophiles_.html

“Last summer… I went out to investigate… I got there and found a house full of pedophiles hastily clearing out the *real-life very graphic child pornography” off their walls — they were photographs imported from real life porn and as they whisked them away, leaving holes in the spaces of the walls… I took a few shots… nobody felt like following up, the people sold their land and disappeared and the story was over. Possibly if the Lindens had decided to change their policy, and Lindens like Guy were empowered to act, the outcome might have been different. But they weren’t, and here we all are. … I forgot about the subject then with the crush of other stories,”

—————————————————

#1 is Prok’s distorted logic.

What it allows for is my saying that because I don’t believe she deleted the screencaps she took showing “child rape” in Second Life, it is a FACT she still has them.

That’s what happens when, as in Prok’s world, the burden falls on someone else to *disprove* something. And short of proof to the contrary, the supposition – the guess – somehow magically acquires factual status.

Her words again: “A statement I believe to be true *is* a fact until it is *disproven*.”

This and other screwed up approaches to logic are how Prok forms the basis for factual information in her own little reality.

-

#2 is Prok’s inexcusable negligence.

According to her account she saw REAL LIFE IMAGES OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. It’s clear she could have (if she wanted) collected information for later use by the authorities. She’s said she took screenshots. She doubtlessly had avatar names.

From her recounting the Linden arrived late, possibly *too* late to see the RL child porn.

So can I without question fault the Linden who came late?

No.

Can we, based on her account, fault HER for not acting and contacting the authorities after seeing REAL LIFE IMAGES OF CHILD PORN IN SECOND LIFE?

Absolutely.

In her account she says clearly, “I forgot about the subject then with the crush of other stories”.

Now she’s trying to wiggle out of her own words by claiming, “I didn’t “forget”.

NOW she’s trying to get tekkie-wiki literalist on us (surprise) and is saying: “Forgetting about this issue *as a story idea* doesn’t mean *not caring about* — that implication is just plain tendentiously stupid.”

Well, exactly how much does a person *care* if they DON’T contact the real life authorities, give a first person account of what was seen (regardless of what she claims to have gotten screen captures of), and then provide avatar identities so that the authorities can work with Linden Lab to find evidence (because Prok’s screencaps wouldn’t have tied individuals to ownership)???

Very little, imo.

It’s easy to say “I care”, but when actions don’t support the claim, I don’t BELIEVE the sincerity of the person making the claim. I think they’re lying. And using ProkLogic, my belief can be stated as FACT.

I believe Prok is lying. ProkLogic makes it a FACT.

Full stop.

>She *claims* to have erased the images from her harddrive. I don’t believe her – and won’t – until she PROVES it (though I’ll refrain from calling my belief a “fact”, which she argued on Clickable Culture is entirely permissable and which permits her to do the same to everyone else).

>Maybe you should ask her to dig out those photos for you. If she’s just trying to save her own butt, you might be able to help locate it.

There’s csven, at it again, but I’m right back at him, because this kind of bullying and bullshit can’t be allowed to stand.

csven provides a tendentious and false portrayal of the story on my blog. I didn’t take any screencaps of RL porn, and never stated that. I *witnessed* the RL porn on the walls *being whisked away and deleted or put in inventory before my eyes* and didn’t photograph it. I photographed, as I clearly stated, the child avatars *and the blank spaces on the wall* left by what had clearly been something hastily removed. That was all stated in my blog.

csven is like these pedophiles who work overtime to discredit journalists merely covering the issue and trying to cover it in a critical manner. He’s willing to take their effort at *journalism* and try to trump up out of it some kind of crime of possessing or distributing child pornography. Now…how lame is that?!

I didn’t “forget” about this awful incident. First, I covered it — I was present. I thought about how to write about it. I couldn’t find a good way to write about it, frankly, and there was a lot of hysteria around the subject at the time which meant an endless wrangle with people like csven if I posted something. I covered it later on my blog, as can be seen. As much as I don’t shrink from controversy, there are times when I simply tire of the repetitive nature of it and tire of the constant deluge of personal attacks. At that time, there were full-bore campaigns everywhere which themselves became abusive. Suspected, not proven “ageplayers” were outed everywhere.

At that time, and during the time I thought about that subject, I adopted the liberal view du jour, too. I figured what people do in their own homes — no matter how horrible — was their business. I figured it was invasive of privacy as a concept and as a right to allow the encroachment of it. The Lindens seemed to follow that policy.

But the exception was obviously RL child porn. That was indeed on the walls back then, and was whisked away. At first glance, one might think, but putting child porn on the walls is part of that option of private life that people should be allowed to have, isn’t it? I didn’t think *deeper* at that time as I hadn’t researched the issue as much. I came to see that it was wrong even to concede RL child porn in the simulated world because that’s part of what feeds the whole sick machine of exploiting children. It’s part of the criminality, of course. And while those people who copied images into SL weren’t directly partaking of the crime, there’s no question that they were enabling it and fueling it because it’s viewers of such “productions” that enable the empires to keep going.

That’s why the fellow on my blog squawking about victimless crimes and the right to view porn as some kind of safe and “OK” activity is full of shit — it’s the viewing — anywhere, for free, for pay, as a copy, on the Internet, in RL, in SL, that is part of aiding and abetting the crime. We can all agree it is a crime (csven of course may be trapped somewhere in some backwater with a 13-year-old bride and may not agree).

Furthermore, after I researched the topic more thoroughly and thought about it, I could see a very rational argument being put forward by child psychiatrists, child protection agencies, law-enforcement personnel, various foundations and NGOs combatting child pornography. They said that creating an enabling environment by legitimizing, sanctioning, justifying the act of child molestation in simulation was making it easier for the individual to act on their criminal impulses. It was part of creating a support structure for his crime by seeming to decriminalize it. That made ample sense to me, and in fact that argumentation made ample sense to the Lindens who listened to their legal counsel. If there is even some portion of attacks on children that occurs by individuals led to commit this crime by the rationalization that simulation provides, then I think we are fully justified in removing simulated child porn and enabling it.

The Lindens in fact haven’t made such a ruling; they’ve acted in one case. We can’t know with them whether this is now a precedent always to be acted on; the Lindens say and do a lot of things inconsistently, i.e. they said you’d be permabanned from the world of SL if permabanned from the forums, but they dropped that misguided draconian policy in the case of Joshua Nightshade for some reason — maybe because he is friends of friends of Lindens or something.

At the time, I took pictures that I thought *could* go in the Herald, that weren’t the worst — not the RL pictures, but child avatars posing in SL. I simply decided not to write the article. I didn’t feel it was right to pump the rights of pedophiles to privacy and not to castigate the equally despicable vengeful types among the BDSM and other sectarians harassing them and trying to create a non-black kettle to call a pot black with. It was an ugly scene all the way around, with Linden inaction serving as the icing on the awful cake. I simply didn’t wish to do the story. It’s my right. I sent the pictures to the Herald. And no, I don’t have copies, as my hard drive was destroyed in a computer accident more than a year ago, so they really do not exist, good luck in trying to turn the Feds on me, csven.

Only after that reflection and thought process and deciding not to do the story did I move on and forget about the issue — it died down as that confrontation sent these “ageplayers” more underground for a time. Forgetting about this issue *as a story idea* doesn’t mean *not caring about* — that implication is just plain tendentiously stupid.

I see csven is an equal-opportunity abuser here of other posters, behaving like an ass. This, from someone who is supposed to have a respected blog and fine technical mind. Bullshit. He is untethered, and deranged. Someone should make an intervention.

More back on my blog, rebutting him line by line for his atrocious, outrageous abusive posts on Clickable Culture.

And I read on Prok’s blog that she took screencaps of a scene in SL where there was *both* virtual and REAL child porn. Last summer. And then she just “forgot” about it as if it wasn’t that big a deal.

She *claims* to have erased the images from her harddrive. I don’t believe her – and won’t – until she PROVES it (though I’ll refrain from calling my belief a “fact”, which she argued on Clickable Culture is entirely permissable and which permits her to do the same to everyone else).

Maybe you should ask her to dig out those photos for you. If she’s just trying to save her own butt, you might be able to help locate it.

Congrats on conceiving of a NEED to go LOOKING for one’s own ass.

Meanwhile:

1) I wasn’t debating the tobacco issue so why you’re dribbling on about it is beyond me.

2) You’re supporting the original poster’s laughable argument equating “gas” companies (like British Petroleum) their control over prices for gasoline we need for our *cars*, to companies that provide the kind of “gas” (as in a by-product of an INSECTICIDE) used by the Nazi’s during the Holocaust.

Maybe you should go back to locating your body parts. You seem to have more success in that department.

I agree and disagree. Yeah, Second Life lacks moderation and prevention of anti-social behavior. But saying they “cannot moderate the entire virtual world”? Sure they could. Board moderation has been in operation for decates and on boards much larger than Second Life. It’s pretty simple. You create a sweeping rule and then enforce it every time you come across a someone who violates it. “We know the ID of the computer you are using and if you tick us off, we’ll ban your butt.” But since Linden Lab doesn’t have the gnards of a gopher, they fail to enforce stuff they should. They should have realized from the very start that simulated child sex just might be a leeetle bit offensive to the public in general and set up a sweeping, across-the-board ban on such activities. Then they shoulda followed through on every instance that happened on their board.

I mean, it’s their board man. They don’t owe nuthin to no one except the people that are paying them for their services. And even those people have to operate by house rules. So if Linden Lab wants to declare something socially objectionable and “we ain’t gonna have that here”, they can do that. They just choose not to. Unless of course, the German government crawls up their tails, then they’re suddenly all self-righteous and like the man said above, “We would NEVER allow that here!” and they actually DO ban two people, with no warning at all. Did those people deserve what they got? Maybe. What they were doing was twisted. But hey, LL knew ageplay was going on for a long time. They set the rules and then they changed ‘em without any notice. And there’s no maybe about that being wrong.

I read somewhere that supposed these two people had real child sex pics on the wall. But someone else says there is no evidence of such. Sounds to me like a corporate butt-saving cover up. It’s always easy for a dishonest cop to plant grass in a car. Point is, up to that point LL had allowed such stuff, then suddenly they did a 180. Hey, kudos for finally doing what is right. Thumbs down for the way they did it.