Fear and Loathing in Second Life: The New Sex and Violence Policy

by prokofy on 01/06/07 at 1:30 am

By Prokofy Neva, Community Affairs Desk. Op-Ed.

The new Linden policy on explicit sexual and violent material in Second Life is going to cause a total uproar. It was posted this evening California time at 6:00 pm, and not everyone may have noticed it. It is signed not by Robin Linden, who has signed the last few posts on “ageplay” much less Philip Linden, and not by Chadrick Linden. It’s signed by Daniel Linden, head of community affairs, a Linden from who we actually don’t often hear very often, and see much less in world (he has no office hours).

Here’s the nut graph:

The diversity of things to see and do within Second Life is almost unimaginable, but our community has made it clear to us that certain types of content and activity are simply not acceptable in any form. Real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depiction of sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children or minors; real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of sexual violence including rape, real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of extreme or graphic violence, and other broadly offensive content are never allowed or tolerated within Second Life.

No more can people endlessly speculate whether the Lindens are or are not banning and penalizing “ageplay” — it’s now laid down in black and white by stipulating that not only “real-life images” but “avatar portrayals” that depict sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children or minors are now an actionable offense.

The new policy is not put in a TOS — yet — and it’s upgraded considerably from Chadrick Linden’s curious extrajudicial notecarded policy of some months ago. But it’s unmistakeable. No “ageplay”. Full stop.

Going even further — further than anyone might have imagined — the Lindens also appear to be taking steps here against BDSM, Capture Roleplay and other forms of rape, slavery and “extreme or graphic violence”. The mere “avatar portrayal” of rape, as in Angel Fluffy’s popular “Capture Roleplay” maze and many other RP scenes in SL, is no longer to be tolerated in Second Life.

On the one hand, the policy is to be applauded, in my view, for finally explaining very clearly and unambiguously that even “avatar portrayal” counts; that avatars are as real as people when it comes to TOS violations and even RL crimes. That’s striking a blow in favour of virtuality of the kind Urizenus wants to have for the Bragg v. Linden case. On the other hand, many people will seize on this very long-delayed and very disingenous policy as placing a serious chill on freedom of expression, art, creativity, and the kind of deep, intensive human relationships that people have in Second Life, about which Philip Linden especially seems to rhapsodize about. Most disturbing, in two tiny phrases, “our community” and “are never allowed or tolerated,” Daniel both wipes out history — he puts the public record down the memory hole — and makes it appear as if there is something called “the community” which ostensible deliberated and “has spoken”. Neither is the case.

I personally, as a person who believes strongly that virtuality affects reality and is a part of reality (a view that isn’t popular among cynical Herald reporters, readers and commentators), am glad to see the Lindens finally take a moral stand and play the role they need to play as a virtual world service provider on the Internet in establishing the moral code. I have grown increasingly distressed at the way in which both BDSM and “ageplay” have spread virally in SL, have taken in more and more vulnerable and younger people (even if their underage status cannot be determined), and have become more and more tolerated in a climate that creates, as I have often argued, an enabling environment for real-life crime. While apologists for BDSM and pedophilia constantly wave around arguments about “consent” and ‘the age for consent” and “consual adults,” in fact RL penal codes make infliction of pain or enslavement even with consent a crime, and society often questions whether that consent is really what it claims.

The Lindens aren’t a religious people, however; their sudden piety about “a safe world” and their sudden revulsion over extreme sex and violence isn’t driven by morality — it’s driven by a very deadly-earnest practical wish to limit their liability for litigation. Urizenus and other cheerleaders for Bragg — a bad case making a good law (never happens!) want legal sanction for virtuality — this litigation liability development has caused our Lindens to run for the hills and protect themselves with as much legalized language as possible around another set of controversial issues — sex and violence.

How will this policy be policed? The same “community” that ostensibly “spoke” and said it had “never tolerated” these awful things (of course it had!) is now going to be charged with a) policing itself under the new abuse-report regime and b) informing on its neighbours in the police-state method for which SL is notorious. That’s why, when I fired off a response immediately to Daniel Linden, why I applauded him making a clear statement and taking a moral stand — something I think a company making the Metaverse and taking a leadership role in virtuality *should* be doing — I cautioned him that in their current climate of vindictive score-settling, the policy would more likely serve as a club to beat others with and remove undesirables than to really achieve that moral world that Daniel claims is his vision. (And one only has to watch his video presentation at Stanford, where he snickers at the concept of weasels having an “age of consent,” to understand that he is merely hanging on to his job by issuing this edict, he’s not articulating a genuinely-held belief from the bottom of his soul. Oh, well, we’ll take our morality where we can get it, these days.)

So what’s likely to happen? People who are disliked by some, like me, people who are controversial, who have opinions others don’t like — like this one I’m writing — are going to be targeted and victimized with this policy. Somebody like csven Concord, who hated that I supported the idea of accepting that LL must act against virtual child porn, will try to threaten me with chat-logging my tenants he finds suspicious and trying to “pin something on me”, and even outrageously accuse me of failing to report a real-life crime — incredibly vicious posts that he cluttered up Clickable Culture for days with, leading me to challenge him to the hilt, and culminating in both of us not only being permabanned from Clickable Culture by the soi-disant civil libertarian Tony Walsh, but having all our posts for three years nuked.

The Doomsday approach by Ratboy to the controversy around “ageplay” is a taste of what control and morality and the rule-by-community and code-as-law will bring us in the coming years, as the old concept of civil society and rule of law is thrown overboard — because people could not remain moral and law-abiding when let loose in a virtual utopia and left to their own devices. Nor could they be civil in arguing what the boundaries should be.

Or we’ll get things like the odious Jauani Wu, mendaciously blackmailing me and seeking a payment from me of $50,000 Lindens in order to prevent him from publishing what he claims is a lewd chatlog of mine — and then claiming he was paid off — a lie. We’ll see more of that. Whenever there are more things criminalized, whenever a lot of discretion is left to those in power, whenever illegitimate abstractions like a non-existent “community” are put forward as tribal decrees rather than a democratically-created rule of law interpreted by accountable justices, that’s what happens — blackmail, scamming, lies, libel.

The police-state concept is alive and well as we can see from the second — and last — paragraph from the Daniel Edict, and the punishment truly harsh — confiscation of one’s land and goods (viz. Bragg)

Please help us to keep Second Life a safe and welcoming space by continuing to notify Linden Lab about locations in-world that are violating our Community Standards regarding broadly offensive and potentially illegal content. Our team monitors such notification 24-hours a day, seven-days a week. Individuals and groups promoting or providing such content and activities will be swiftly met with a variety of sanctions, including termination of accounts, closure of groups, removal of content, and loss of land. It’s up to all of us to make sure Second Life remains a safe and welcoming haven of creativity and social vision.

What can a landlord like me practically do with an edict like this, which professes a morality I share, which comes close to my very own policy drafted in recent weeks in anticipation of the Linden verification procedure — whenever they were to announce it — but contains awfully draconian punishments in store? While no “team” is available to restart my broken and blocked sim 24/7, they’re available to come look at a swingset and see if maybe some child avatar is lewdly posed on it. Because “avatar portrayal” doesn’t just mean pictures; it means any act or motion or…anything at all…in our streaming video world.

Will people get warnings? Will they have a chance to try to warn their tenants? Will they be able to police their land effectively? I’m expecting rough sledding ahead as I try to enforce the unenforceable with the non-compliant and beligerent.

If vigorously implemented (and not merely a show of good intention to limit liability from litigation) and abuse-reported from inworld, these two paragraphs of Daniel Lindens could have a profound effect on the society and economy of Second Life. Hold on to your hats…

199 Responses to “Fear and Loathing in Second Life: The New Sex and Violence Policy”

Kahni Poitier

Jun 2nd, 2007

Well, considering it’s the only thing you talk about, even in discussions NOT ABOUT THAT TOPIC (see the Bragg issue), you certainly seem to have child sex on your mind a whole lot.

Now please, stick to discussing the topic, and not complaining that someone is calling you out ON ANOTHER BLOG.

We don’t care.
Prokofy Neva

Jun 2nd, 2007

Ariane, I think I answered a lot of these issues in my own blog post.

>Prokofy: personally, as a person who believes strongly that virtuality affects reality and is a part of reality (a view that isn’t popular among cynical Herald reporters, readers and commentators), am glad to see the Lindens finally take a moral stand and play the role they need to play as a virtual world service provider on the Internet in establishing the moral code.”

You: I completely disagree with these statements. Virtuality does not affect Reality, in fact there is good evidence that the exact opposite is true.

This is one of those endless debates, sometimes even called the “Gr8 Deb8″ at conferences like SOP I, in which people argue whether virtuality is real, and therefore can be affected by reality or affect reality. And people will disagree. You can’t argue them out of their positions, merely cite your argumentation. Your notion that virtuality doesn’t affect reality is only your notion, it has no intrinsic validity. Evidence can be gotten up on either side of the equation.

>Violence has gone DOWN as violence in video games has gone UP.

Mass school shootings and mass mom murders of children have gone UP not DOWN. That’s a very disturbing thing to contemplate.

>Reported rapes have gone DOWN as internet porn has gone UP.

And…the amount of child pornography used on the Internet porn, which involves the exploitation and harm of REAL children, has gone UP, not DOWN. Scary?

>If people want to get their yayas out doing stuff virtually that could cause physical or psychological harm if done really, I have no problem with that.

Of course you don’t, as you are in the minority of people who are lifestylers and their apologists.

>What is really going on here is Linden Labs can get more corporate sponsorship, or better yet a buyout, if they cleaned up the grid

That may be sad, but true. Then…find your own way getting your fuck-you hedonism paid for?

>There is a great divide coming to SL which is pitting Role Players (players who see SL as a fantasy escape from reality) against (for lack of a better term) Virtual Utopians (players who think virtual society = real society and want to make it perfect)

Glad you have at least the honesty to admit that role-playing is not perfect, nor utopian — indeed it isn’t! You know, if I have to pick — and I wasn’t aware that I had to pick — I think I’d pick utopians who want to make society perfect, as odious an exercise as that is with imperfect humans, versus people who want to have an escape from reality that also involves an escape from morality and who don’t care about making a better world.

>For years these two groups have lived harmoniously with one another in SL and other games, but the rules are changing heavily in favor of the virtual utopians and against the role players.

So the role players with their dystopias will have to find their own new game gods and VC backers.

>Role players avoid voice and other signs of reality, the age verification scheme is another invasion of reality, they oppose community standards policing because applying real standards to fantasy worlds makes no sense, they have a major loathing for “entrepreneurs” and avoid highly regulated places like Dreamland like the plague.

They are in the minority, as Dreamland is hugely populated, and last time I looked, populated with many people playing out fantasies. They just don’t happen to be YOUR fantasies of YOUR lifestyle, i guess, or something.

>The virtual utopians are basically the opposite.

I’m having a hard time getting a grid on these distinctions, frankly, because the utopianists who think the real world can get better through things like NPR or granola and Birkenstocks or something, aren’t the ones actually doing much in immersion in SL other than say, planting a RL tree or holding one of those meetings where each new person is made way for in one of those mass chair schemes that keep swallowing up the next person into an ever-larger circle. Those people don’t seem to me to be really making much virtuality perse.

>Personally I have no problem with either camp, to each his own. But when all the rules change in favor of one side and against the other, that is when trouble starts. Will role players be targeted for extreme pretend sex or violence and see their accounts closed?

I guess we’ll see.

>”other depictions of extreme or graphic violence, and other broadly offensive content are never allowed or tolerated within Second Life.”
> What exactly is extreme or graphic violence? Is it video game violence? Is this not a video game?

I asked this question on my podcast the other day. I have no idea. It seems far-fetched, and wide open for abuse.
Jessica Holyoke

Jun 2nd, 2007

The way csven is using Prok’s real-life information like he is doing does seem like harassment. I believe that Prok’s personal information was released prior to the MSM article regarding Prok and his Second Life. Csven, we get it, you know his RL information. Its not helping you in making your arguments.
If Prok was a bystander, that doesn’t mean he has a duty to report to the authorities. What exactly would he report and to whom? Looking at a piece of land as someone’s website, the domain holder had notice of the activity via the Linden. If he reported to the FBI, then which office? Even though what Prok spotted is illegal in the US and prosecutable as a crime no matter where the perpetrators are, that doesn’t mean the perpetrators are in the FBI’s current jurisdictions. The Linden’s were the better actors in this case, at least at first. From Prok’s words, they did nothing.
If you belive that all pornography, visual or verbal, has a deleterious effect, then it doesn’t matter if it was simulated or real life. Prokofy obviously sees all pornography as deleterious so there is no distinction between the two. Part of the issue here is that child pornography featuring children is illegal because of the real children involved. Pornography, including in the US, that depicts children in a sexual and obscene way is illegal, even if real children are not used, such as via drawings and cartoons. I raised the issue on another post as to whether or not the transient nature of Second Life is the same thing as a cartoon or drawing which would violate US law. I believe that pornography that does not feature real life children is not wrong, but that is why I do not argue with Prokofy on that point.

What I do argue with Prokofy over now is *how* this restriction will apply. He has stated that both the age verification policy and a policy similar to the one stated here would get rid of the pedophiles and other undesirables. That’s not the case. It would stop their activities, but not their prescense. A pedophile could still access Second Life so long as they don’t engage in ageplay. As a point of fact, the types of activities that the NYT article that Prok links to on his blog when he wrote about sexual ageplay does not describe ageplay as something the pedophiles engage in. Specifically, they talk of sharing information on how to be better pedophiles. This activity would be bannable under the new policy under “other depictions” but would be much harder to catch.
Prokofy has also linked pedophilia with BDSM. While I can see an exchange, or abuse, of power on both types of activities, saying that BDSM should be disavowed because of potential pedophilia is like saying heterosexual sex should be disavowed because of potential pedophilia. Granted, Prok has made other arguments that BDSM should be disallowed due to its inherent nature, but he has made a linkage between BDSM and pedophilia.
Last one for Prokofy. Earlier, you stated that my opinion on free speech as it relates to adult content is tainted due to my working in the adult industry in SL. (I own a consultant business for Adult Clubs and Dancers called SexyWorks, come visit me in Limitless Central. I’m also helping with the opening of the new Kitty Kat club on Planet K at Kayliwulf West. Stop by today.) You have stated how various law enforcement agencies, child advocacy groups and other NGO’s have stated that simulated child pornography has encouraged pedophiles to act out their desires on children. In making that statement, you neglected to discount bias. Law enforcement agencies are interested in the pursuit of justice and protecting the public certainly, but they are also interested in getting money. So long as there is a “threat to the children,” legislators are willing to give money to stop that threat because voters are willing to allow for the taxes to pay for combating the threat, even if it is a scare tactic. If people don’t believe that pedophiles are gathering at the door to come after their children, then they wouldn’t contribute money to the organizations. (yes, there are some pedophiles that look for targets from the population at large. However, the majority of abuse cases come from people that the child victim already knows.)
The other reason why I don’t like that statement is that its the same causality problem used when censors are talking about other works that are pornographic. For example, one bad argument is; a rapist owns pornography, therefore pornography causes rape. Something suggested as far back as the Meese Commission. However, that is not proof of causality. Its proof of commonality. Of course, it would be highly unethical to expose someone to pornography just to see if they become a rapist, but, otherwise, there’s no good way to test that hypothesis. (Another point to remember, Ted Bundy blamed Cheerleader magazines for some of his acts.)

While Gor may not have some of the extreme BDSM elements and that the kajirae are there willingly, (I’m not going to rehash my bad Gorean experience unless its really necessary, but IM me in- world if you really want a notecard. And my previous speaking out against Gorean slavery was specifically directed to the abuse of the Gorean slave trade, not the Goreans themselves.) that doesn’t mean that the basic premises of Gor are not patently offensive to some, with some being the issue. If “all women desire the collar” and that the proper societal order is that Men come before Women in all things, then, to some, that is broadly offensive. While I know that there are kajirus in Gor, outside of the city of Skjern, how many are there truly in comparison to kajira? (I can’t think of the proper plural to kajira right now.) Prok and others have argued that the collar itself is offensive if seen in places outside of Gor, even if worn by a BDSM person. Slavery, in and of itself, is offensive to some, regardless of the true nature of what is going on. The fact that there are Sims where people are enslaved is enough to be offensive to them. Of course, I’m the type of person who says that if you don’t like it, don’t go there. I also understand the appeal of Gor, when properly done.

The policy presented is that activities that are broadly offensive may result in the termination of your account. Based on previous discussions, Gor could be reasonably seen as falling into that category, especially with the copyright liability involved. (See other postings in the SL herald)
Also based on previous discussions, the Lindens would not want to boot out one of their biggest consumer segments. Tier, rentals, clothing, animations, tarns, collars, weapons and furs are all self-feeding into the Lindex, more so than having a company give out free soda machines or cars. I doubt that it would get to the point that the Goreans would be booted out wholesale. Its more likely that the standards would limit the activities as opposed to the classification of residents.
Jessica Holyoke

Jun 2nd, 2007

Kahni and slightly prok,

Being abused as a child is never funny and should not be used as an argument point. It shouldn’t matter if anyone was abused or not. and no, I won’t answer any questions regarding my own experience if asked.
NegroThunder

Jun 2nd, 2007

attn Prokofy: you are fat and stupid. no one reads your asinine rants.

please drink bleach.
Kahni Poitier

Jun 2nd, 2007

I’m not saying it’s funny, I’m just saying that anyone who lets this issue become SUCH a dominant factor in their minds is either personally affected by it, or are trying to hide and deny their own weaknesses about such an issue.

Either way, Proks fixation with child-sex isn’t healthy.

And yes, please go drink bleach.
VIKINGBEZERKER Bobak

Jun 2nd, 2007

While Gor may not have some of the extreme BDSM elements and that the kajirae are there willingly, (I’m not going to rehash my bad Gorean experience unless its really necessary, but IM me in- world if you really want a notecard. And my previous speaking out against Gorean slavery was specifically directed to the abuse of the Gorean slave trade, not the Goreans themselves.)

NOT INTERESTED…. IF YOU CAN’T HACK IT DON’T BE THERE.

that doesn’t mean that the basic premises of Gor are not patently offensive to some, with some being the issue.

SEE ABOVE.

If “all women desire the collar” and that the proper societal order is that Men come before Women in all things, then, to some, that is broadly offensive.

WELL I HAPPEN TO FIND YOUR STUPIDITY BROADLY OFFENSIVE,I’M GOREAN AND IF ALL WOMEN DESIRED THE COLLAR WHY THEN ARE THEY HUNTRESSES AND PANTHERS AND FREE WOMEN IN GOR?…… REMEMBER, YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE THERE…. AND IF YOU DID NOT KNOW IT WAS GOING ON WOULD YOU STILL BE OFFENDED?

While I know that there are kajirus in Gor, outside of the city of Skjern, how many are there truly in comparison to kajira?

ABOUT 1 IN 50

(I can’t think of the proper plural to kajira right now.)

KAJIRAE.

Prok and others have argued that the collar itself is offensive if seen in places outside of Gor, even if worn by a BDSM person. Slavery, in and of itself, is offensive to some, regardless of the true nature of what is going on. The fact that there are Sims where people are enslaved is enough to be offensive to them. Of course, I’m the type of person who says that if you don’t like it, don’t go there. I also understand the appeal of Gor, when properly done.

HOORAY FOR YOU…DO YOU WANT A MEDAL FOR THAT?

The policy presented is that activities that are broadly offensive may result in the termination of your account. Based on previous discussions, Gor could be reasonably seen as falling into that category, especially with the copyright liability involved. (See other postings in the SL herald)
Also based on previous discussions, the Lindens would not want to boot out one of their biggest consumer segments. Tier, rentals, clothing, animations, tarns, collars, weapons and furs are all self-feeding into the Lindex, more so than having a company give out free soda machines or cars. I doubt that it would get to the point that the Goreans would be booted out wholesale. Its more likely that the standards would limit the activities as opposed to the classification of residents.

WELL PERSONALLY THAT WOULD NOT BOTHER ME PROVIDED THAT ALL ARE AWARE THAT THEY ARE UNDER SCRUTINY TOO, AND TO BE HONEST ANYTHING THAT GETS SOME OF THE PLASTIC GOREANS OUT WHO USE IT AS AN EXCUSE TO HIDE THEIR DEPRAVITY IS A GOOD THING.

PERSONALLY I DO NOT SEE THE NEED FOR CRUELTY AND/OR BARBARIC BEHAVIOUR, I NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL, SOME PEOPLE IN MY COMMUNITY SEE THE FACT THAT GOR IS HARSH AS AN EXCUSE TO BE BARBARIC AND IN MY EXPERIENCE THEY KNOW NOTHING OF GOR….. YOU DON’T NEED TO BE A BASTARD TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS.

i think this is merely yet another example of the lack of responsibility exibited by some members of the sl community who, simply because it’s an unregulated world, try to push the limits to see what they can actually get away with, along with some of the more unsavory elements who use it as an excuse to feed their perversions without falling foul of the law.

a sad fact of life is simply that given the oppetunity, someone somewhere will fuck it up for everyone, just because they think that their particular thing that gives them jollies is the be all and end all no matter how repulsive it is the the people at large, and i’m talking the serious perverts here into kiddie and age crap…. personally i could not care less if these bastards are all shot in a ditch, but the point is, they are fucking it for the rest of us who just want a good sl life.

add to that this so called “moral majority” who in my experience are usually more fucking perverted that a bus full of horny lesbian nuns in a candle factory,who feel the need to push their fat noses into everyone elses buisness, and act all rightious (even though they thrmselves are so fucking twisted they have to screw their socks on in the morning) who if there is any justice should be in the ditch with the dead nonces.

ok rant over….. personally i don’t give a shit….. if i don’ know about it, it does not bother me, if it disgusts me i stay away, everyone has the right to do what the fuck they want, to who they want, with whatever implement they want, provided that they are legally consenting adults, and that they keep it quiet.

i don’t tell people what they should be doing in sl, and they can do what the hell they want,and i don’t interfere, and i’d like to think they give me the same courtesy.
NigrasOnMyLawn

Jun 2nd, 2007

Jessica Holyoke was abused as a child, not “she” only comes out of the hugbox to complain on the internets.
Prokofy Neva

Jun 2nd, 2007

>Well, considering it’s the only thing you talk about, even in discussions NOT ABOUT THAT TOPIC (see the Bragg issue), you certainly seem to have child sex on your mind a whole lot.

>Now please, stick to discussing the topic, and not complaining that someone is calling you out ON ANOTHER BLOG.

This discussion is on topic, and I’m the one who wrote the original article, which is about the Lindens policing of adult content, remember? And some people’s disagreement that policing of simulated stuff should be included? Remember? Your zeal in trying to keep this comments section “on topic” is beginning to be really strange. What’s up?

As for your claim that this is my only interest, I can only roll my eyes 360 degrees in their sockets.
csven

Jun 2nd, 2007

@Jessica

“If Prok was a bystander, that doesn’t mean he has a duty to report to the authorities. What exactly would he report and to whom? Looking at a piece of land as someone’s website, the domain holder had notice of the activity via the Linden. If he reported to the FBI, then which office? Even though what Prok spotted is illegal in the US and prosecutable as a crime no matter where the perpetrators are, that doesn’t mean the perpetrators are in the FBI’s current jurisdictions. The Linden’s were the better actors in this case, at least at first. From Prok’s words, they did nothing.”

Jessica, I at least believe Second Life presents a new and unique situation not necessarily covered by today’s laws, but that doesn’t mean action cannot be taken. Someone needs to be first.

While doing some reading, I found this disclaimer apparently written by the attorney’s for the New York Times:

“Covering this story raised legal issues. United States law makes it a crime to purchase, download, or view child pornography, unless the images are promptly reported to authorities and no images are copied or retained. The Times complied with the law, disclosing what it found to appropriate authorities.” http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/child_pornography_to_see_or_no.php

While this is probably a debatable disclaimer, it does appear to be a legal opinion and one that no doubt was given some thought. As it seems reasonable and doesn’t conflict with what I do know about the laws, I’m inclined to believe it.

Now, had I been in Prokofy’s shoes, I’d have done a few things knowing that what I was witnessing was something I clearly understood to be illegal:

- get the name of the landowner

- get the names of any and all people at the “scene”

- filed an Abuse Report with Linden Lab that stated clearly “RL porn images removed while submitting”

- contacted the real authorities and provided them with whatever information I could
.

Now, would this have been useful? We don’t know. Perhaps not. But it might have.

Let’s assume Prokofy had done what I’m suggesting.

With the avatar names the Lindens could have frozen the accounts and looked for the images (exactly why I assume they’ve asked for avatar names from the German reporters).

Let’s assume these people deleted the images from inventory.

That may not matter. If Linden Lab takes this seriously (as they should) or the authorities force them to take it seriously that information can in all likelihood be recovered.

Let’s now reasonably assume that the images were a mix: some were uploaded by the avatar and others were given. That might then lead to other avatars *not* at the scene but who are nonetheless involved in this activity.

Let’s imagine that all the avatars at the scene are unverified accounts. Well, except for the landowner; that’s one person the authorities can attempt to track down via any number of avenues. Might they be outside the U.S.? Perhaps. Or they might be inside the U.S. and part of a larger ring. Right now we don’t know because no one could be bothered to try.

And what if they’re overseas? Is there no case where the U.S. has worked with other countries to track and prosecute child porn traffickers? Of course there is. But again, we don’t know how this would have turned out because no one apparently even bothered to try. They “forgot” about it. Well, at least until one of the witnesses decided to put in writing the exact sort of thing she should have reported to the authorities last August.

As to whether the Lindens saw real life child pornography, I don’t believe that’s been entirely established even by Prok. Prokofy has made strong allegations that would to me *effectively* accuse Guy Linden of having seen the material, but her comments don’t put it beyond doubt. For all we know Guy Linden was “hovering silently” because while his avatar was stuck teleporting he went off to the toilet. That would certainly explain to me his ignoring her.

Thing is, even now the Lindens might be able to do something. But instead the priority is supposed to shift to pretend role-play. I, for one, find the lack of priorities here unbelievable.
Michael Seraph

Jun 2nd, 2007

As SL becomes more of a world wide phenomenon, it has to cope with new and sometimes more restrictive legalities. This started with the German investigation into child porn in SL. In Germany even simulated sex with children is a crime. And this is just the beginning. Wait until various governments wake up to the free flow of currency in SL, or wait until China decides that political expression in SL violates Chinese law. The Wild West is over. Linden Labs choices are limited. They can either begin to police SL into a disney-esque suburban nightmare or they can step back from running a worldwide virtual reality and make their cash licensing the software to others. I’m willing to be the goal is the latter, and the last few years has just really been one long beta test period.
Prokofy Neva

Jun 2nd, 2007

> The Linden’s were the better actors in this case, at least at first. From Prok’s words, they did nothing.”

BTW, it’s important to tell they did nothing *I could see*. I got no response. Nobody got any response. The Linden said nothing in open chat. He may have said something to the people in the house. Did he? How can we know? Seemed not, but can’t be sure…

>Jessica, I at least believe Second Life presents a new and unique situation not necessarily covered by today’s laws, but that doesn’t mean action cannot be taken. Someone needs to be first.

And in a situation where vigilantes had already begun a demonstration, summoned Lindens, summoned the press, and achieved the effect they wanted — getting these people to get out of their child avatars and take something off the wall — and then ultimately soon after sell their land and move to parts unknown — what more is there to be done here? Only if you saw those same people surface somewhere else doing the same thing.

>While doing some reading, I found this disclaimer apparently written by the attorney’s for the New York Times:
“Covering this story raised legal issues. United States law makes it a crime to purchase, download, or view child pornography, unless the images are promptly reported to authorities and no images are copied or retained. The Times complied with the law, disclosing what it found to appropriate authorities.” http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/child_pornography_to_see_or_no.php

While this is probably a debatable disclaimer, it does appear to be a legal opinion and one that no doubt was given some thought. As it seems reasonable and doesn’t conflict with what I do know about the laws, I’m inclined to believe it.

I don’t find this story of the Times odd whatsoever. Being a journalist doesn’t entitle you to have special dispensation to view something that is illegal, nor to possess something immoral. At the time of this incident, I didn’t know what the precise laws were. But I surely didn’t want to be holding on my hard drive stuff like that — not only because it was illegal, but because it was immoral. I have kids and other adults who use this computer — I don’t wish to have stuff like that in my home, it’s disturbing. I also was mindful of some of the material possibly not being able to be shown on the Herald without the Herald not getting in trouble.

So that’s EXACTLY why I didn’t rush to possess and publish it. I’ve made that clear over and over again. What I had to show *was simulated porn, and that was bad enough* (now lost in a crash and destroyed). I don’t see how *covering* a story like this and being mindful of not wanting to break RL law or Internet TOS like on this blog is somehow equated to a responsibility to report some sort of crime to real-life authorities. The authorities in this case were the Lindens. They were there. The vigilantes succeeded. The stuff was deleted. There was no crime to report. You can’t be accused of not reporting a crime you can’t point to.

csven’s wierd persistence in this is undertaken only with the WORST of motives, as he think he has “gotten something on me” to “make me squirm” or “work harder and harder to justify myself”. But…I don’t mind working overtime to justify myself on this one, since he’s patently being an asshole and I’m clearly in the right here.

Uri once had an incident where he heard a brother brag that he had broken his sister’s arm and forced her to keep quiet about it or something. He felt this should get reported. Ea.com didn’t do much. He tried to find where these kids were — I’m not sure if he succeeded. That’s the sort of incident — an actual material issue of RL abuse underway — where you’d try to get LL or even the RL police. But a picture that’s deleted and gone? No.

>Now, had I been in Prokofy’s shoes, I’d have done a few things knowing that what I was witnessing was something I clearly understood to be illegal:

No, this is all bullshit. csven would have merely been in a rage that his beloved “ageplayers” that he wishes to protect from the harm and rage of vigilantes who have mere pixels on their walls and on their avatars are being cornered, and he would have RUSHED to their defense. He would have been blind to any blank spots on the wall, and would refuse to admit there might be porn, and even if shown to him, would likely be in a blind perceptional field where he wouldn’t believe it, so zealous is he in trying to protect simulated pedophiles.

>- get the name of the landowner

The Lindens had that, and the vigilantes had it, and had AR’d and hence the entire incident. I hardly see how I’m supposed to stay on a disgusting story I don’t wish to cover, as neither party is right in it, and there’s no story anymore.

>- get the names of any and all people at the “scene”

Go ask the vigilantes. They’ll likely help you out there!

>- filed an Abuse Report with Linden Lab that stated clearly “RL porn images removed while submitting”

In order to file an abuse report about RL porn images, you have to be able to SHOW THEM. You have to TAKE A SCREENSHOT for the report. You have to GIVE A COORDINATE. You have to HAVE EVIDENCE. If it is deleted, THE CASE IS CLOSED.

>- contacted the real authorities and provided them with whatever information I could

Sorry, we’ve been over that before. No case. Trail is dead. Up to the Lindens — and hey, the vigilantes if they wish to stalk the people. I’m not a sex crimes reporter. Not my beat.

>Now, would this have been useful? We don’t know. Perhaps not. But it might have.

Hardly. Vigilantes had come that far in moving in and demonstrating and getting Lindens to come. Surely more can be found out about this from the forums at the time as well. They got the stuff removed. The people either went offline or undergruond or inactive.

>Let’s assume Prokofy had done what I’m suggesting.

It’s not possible for Prokofy to do any of the things that csven is speciously suggesting in a big merely to be a big, raging dick, trying to bully and harass someone out of their point of view: which remains: simulated and real life porn are RELATED not EQUATED; both require action WHEN YOU HAVE EVIDENCE.

>With the avatar names the Lindens could have frozen the accounts and looked for the images (exactly why I assume they’ve asked for avatar names from the German reporters).

Does csven SERIOUSLY think the Lindens didn’t check this out thoroughly? If there was RL porn there, and if there was the obvious gaps in the wall, and even if the Lindens only saw the gaps (surely they would have glimpsed some RL pictures, too, however), then they could have everything they need. But the liasion involved had no guidelines for action. I don’t think any incident involving RL porn had surfaced before that.

>Let’s assume these people deleted the images from inventory.
That may not matter. If Linden Lab takes this seriously (as they should) or the authorities force them to take it seriously that information can in all likelihood be recovered.

Well, gosh, this is so earth-shatteringly important to go after these ephemera, see if csven can get the Lindens to find something from their servers in a sim that begins with “Y” (not sure even the sim name is right in fact). I think there’s a much more fruitful activity for those concerned about protecting real children: work at keeping them out of adult lots, and work at keeping the simulation of pornography from making a sense of impunity that is dangerously connected to the real thing. To go chasing shadows from August 2006 is merely to deny the realities of June 2007 right on the server now.

>Let’s now reasonably assume that the images were a mix: some were uploaded by the avatar and others were given. That might then lead to other avatars *not* at the scene but who are nonetheless involved in this activity.
Let’s imagine that all the avatars at the scene are unverified accounts. Well, except for the landowner; that’s one person the authorities can attempt to track down via any number of avenues. Might they be outside the U.S.? Perhaps. Or they might be inside the U.S. and part of a larger ring. Right now we don’t know because no one could be bothered to try.

No, because even those who were vigilantes focused not on pictures on the wall, possibly not able to get a clear view of them, I don’t know, but focused on the clearer and more vivid spectacle of actual avatars run by live people.

>And what if they’re overseas? Is there no case where the U.S. has worked with other countries to track and prosecute child porn traffickers? Of course there is. But again, we don’t know how this would have turned out because no one apparently even bothered to try. They “forgot” about it. Well, at least until one of the witnesses decided to put in writing the exact sort of thing she should have reported to the authorities last August.

No. Forgetting about a story not covered is moving on, it doesn’t mean not caring about the issue. And there is nothing I should have reported to the authorities. That’s an absurdity, and everybody except csven realizes that – he is merely pursuing this as a vendetta because he’s unhinged and vengeful.

>As to whether the Lindens saw real life child pornography, I don’t believe that’s been entirely established even by Prok. Prokofy has made strong allegations that would to me *effectively* accuse Guy Linden of having seen the material, but her comments don’t put it beyond doubt. For all we know Guy Linden was “hovering silently” because while his avatar was stuck teleporting he went off to the toilet. That would certainly explain to me his ignoring her.

Guy Linden will never be commenting on this. It’s immaterial whether it’s specifically “Guy Linden”. He happened to be on duty and happened to be summoned to a scene involving angry avatars overloading and even crashing a sim at one point. I IM’m and got no response, but I believe he was present. Did he see any RL porn? I have no idea. He surely saw the blank spots in the wall and saw all the hustling activity, but he may have been focusing not on textures that weren’t rezzing in clearing due to the lag and the chaos, but on people and what they were doing with avatars.

>Thing is, even now the Lindens might be able to do something. But instead the priority is supposed to shift to pretend role-play. I, for one, find the lack of priorities here unbelievable.

csven is welcome to call up the Lindens and get them to act on this in any way he thinks they can. They are likely to blow him off as they have to worry about CURRENT concerns not past ephemera. csven has yet to be able to square the circle here: his beloved pretend role-players whom he wishes to protect with the zeal of a pit bull were connected, evidently, to RL porn. That’s because there is often a correlation.
csven

Jun 2nd, 2007

“United States law makes it a crime to … view child pornography, unless the images are promptly reported to authorities…”
Prokofy Neva

Jun 2nd, 2007

“United States law makes it a crime to … view child pornography, unless the images are promptly reported to authorities…”

That’s good! And…I didn’t view child pornography? Because it was deleted and taken away as I was arriving.

However, csven continues to create a climate of impunity for real child pornographers by encouraging people to go on viewing its simulation in SL without any restraint. Sick.
csven

Jun 2nd, 2007

“And…I didn’t view child pornography? Because it was deleted and taken away as I was arriving.”

“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” – Prokofy Neva ( http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/05/the_pedophiles_.html )

As the Worm Twists
Prokofy Neva

Jun 2nd, 2007

Sigh. This is pretty retarded. You wonder when Sven will get tired of discrediting himself with this shit?

>And…I didn’t view child pornography? Because it was deleted and taken away as I was arriving.”

Right. I did not VIEW child pornography. Should I repeat that again? “>And…I didn’t view child pornography? Because it was deleted and taken away as I was arriving.”

Why? Because VIEWING means SEEING more than a GLIMPSE as something as it is being taken away as you are arriving and glimpsing textures rezzing on the wall. Duh?

VIEWING means being able to SEE something such as to really look and even screenshoot it.

But that wasn’t possible because it was in the process of BEING REMOVED.

What a RAGING ASSHOLE who can’t see the forest for the trees here: simulated “ageplay” porn-makers who evidently had the REAL stuff, despite Sven denying that there is EVER a connection!

>”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” – Prokofy Neva ( http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/05/the_pedophiles_.html

HASTILY CLEARING OUT.

>As the Worm Twists

Um, there isn’t any “worm twisting.” Are you able to read? I didn’t *view any pornography*. Shall we repeat for the retarded here? Viewing means being able to hold it steady in front of you and look at it and even screenshoot it.

Here’s what it says, as you yourself have quoted: “I got there and found a house full of pedophiles hastily clearing out the *real-life very graphic child pornography” off their walls”.

HASTILY CLEARING OFF THEIR WALLS.

who knows? Because I could not VIEW them but only GLIMPSE them as they were being REMOVED.

Show’s over folks!
csven

Jun 2nd, 2007

“VIEWING means being able to SEE something such as to really look”

Sounds like someone got a really good look to me:

“*real-life very graphic child pornography”

“photographs imported from real life porn”

I bet most authorities would say that if someone can identify an image as “child pornography” and discern that it was “imported from real life porn”, then that person got *such* a good “glimpse” that they viewed it.

But hey, it’s not my decision.
Reality

Jun 2nd, 2007

Provide real, indisputable scientific proof which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that all images of any sort – including violent images – affect each and every person on the face of this planet. This proof used cannot conflict with any other study or other such proof/evidence … meaning that no one else should be able to come in later, do the same experiment, and then find that it does not affect anyone at all.

Seeing as you’re dense enough to miss the sarcasm there Prokofy, I’ll cut right to the chase: You cannot provide any solid, irrefutable evidence to back up your opinions and claims as there exists no study done which can be duplicated 100% of the time with the exact same results.

With that said … all you may do is state an opinion as just that – an opinion.
csven

Jun 2nd, 2007

“A statement I believe to be true *is* a fact until it is *disproven*.”
Katerina Qinan

Jun 2nd, 2007

I thought SL was just a game.
Reality

Jun 2nd, 2007

To some Kat – it is more. to a delusional few …. it is as real as their real life, if not more so.
Biscuit Carroll

Jun 3rd, 2007

There is an petition entitled “full reign of self-expression for consenting adults” at http://www.gopetition.com/sign.php?petid=12515.

People sign the petition in avatar names and the names are not publicly viewable.
VIKINGBEZERKER Bobak

Jun 3rd, 2007

JUST JOIN “I WANT A FREE SECOND LIFE” THAT’S THE THING TO DO NOW……THE GROUP IS GOING THROUGH THE ROOF.
csven

Jun 3rd, 2007

Maybe we can use that group to get some truly accurate SL population numbers.
Prokofy Neva

Jun 3rd, 2007

>Sounds like someone got a really good look to me:
“*real-life very graphic child pornography”
“photographs imported from real life porn”

No, sorry to disappoint, but a glimpse that lets you know a) it has real humans in it and not avatars — something that’s pretty easy to tell at a glance and b) that it’s porn, i.e. it looked “graphic” by contrast to SL avatars, but can’t be described in some kind of detail, it’s too blurry. I simply can’t describe something in detail I didn’t see long enough — that would be lying. I can’t *make up* stuff. But what I can do is be faithful to my recollection — a) signs they were RL pictures; b) indications it was porn c) *the blank spaces on the walls and the haste with which they were removed*.

Apparently these statements, which indeed I believe to be fact until proven otherwise, are what I can offer from witnessing this scene. It’s not enough to go on, and that’s why I felt no compulsion then or now to “go on it” — I didn’t even write the article that would have required somehow having to tell the side of pedophiles being hounded by vigilantes. It was a sordid scene I didn’t wish to write about. That’s my right.

And with good reason, as even including a mention of this in my blog piece has opened me up to endless harassment from the asshole simulated-child-porn-justifier Sven Johnson, in a bid to prove that either I didn’t see it, or I did, and if I did, then I’m somehow liable for a crime or failure not to report a crime.

That’s exactly the problem with Sven and many other tekkinistas. They are unable to accept nuances, incompleteness, organic parts that aren’t 100 percent wholes. It’s always 0 or 1. It’s always on or off. It’s always black or white. If you say it’s “gray” then you aren’t “on the grayscale” you are “lying”. You have to say it’s black or white or you are “lying”. If, for the purposes of getting through normal, everyday rational and reasonable discourse, you say, yes, a statement I believe is true is a fact until proven otherwise for me, then you are called a liar, and idiot, and claimed to be refusing to “accept reality” — except…that *is* accepting reality, as you find it, and making what you believe to be true and factual statements about it.

These people had what appeared to be RL porn pictures on their walls they hastily removed but it was not possible to take this incident further. I’m not a crusader against child pornography. There are many, many people — oranizations in the private sector, experts, law-enforcement officials — who are experts about this, and who can really investigate for this effectively.

>I bet most authorities would say that if someone can identify an image as “child pornography” and discern that it was “imported from real life porn”, then that person got *such* a good “glimpse” that they viewed it.

Good. If that’s what they can determine, they are welcome to question me at length and I can tell them everything I know. But then what? What next? They could administer some sort of serum to me to see if they could dredge any more details out of my subconcious, perhaps the names of the people or something more from the scene. You miss a lot landing on a laggy sim, trying to take a picture with the camera function which freezes the entire screen when it is very laggy and halts the actions for awhile until it clicks through. But who knows, with some kind of drug, perhaps they can dredge effectively for more information. So when this criminal case gets opened that Sven Johnson will be effectively getting started any moment, I’m happy for the law-enforcement officials to administer erm…sodium pentathol is it called? — and see if they can find anything more.

>But hey, it’s not my decision.

Yes, well have that officer who opened up the criminal case call me and I’m happy to answer any questions and try to recall anything more.
Myrrh Massiel

Jun 3rd, 2007

…the group is called ‘I am for a FREE Second Life’ – do a search and join it in-world if you’d like to help amalgamate solidarity in oppostion to persecuting thought crimes…
csven

Jun 3rd, 2007

“I simply can’t describe something in detail I didn’t see long enough — that would be lying. I can’t *make up* stuff. But what I can do is be faithful to my recollection — a) signs they were RL pictures; b) indications it was porn”

I don’t believe it’s necessary to “describe something in detail”. What you’ve admitted is being able to identify – sufficiently for legal reasons imo – what it is you *did* see. And thus, by being able to identify it as illegal material, you were required by law to report it not to the Lindens but to the U.S. authorities.

-

And btw, while you may think using “Sven Johnson” provides the most accurate returns, the reason I use “C. Sven Johnson” is to avoid confusion with another “Sven Johnson” ( this guy: http://www.svenrender.com/about/ ). I was alerted to him back in 1994 after my graduation from design school when a headhunter confused me for him. I prefer “Sven Johnson” myself, but if you want people digging way down deep the way you are, you’d be better off keeping the “C”.

Either way is fine though.

-

In the meantime, I find it curious how some articles cite SL residents *without* using their real life names, but yours’ gets used repeatedly now. One would think that if you *truthfully* wanted to keep your RL info private, you wouldn’t now advertise it all over as you do; from referring to your RL gender on Raph’s blog (while posting as “Prokofy Neva”) to detailing your real life *publicly* on Twitter (with lots of links to other people) to articles for Information Week and more… it seems to me what you *really* want now is to be able to say anything and everything with impunity and not have it reflect on the real person. Only it does.

If you don’t like having your real name used (and I’m not even sure what your real name *is*), then don’t go looking for attention from real life media beyond Second Life.

-

btw, I got a good laugh out of how you talked like an authority over on Information Week about the poor RL people working for pennies in virtual worlds:

“These girls work, they work hard, and they don’t get paid very much,” she said. “There’s a lot of people from developing countries. It attracts people who are unemployed.” – http://www.informationweek.com/software/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199701944&pgno=1

Should I dig up all the long-winded, vitriolic, half-crazed rants about how there was no such thing as “people from developing countries… people who are unemployed”, trying to earn a living?

Should I remind people of the stories that once set you off; like the one I wrote for the SLFS ( http://slfuturesalon.blogs.com/second_life_future_salon/2005/04/the_flat_earths.html ).

Remember that story? Hamlet Au covered it too ( http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2005/04/china_dancers.html and http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2005/03/sweating_the_de.html ). And you railed about it incessantly and obsessively whenever you got the chance; being the same insulting “fucktard” then as you continue to be now.

Remember this line from your SLH comment about this issue:

“Yeah, nothing gets the eggheads more excited than the gold-farming chesnut story, which the leftist blog at http://www.nytimes.com has now picked up after it was churned in game blogs. It plays into their cracked worldview that capitalism, i.e. game companies, is evil, and forces poor third-world innocents to be exploited to mine gold for spoiled Western kids in games. All these journos have been played like violins.” – http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2005/12/major_chinese_g.html#comment-27700852

or this:

“Yeesh, Hamlet, I can’t believe you are helping to replicate this hoaxy story on the Internet. It’s like an urban legend. This woman, who has a full-time job, has disposable time and income, and isn’t in a “sweatshop” but is in “a hobby”. … — for all we know, it may be the exact same woman who talked to Csven, who blogged this and helped spread the rather dubious concept — that there are all these Chinese and other third-world tekkies just waiting to stream into SL to make US-type money. … Really, I hope some day you will have the courage to cover not the fake stories of people supposedly from China (we never learn how they dialed up past China’s notorious firewalls)” – http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2005/08/not_sweating_th.html

Some authority you are. More like an foul-mouthed, attention-seeking worm who flip-flops like a fish on a hot deck in order to get her name – her *real life* name – into the mainstream press at any opportunity.

And to think, I’m not even *sure* what your *real* name actually is. Is the name I posted on *this* thread your Real name? Or is the other name I see you volunteering to the press your Real name? If we’re going to be using real names, at least be fair about it. I’ve confirmed mine now confirm yours.
csven

Jun 3rd, 2007

For anyone looking to join the Group mentioned above, it can be difficulty to find (it doesn’t show in Search>Groups).

Myrrh Massiel was kind enough to IM me and suggest I use her profile to find the group.

That works.
csven

Jun 3rd, 2007

(sorry. Group mentioned above = “i am for a FREE Second Life”)
Prokofy Neva

Jun 3rd, 2007

>I don’t believe it’s necessary to “describe something in detail”. What you’ve admitted is being able to identify – sufficiently for legal reasons imo – what it is you *did* see. And thus, by being able to identify it as illegal material, you were required by law to report it not to the Lindens but to the U.S. authorities.

I don’t believe that to be the case whatsoever. For one, I not required by law to report something that I see in a virtual world working as a freelance reporter. That’s something C. Sven *thinks* is true, but it is not demonstrably true. It is not my land. It is not my servers. The Lindens may have some obligation here, but I don’t see that in fact they do. If viligantes bent on removing child porn from a virtual world hound people into removing it — and they remove it — it seems to me that you cannot really have a case here.

No state *forces* citizens to report crimes. The idea that citizens who see crimes are somehow obligated by force to report them is odd. I don’t see that you can hold private citizens liable for failure to report crimes, to my knowledge. AFAIK, the Reagan-era child-protection legislation obligated hospital personnel, school personnel, etc. to report child abuse, but I don’t see that it forces any ordinary citizen to report something. Indeed, in RL, on those few occasions when I’ve had reason to suspect child abuse, i.e. in a housing complex, and I’ve attempted to report it, it was nearly impossible to do — very, very hard to get cases started like this in fact.

They encourage them to report crimes. They do not make them criminally liable for not reporting them. Furthermore, any sane law-enforcer, tethered to reality and not unhinged, would find that there isn’t sufficient evidence here to report a case.

>And btw, while you may think using “Sven Johnson” provides the most accurate returns, the reason I use “C. Sven Johnson” is to avoid confusion with another “Sven Johnson” ( this guy: http://www.svenrender.com/about/ ). I was alerted to him back in 1994 after my graduation from design school when a headhunter confused me for him. I prefer “Sven Johnson” myself, but if you want people digging way down deep the way you are, you’d be better off keeping the “C”.

Ok, C. Sven Johnson, apologizer for simulated child pornography, and harasser of the free media which attempts to cover these issues.

>Either way is fine though.

C. Sven Johnson, asshole, unhinged, troll, flamer, victimizer, harasser, justifier of simulated child pornography. If I think of any more key words, I’ll add them.

>In the meantime, I find it curious how some articles cite SL residents *without* using their real life names, but yours’ gets used repeatedly now. One would think that if you *truthfully* wanted to keep your RL info private, you wouldn’t now advertise it all over as you do;

If a journalist asks to use my name, because I believe in the free press and the importance of journalists’ getting accountability from their sources, I provide them my name. Most prefer having a real name. Just because I put my real name in an interview where it is requested — and sometimes even required to be quoted — doesn’t mean I wish to be called this in the SL setting. I don’t. And 99 percent of the people I deal with respect that.

>from referring to your RL gender on Raph’s blog (while posting as “Prokofy Neva”)

Precisely because malicious assholes outed my RL gender against my will, which was not my choice, I think it’s important to have a sense of humour and joke about it at times in order to deprive them of any lingering sense they have that they can still harass me about this discrepancy. They can’t. Merely joking on someone’s blog doesn’t mean that I wish to be called “she”, or use my RL name, which I am not signing my articles or comments with. This is must common decency and common sense — both attributes which C. Sven Johnson does not possess.

>to detailing your real life *publicly* on Twitter (with lots of links to other people) to articles for Information Week and more…

I don’t publicize my RL name on Twitter, nor do I wish to be called anything but Prokofy. 99 percent of the people respect this.

>it seems to me what you *really* want now is to be able to say anything and everything with impunity and not have it reflect on the real person. Only it does.

I don’t get how using a name from SL that is a kind of pen name is wishing not to have something reflect on the real person. It’s fine if it does. But I wish to keep the realms separate. Most people respect that, and wish it for themselves. Precisely because stalkers and assholes like C. Sven Johnson try to bully you with any connection to RL. C. Sven Johnson imagines that if he does this, that he can intimidate a person, prevent them from speaking out, and somehow hobble them by some deep fear, possibly of the kind he himself experiences.

But that’s silly. I’m an independent person and people cannot harm me by somehow linking these identities. If I somehow “feared harm” I wouldn’t be outspoken, wouldn’t write a blog, wouldn’t give journalists my RL name, and would have crumbled in terror from the first attempt Nolan Nash made to blackmail. But I don’t give in to blackmailers. I do have a preference, however, and 99 percent of the people I know respect that.

>If you don’t like having your real name used (and I’m not even sure what your real name *is*), then don’t go looking for attention from real life media beyond Second Life.

No, if you don’t like having your real name used, and it is a preference, you sign your articles and posts with your “pen name” and you find that 99 percent of the people respect that.
For that tiny percent that don’t, you can tell them to fuck off and stop being assholes : )

>btw, I got a good laugh out of how you talked like an authority over on Information Week about the poor RL people working for pennies in virtual worlds:
“These girls work, they work hard, and they don’t get paid very much,” she said. “There’s a lot of people from developing countries. It attracts people who are unemployed.” – http://www.informationweek.com/software/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199701944&pgno=1

Everything said here is true, as anyone even with a cursory grasp of what is happening on the grid knows. People do sex work for Lindens, and many of them are indeed poor or under-employed without a lot of income.

Today, there are WAY more people from developing countries than there used to be, and from the poor in the developed countries.

>Should I dig up all the long-winded, vitriolic, half-crazed rants about how there was no such thing as “people from developing countries… people who are unemployed”, trying to earn a living?

Dig away. The population has completely changed in the last year in Second Life. Completely! Now Americans, who tended to be wealthier and white and middle class, have seen demographic shifts with more black and Hispanic Americans coming in, and and even more dramatic shift with far more Europeans, Asians, and Latin Americans coming in. The poorer countries from Eastern Europe and Latin America are now represented, when before they were not.

>Should I remind people of the stories that once set you off; like the one I wrote for the SLFS ( http://slfuturesalon.blogs.com/second_life_future_salon/2005/04/the_flat_earths.html ).

The link doesn’t work. The 2005 date lets us know that it’s, uh, more than 2 years old. The population is completely different now. It changed.

In fact, it would be ridiculous to have claimed that there were all these third-world people using SL to make a living in 2005. Even in 2007, it’s a bit fatuous — there aren’t droves, and the outlay they might have to make in computer, DSL, graphic card, disposable time may outweigh the returns. But there are enough. And in the sex trade, of course, the natural entry-level position.

>Remember that story? Hamlet Au covered it too ( http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2005/04/china_dancers.html and http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2005/03/sweating_the_de.html ). And you railed about it incessantly and obsessively whenever you got the chance; being the same insulting “fucktard” then as you continue to be now.

As for this particular story of Hamlet’s, I found it really cloying and really not persuasive. He himself says he thought it might not be true in covering it, and doesn’t seem even to persuade himself. The part that’s hard to believe in is this “Internet sweatshop boss”. Most people doing sex work do it on their own, but perhaps hook up with a club or something inworld. I’ve simply never come across someone with a *RL boss* telling them to do this. For one, it’s not a very lucrative way to make a living, one by one. It would only make sense if you had a whole club and a stable, I guess.

Notice that I didn’t call these girls “poor” or “victims” — C. Swen did.

What’s ultimately fake about this story is the concept of anyone working in a “sweat shop” when they are sitting in an office, logging on with a high-end computer with superior graphics card and a DSL line. But of course, as we know from Leap Frog Broadband Expert C. Sven Johnson, the world is increasingly hooking up.

"Yeah, nothing gets the eggheads more excited than the gold-farming chesnut story, which the leftist blog at http://www.nytimes.com has now picked up after it was churned in game blogs. It plays into their cracked worldview that capitalism, i.e. game companies, is evil, and forces poor third-world innocents to be exploited to mine gold for spoiled Western kids in games. All these journos have been played like violins.” – http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2005/12/major_chinese_g.html#comment-27700852

Yep, and I stand by that. It’s fake, and it’s stupid, and its retarded, and it’s not believable. No, the scenario they describe, of evil companies exploiting girls in RL to go be game or sex farmers, and that the Chinese goldfarming phenom is now a sex-farming phenom (supposedly* is NOT credible — wasn’t then, isn’t now.

There’s a world of difference between someone working on their own, using the opportunity of SL, to turn tricks of sorts, for cash to shop, and the concept of some evil corporation “farming” them. I don’t say they are exploited; indeed, in this article in Information Week, I explain that people doing escort work are not feeling like victims but feeling they are empowered. They feel like they are taking charge of their lives. It’s a service. Some might be in it due to lack of skills and opportunities and no better entry-level job, but some are in it even being educated and in developed countries because it’s fun to make money in this way for them.

>or this:
“Yeesh, Hamlet, I can’t believe you are helping to replicate this hoaxy story on the Internet. It’s like an urban legend. This woman, who has a full-time job, has disposable time and income, and isn’t in a “sweatshop” but is in “a hobby”. … — for all we know, it may be the exact same woman who talked to Csven, who blogged this and helped spread the rather dubious concept — that there are all these Chinese and other third-world tekkies just waiting to stream into SL to make US-type money. … Really, I hope some day you will have the courage to cover not the fake stories of people supposedly from China (we never learn how they dialed up past China’s notorious firewalls)” – http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2005/08/not_sweating_th.html

Yes, totally hoaxy, and hardly a sweatshop when she has a full-time paying job that evidently is the job that gave her access to this computer after hours. Csven was also making a huge mountain out of the molehill of running across one or two women back in 2005 that he felt didn’t speak English very well and must be evil game company exploited Chinese prostitutes. He had absolutely no proof of it then, or now.

I really hate it when one story gets legs and gets memed like this, when nobody has done the slightest bit of journalistic legwork to see if the story is really true.

And that was in 2005; today is 2007, and there are more people from developing countries earning money in this way, but not as pawns of evil gaming corporations that I can see. Of course, if someone has fresh proof today, in 2007, they’re welcome to bring it forward.

>Some authority you are. More like an foul-mouthed, attention-seeking worm who flip-flops like a fish on a hot deck in order to get her name – her *real life* name – into the mainstream press at any opportunity.

Gosh, this is retarded. I’m nothing of the sort, but C. Sven Johnson is like a lot of frustrated male geek 30 or 40 something losers in real life that wind up harassing people on Internet forums — calling people the very names that he should be called by — because he can’t get a life, second or first.

I can’t think of a better term than “worm” to describe someone who bullies a reporter on a virtual world newspaper to try to score cheap points to buttress his unsupportable thesis of the admissibility of simulated porn.

I have no desire to “get my name in the paper”. It seems a curious proposition — I complain that my RL name is being dragged in to discussions to try to smear me, launched by assholes like C. Sven Johnson — yet all of a sudden, whoops, I am “foul-mouthed” to try to get RL attention to my RL name which already has enough RL attention. And I fear not, truly, people who use these methods discredit themselves.

>And to think, I’m not even *sure* what your *real* name actually is. Is the name I posted on *this* thread your Real name? Or is the other name I see you volunteering to the press your Real name? If we’re going to be using real names, at least be fair about it. I’ve confirmed mine now confirm yours.

Use your Google witch-hunting skills, you’re on your own there. *Shrugs*.

And here’s my final comment for C. Sven Johnson: I figure he must be in a bad place now, “between jobs,” out of inspiration, disenchanted with SL, unable to cope, possibly without work, somehow in the shallows. His behaviour has grown from cranky to abusive to zealously unhinged.

And being fetched up on the shallows of life, he’s lashing out at people as a cheap substitution for obtaining the inner satisfaction of one’s own accomplishments. He’s clearly someone with way too much time on his hands because he has nothing going on, SL or Rl or anywhere that could keep him busy. His own blog shows an increasing distress. Where once he seemed content to post articles in his field of study and work, today he lurches back and forth between pieces like that, and curmudeonly, dispeptic posts about other people and what they think, and his violent disagreement with them — or smarmy and smug little posts implying only he “gets” the “singularity” or some other vaunted theory he imagines is “self-evident”.

I can surely appreciate that mode of discourse, I think it’s important to vehemently disagree. But it’s also important to article the positive program that one espouses too, from time to time, and I do that — with posts like “The Pedophiles are Responsible”.

C. Sven Johnson doesn’t want to make pedophiles responsible. He wants to make everybody *but* pedophiles responsible. He wants to bang on anybody who finds any link between them and simulated porn and try to eliminate any means of preventing them from infiltrating SL further. The zeal with which he is doing this is more than suspect.

What’s odd about this is that he has singled me out as somehow a “small but vocal community” of people pushing for the punishment of simulated porn. This is entirely misplaced. I’ve never once abuse-reported any simulated or for that matter real porn. I don’t come across it. It has always been my understanding, until the June 1st directive, that regrettably, simulated porn was allowed and that I couldn’t take action, anyway. It’s not among my rental properties, fortunately.

I’m not on a crusade. I’ve always hewed to what I believe is the sanctity of the home and private property. I hardly think my willingness to criticize an event of August 2006 in my blog in May 2007 constitutes any role as some kind of vocal crusader against simulated pedophilia. I oppose it, but I have not chosen to make it my issue. There are plenty of others clogging the field on this one, that’s for sure.

C. Sven has erroneously singled me out here merely because I’m easy to hand, visible, and able to be easily bashed with impunity on various blogs. I’m simply not interested in joining the fray of Warren Ellis, Live Journal, and all the rest on these topics — it’s not my area. I took up a position about the concerted efforts of pedophiles I saw using propaganda tactics in Second Life to expose that method — and it applies fully to C. Sven Johnson, who is willing to use methods of smearing, innuendo, mendacity, bullying etc. to get his own way for his licentious point of view.

Basically, when the balance in C. Sven’s life is restored or he finds something better to do, or at least if it is not restored, and he lurches on to attack another target, he’ll stop bothering me.

Meanwhile, he’ll be speaking into a void, waiting for attention. I won’t be responding to him anymore, have banned him from my land, put him on mute, and abuse reported him to the Lindens on several grounds. He may come up with all sorts of vicious little diatribes, little harassing techniques to bully me or my tenants — but these methods only expose his own lack of character and worm-like quality.
csven

Jun 3rd, 2007

“For one, I not required by law to report something that I see in a virtual world working as a freelance reporter. That’s something C. Sven *thinks* is true, but it is not demonstrably true.”

-

First, Prok proclaiming to be a reporter is like my claiming to be Xena the Warrior Princess (visions of grandeur must be ceaselessly dancing through her clouded mind).

-

Second, Prok is correct in that I *think* it’s true, but is incorrect in flatly saying “it is not demonstrably true”. The legal requirement – as clearly and reasonably outlined by the New York Times when they themselves reported on the topic of child pornography – is that ANYONE, including their reporters, who sees this particular material needs to report it IMMEDIATELY. To THEM. Not write about it on some backwater blog months after the fact.

How the law applies to a virtual world in this regard *is* uncertain, but laws *will* have to be made so why not start now? with her?

Here are the facts:

Fact 1: Prokofy claims to have seen images of Real Life Child Pornography.

Fact 2: Prokofy admits to not contacting the proper authorities and informing them she saw images of Real Life Child Pornography.

“Full stop”.

-

Third, and as alarming, is how Prok *excused* her possibly criminal inaction by passing the buck to Guy Linden.

Then, apparently when she realized she might be going too far in alleging that Guy Linden *must* have seen the RL child porn images, she conveniently jumped on the bandwagon I provided: that just because Guy Linden’s avatar was at the scene, doesn’t mean the human being *operating* the avatar was there to see the material. (I guess Prok was worried Linden Lab might either sue her or ban her for crossing the line so now she’s backpeddling furiously. How pathetic and self-serving.)

That’s flip-flopping of the worst kind imo. What kind of human being behaves this way?

Prokofy tries to pass the buck, and now she’s looking for some other way to shirk her responsibility to the community. Is THIS how someone supposedly outraged by the vile material she described for everyone on her own blog reacts? by passing the buck? by taking no action?

If so, let’s all vote Prokofy Neva as upstanding citizen of the year. (After all, with her as an example, “broadly offensive” will certainly be *impossible* to prove)
csven

Jun 3rd, 2007

Get a load of this image taken a few minutes ago next to my parcel in Patagonia:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8686061@N06/528503867/

“Prokofy_Neva_Kiddie_Land”

Feel free to share that with your friends!
Prokofy Neva

Jun 3rd, 2007

Sigh. I had hoped not to be wasting any more time on this, because my point remains: The Pedophiles Are Responsible.

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

If C. Sven Johnson believes that my tenants’ swingsets are actionable, he better report it quick! Call the police! Because he may be guilty of this thing he imagines to be an offense.

The Times may have felt a moral or professional obligation to report child pornography, but I’m not aware of any legal mandate in RL or SL that compels citizens to report crimes. My understanding of what the Times is saying is that *if in the course of their reporting on RL porn they wish to indemnify themselves of charges of purveying child porn, they should report it*. However, this doesn’t apply to me: I have no images of such RL porn nor anywhere to point authorities to look for it.

I’m sure as hell not passing the buck to Guy Linden, who is a decent person and is merely doing his job, using the guidelines he had at the time. He is not required to do anything either, given that these images were deleted.

I fail to see any backpeddling,and I sure as hell don’t fear Linden Lab “sueing” me — they can respond as they wish or not to any journalists or residents who wish to ask them about this incident of August 2006, but I doubt they will respond, it’s not timely or relevant.

I haven’t passed any bucks or shirked any responsibility; in fact, what I did was publish an article that did two things very well:

o exposed the organized professionalized tactics of pedophiles and apologists — of which C. Sven Johnson is a prime example
o expressed a belief that there *is* a connection between simulation and reality, that it is RELATED even if not EQUATED.

I did that effectively, reasonable, compelling, which is why I’m being harassed now.

Anyone is welcome to call the Lindens, Interpol, the police, the FBI, God, whatever. Happy to cooperate. Bye!
Katerina Qinan

Jun 3rd, 2007

*psst!* It’s a game! Pass it on!
Anonymous

Jun 3rd, 2007

>>>I won’t be responding to him anymore

LIAR
Prokofy Neva

Jun 3rd, 2007

csven is an active member of Voter 5 and a vicious griefer whom I despise. Voter 5 is always spamming me with crap on their latest alts, btw. He refuses to let me live my own lifestyle, which doesn’t harm anyone in any way. I hope it helps you sleep at night that to know that you’re bothering me.

On a side note, here’s one of my favorite pics of me “playing with the children”. That nice guy Hazim Gazov is hosting it for me.

http://voter5.mygeekspace.net/fave-pic.jpg
Darkfoxx

Jun 4th, 2007

Well, well well.

I have been saving a particular line to throw at you all when LL banned the advertisement of sexual ageplay, then banned sexual ageplay alltogether, and all of you were cheering them on.

lots of people warned you but hey, who listens to someone who wants freedom for everyone? Cause of course, that’s silly. Freedom, on SL, who needs it, right? As long as those nasty ageplayers are gone cause they’re all pedophiles.
And saying there should be total freedom for everyone, infringes on other peoples rights, so don’t listen! Right, Prok?

It was a slippery slope LL started us on, and now that we’re merrily sliding along, whoops, something happens that also might affect you, and oh dear, we get nervous.

I fucking told you so.

(yup that’s the one.)
LiberteEstMort

Jun 4th, 2007

“He refuses to let me live my own lifestyle, which doesn’t harm anyone in any way.”

Gee. Guess you *do* know what it’s like to be an ageplayer on SL these days.

“Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself”
comes to mind.

Oh yeah, and
“What goes around, comes around”
DaveOner

Jun 4th, 2007

There needs to be an “AR the Broadly Offensive” day where everyone will make an AR against ANYTHING they find personally offensive regardless of if they think it should be allowed or not.

This would only work if a large amount of people did it all over the grid and there would be some risk involved for those who participated.

The point would be to flood LL with ARs to show them that (a) “Broadly Offensive” isn’t a valid definition to go on for considering what should be allowed (b) Leaving the policing of THEIR product to their customers is not conducive to the “Your World Your Imagination” ideas that SL is supposed to be about and (c) the community is ACTUALLY speaking this time.

I say we set the date at June 24th for “AR the Broadly Offensive Day”
profoundly irritated

Jun 4th, 2007

I have found that jouralists, pseudo-journalists and newspaper commentators always sound plausible until one encounters them holding forth on a subject that one has an in-depth knowledge of oneself. This article has unfortunately proved to be no different from many others, and has plumbed some unsavoury depths

I am not in the slightest bit interested in your slanging match with csven, or whoever. Nor am I making any sort of apology for any sort of sexual ‘age play’ in SL…i have spoken out against it directly when i have encountered avatars who fit this profile and will have nothing to do with any resident whose group profile has anything in it that at all that gives any indication of participation or support of such behaviour. In that regard I am totally behind any moves to rid SL of that form of perniciousness

What is utter nonsense is your statement that ‘Gays and AIDS do sometimes go together. To say they are unrelated would be retarded. BDSM and pedophilia go together often too, more’s the pity. And both are reprehensible lifestyles intellectually indefensible in a democratic and free society.’

Your insinuation that people with an interest in BDSM (and i notice that you even fail to make any effort to even differentiate between the different genres falling within that umbrella) are likely to be pedophiles , ie those who desire sexual contact with children and young people who are below the age of consent, is insulting and detestable, being so far from the truth as to be risible. Most would shop any sign of pedophile activity without any hesitation at all.

On that, and the more general point on the intellectual indefensibility of BDSM practice, you need to do your homework properly. Certainly there is nothing that shows any signs of journalistic integrity in that. It’s merely a prejudiced rant. Many of the other writers here have also challeged you on this and you clearly do not know what you are talking about

Whatever, I should be grateful if you would have the good grace to apologise for the abhorrent linkage made and your acknowledgement that it is not evidentially sustainable.

As far as your having difficulty understanding or accepting the ways in which other peoples’ sexuality functions, FWIW, a local Durex survey reported recently that approximately 35% of the population had indulged in/desired to participate in sexual practice that encompassed some place along what might be described as the spectrum of BDSM activity, so the depth of your ignorance and intolerance is either quite profound, or, and here I should like to give you the benefit of the doubt, you are at least significantly uninformed.

I am sure that even though there might be an understanding why, and forgiveness for you for the fact that you may not fully be able to comprehend, or bring yourself to acknowledge that, for the greater part people who do indulge in the range of BDSM activities do so willingly (there will be a small number, as in EVERY area of human life, for whom a universal statement might not be true and I would not stoop to endangering my general point by implying otherwise). These people are not some form of evil incarnate stalking the earth, or SL for that matter. That this is so should be even more self-evident from the SL experience, from the mere fact that, in SL, nothing can be done non consensually, so there has to be a mutual willingness.

I trust that you can at least exercise the common courtesy of retracting your original assertion.
Melissa Yeuxdoux

Jun 4th, 2007

Prokofy,

“I do RELATE a sickening real life crime with simulation of that crime because the connection IS DEMONSTRATED.”

I went to your blog and read what I presume is the post in which you deal with the topic. It includes the statement

“Studies show that viewers of child pornography take out their destructive attractions to real life…”

with each of the words “Studies” and “show” having a link to a paper on child pornography. If the first link is any indication, I have to wonder why you included it, save possibly to impress the rubes, because the conclusion of the first linked document states

“In other words, sex offenders may become involved with pornography for a variety of reasons. Despite this involvement, there is no evidence of a causal link between viewing adult or child pornography and the commission of sexual crimes.”

which appears to contradict your claim. Alas, putting text in all caps does not constitute evidence or proof.
Darkfoxx

Jun 5th, 2007

give it up Melissa. Trying to convince people that ageplay is not pedophilia is like trying to explain a deaf-mute-blind person how to get to the station.

Only maybe the deaf-mute-blind person does really want to know the facts. Prok and the others are only interrested in their own opinion, which they convince as being the utter, absolute truth.

Even if they themselves know they’re making shit up.

I have never, never seen anyone of them actually coming back, and rectifying their ‘truth’ after having a little chat with an ageplayer, but who wants to talk to a pedophile anyways, right?

I’ll be laughing SOOO hard when Prok gets AR’ed for being broadly offensive and banned. I think I’ll start now, just to get a headstart and not run out of breath when the time comes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (to be continued)
Prokofy Neva

Jun 5th, 2007

>”In other words, sex offenders may become involved with pornography for a variety of reasons. Despite this involvement, there is no evidence of a causal link between viewing adult or child pornography and the commission of sexual crimes.”

>which appears to contradict your claim. Alas, putting text in all caps does not constitute evidence or proof.

People work overtime to contradict this claim. Law-enforcement and experts in the field see it. It seems persuasive to me, what they’re saying. I have no reason to DIS-connect what looks pretty obviously connected. I realize pedophiles have every reason to justify, rationalize, whitewash, prevaricate and DIS-connection what others see with common sense as connected, and they work overtime to “educate them”. I don’t see why I need to accept their argumentation. Societies in RL find pedophilia wrong, and outlaw it. As they do in virtual life. Normal, all of it, and reasonable.

As I’ve noted to various trolls like Csven, I put links for people to study. People often click on links and then hasten back like squealing schoolgirls screaming, oh, but it doesn’t say what you think it says! To which I can only say, that’s fine, I put links for people to study, they will have pros and cons, keep looking and reading. Keep googling. Follow links. Follow up. Study. There are studies that show these links. They are of course disputed by pedophiles — but why are we surprised. I think if God himself descended from the heavens and said there is an indisputable link, somebody would ask for a URL.

1. It doesn’t take any indisputable link for me to find it offensive and be concerned there is enough of a chance of a link to remove it.
2. The New York Times quotes those finding a link not in the sense of a “causal link” but in the justification, rationalization, and lowering of barriers to inhibition which Internet porn and chat groups create– that’s enough of a problem for me to act.
3. Other links contain studies linking the two, althoug not finding some 100 percent linkage. That’s fine, even 1 percent linkage is 1 percent too much.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Dyerbrook/morton_salt.jpg
Prokofy Neva

Jun 5th, 2007

>then banned sexual ageplay alltogether, and all of you were cheering them on.

Can you point to anyone who has been banned soley for sexual ageplay that was not related to real-life child pornography?

You haven’t “warned us” or “told you so” because we’re not stupid, and can see what is involved in policies like this. The challenge is to see how they will enforce them.
Myrrh Massiel

Jun 5th, 2007

[quote]1. It doesn’t take any indisputable link for me to find it offensive and be concerned there is enough of a chance of a link to remove it.
2. The New York Times quotes those finding a link not in the sense of a “causal link” but in the justification, rationalization, and lowering of barriers to inhibition which Internet porn and chat groups create– that’s enough of a problem for me to act.[/quote]

Majority Opinion, Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition:

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” and imposing a criminal sanction on protected speech is a “stark example of speech suppression.” At the same time, sexual abuse of children “is a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people.” “Congress may pass valid laws to protect children from abuse, and it has.” The great difficulty with the two provisions of the CPPA at issue in this case was that they included categories of speech other than obscenity and child pornography, and thus were overbroad.

The Court concluded that the “CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” In particular, it prohibits the visual depiction of teenagers engaged in sexual activity, a “fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages.” Such depictions include performances of Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare; the 1996 film William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet, directed by Baz Luhrmann; and the Academy Award winning movies Traffic and American Beauty. “If these films, or hundreds of others of lesser note that explore those subjects, contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, the possessor of the film would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the work’s redeeming value. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: The artistic merit of a work does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene.”

Thus, the CPPA prohibited speech for a different reason than anti-child pornography laws. Laws prohibiting the distribution and possession of child pornography ban speech because of the manner in which it is produced, regardless of its serious literary or artistic value. But speech prohibited by the CPPA “records no crime and creates no victims by its production.” Child pornography is not necessarily without value, but it is illegal because of the harm that making and distributing it necessarily inflicts upon children. Ferber expressly allowed virtual child pornography as an alternative that could preserve whatever literary value child pornography might arguably have while at the same time mitigating the harm caused by making it. The CPPA would eliminate this distinction and punish people for engaging in what had heretofore been a legal alternative.

The Government countered that without the CPPA, child molesters might use virtual child pornography to seduce children. But “there are many things innocent in themselves, however, such as cartoons, video games, and candy, that might be used for immoral purposes, yet we would not expect those to be prohibited because they can be misused.” The First Amendment draws a distinction between words and deeds, and does not tolerate banning of mere words simply because those words could lead to naughty deeds. Although the CPPA’s objective was to prohibit illegal conduct, it went well beyond that goal by restricting speech available to law-abiding adults. And if the goal was to eliminate the market for all child pornography, the Court ruled that the government could not accomplish that goal by eliminating lawful speech in the process. The burden should not, however, fall on the speaker to prove that his speech is lawful, instead of on the government to prove that it is not. Furthermore, such an affirmative defense is “incomplete on its own terms” because it “allows persons to be convicted in some instances where they can prove children were not exploited in the production.”

[quote]Can you point to anyone who has been banned soley for sexual ageplay that was not related to real-life child pornography?[/quote]

[url=http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/05/09/accusations-regarding-child-pornography-in-second-life/]Yes.[/url]

“The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.” US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).
janeforyou Barbara

Jun 8th, 2007

-Child avatars are not forbidden, ageplay with NO sex are not forbidden
-BDSM are not forbidden
-Gor are not forbidden
-Furs are not forbidden
Non of this are firbidden or banned in SL and will never be,BUT its up to the SIM owner to govern the roules the SIM owners them selfs set up.There are “moms” and “daughters” and “aunties” and “grannies” and “dads” With ADULT avatars and child avatares in SL and there will still be.Linden Lab will not and can not ban or forbidd on this. Thay can give ” guidelines” and advice, and as loong as there are no crimes as in RI child abuse thay wil not do any on this ( Ref : Daniel Linden-Robin Linden ) Linden Labs get 5000 abuse reports a day, and there are no way thay can look at this and thay dont ( Ref Daniel Linden ) So play, have fun as you like but dont do ant crminal, its up to you, if you dont like what you se on your land and its against your rules, ban the person, its as simple as that!
Kryss Wanweird

Jul 19th, 2007

Prokovy Neva,

“o even having people look at mere copies that they didn’t pay for of RL porn helps contribute to the overall crime and criminality.
o therefore one can make a stronger case for virtual porn being something that should be outlawed”

One can make a “stronger case” against “virtual child pornography” with that reasoning all they want, but for US citizens at least, that type of case was already REJECTED by the US Supreme Court in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition. When are you going to get around to actually reading that case decision?

Quoting (minus citations):

“The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles’ appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it, absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct. The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all.”

Posted by: protozz | June 01, 2007 at 04:54 AM

______________________________________________________________________________________

Well, I guess some people will have to review their concepts. I did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html
Prokofy Neva

Jul 19th, 2007

>When are you going to get around to actually reading that case decision?

I read it. Back then, and a number of times since then. So? I disagree with your facile and self-serving spin on it.

>few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice.

Well, that’s not psychiatry, that’s merely judicial opinion. In fact, the claim that fictional images will be enough to sate the pedophile is given the lie by this judicial opinion, and that’s a good thing.

And the story isn’t at all over yet, and there will be other legal attempts to refine or reverse Ashcroft due to two factors — the boom in child porn and studies that show correlation between offenders and porn viewers — and that might well be appropriate if one can demonstrate that virtual worlds are enablers. The article Kryss posts suggests that they are. Even if the sample studied are those caught and charged, and there’s this putative other larger percent of those not caught and not offenders but viewers, there is still *enough* of a correleation at least with *some percentage* that it’s not worth fooling around with. I just don’t get the zeal with which people rush to defend the virtual enactment of destruction of innocence; it’s morally repugnant and as an act, shouldn’t be defended on grounds of “art” as it is not socially redeeming.
Codeine antitussive action.

Jun 29th, 2009

Codeine.

Apap codeine. Codeine online. Codeine combined pseudoephedrine. Codeine vicodin. Codeine. Allergic symptoms signs codeine.