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…
Mr. CHARLIE told me so...
Jun 1st, 2007
Oh boy – after biatching about the PN so many times and calling them idiots, etc., it looks like I’m about to join them in their crusade.
After all, in this new dog-eat-dog rule, you’re either the LAW or you’re the VICTIM.
Dropping my entire line of skins and shapes and replacing it with armbands and jackboots. Come brothers, join the crusade (or be crushed like ants).
csven
Jun 1st, 2007
“csven, you’re an idiot, if there was anything that could be AR’d, Prok would AR it, Prok AR’s EVERYTHING!”
Of course she does.
Only the Lindens will have to explain why I can post the URL to another residents blog which is *also* linked through her own profile.
And they’ll have to explain why it’s okay for her to use the profile as a forum to attack the Electric Sheep (by name) while I can’t do the same citing *no* names.
Should they suspend my account, no problem. It’d just give me more time to blog about Linden Lab’s failings. I’m okay with that.
Anonymous
Jun 1st, 2007
This is what a whole lot of people have been warning you would happen – and for every possible scenario brought forth, you shrugged and declared ‘if that’s what it takes, that’s what it takes.’
So NOW you’re worried? You’re the loudest voice of the mythical ‘community’ that asked for this. Enjoy the future you’ve built.
Red Newt
Jun 1st, 2007
As the Red Newt said to Black Crow, “Do what you will, ’cause I don’t really care much if’n I die…”
Jessica Holyoke
Jun 1st, 2007
prok,
I’m not going to enter into another argument about how the law works with you, because I am always wrong in your eyes, either due to my youth or due to my encouraging a hedonistic lifestyle. But again, a statute put into practice has definable elements so that you know if you are in violation of it. Its not as vague as you make it sound.
But if the Lindens invite people in and say “you own some thing” and then they publish policies that state that if they don’t agree with what that thing is, they’ll terminate your accounts and seize your property, why shouldn’t someone get clarification on that?
Look at what’s being said Prok. Daniel Linden has stated that if content is broadly offensive, not necessarily illegal, then you risk everything you own in Second Life, including your second life identity, with the only ability to get anything back is a lawsuit against Linden Labs.
You may disagree with how I chose to spend my Second Life, but what you’re arguing doesn’t coincide with the arguments I’m presenting. If I look at the Linden ruling in a certain light and I’m wrong, then I risk money, items and friends due to an unclear policy.
Csven,
Obscenity isn’t limited to visual or textual works, so I suppose someone might have been charged with pornographic sounds. But I’m not researching that at the moment.
Nacon
Jun 1st, 2007
Cseven said “Of course you don’t, dear. And we’re all sorry about that.”
Hahaha, nice.
Prok said “It’s this kind of outrageous mendacity and bad faith that I can’t bear on these types of forums and I will fight back against hammer and tong.”
…Forum? it’s form of type, not type of Forurm. ….and of course, I do feel the same way about you writing any junks around here and outside of SL Herald as “hysterical and prudish”, just as you said.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
>Of course you don’t, dear. And we’re all sorry about that.
There isn’t any contradiction between saying that the mere fact that porn *comes from RL with real humans makes it graphic,* and only being able to glimpse it as it is being removed and assuming it *must* be graphic because it IS being removed*, but continuing to report the story as I found it: I couldn’t say something definitive about it other than that it appeared to show RL humans.
What the rest of us *can* see is what an asshole csven is. And the contradiction between seeming to be a “respected scientist” covered even by Hamlet (!) and being a low and nasty bully and mendacious and vicious troll.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
Jessica,
I’ve already answered this over and over. The Lindens are not making law. They are making tribal policy in their private tribal club. So it’s going to lack the elements of real law, especially really good and clear and effective real-life law. It’s just a club’s policy, it’s house rules.
The punishment may not fit the crime; there is no due process for the meting out of the punishment, and yet, who can complain? It’s not law, in a setting with real 3-branch government, but merely executive authoritarian rule.
Policies are policies. They are discretionary. That leads to abuse of them.
To go on and on about how much “bad law” the Lindens disseminate is silly, when it is merely to be treated as a private club’s policies. You then have to do two things: a) show that isn’t really a private club and argue for how to get it out of that status; b) show how it is inconsistent with its own stated policies.
Anonymous
Jun 1st, 2007
Fuck You Hedonism party on Prok’s lawn! BYOS*
Bring Your Own Slave
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
>csven, you’re an idiot, if there was anything that could be AR’d, Prok would AR it, Prok AR’s EVERYTHING!”
>Of course she does.
I AR offenses against the TOS on my land that I can’t remove/fix/address myself, based on my own monitoring and my own customer complaints. I don’t chase around looking for other work to do.
>Only the Lindens will have to explain why I can post the URL to another residents blog which is *also* linked through her own profile.
Because it’s a personal attack, that’s why. I’ve found that using profiles for personal attacks usually winds up in getting the material removed and the avatar even banned.
>And they’ll have to explain why it’s okay for her to use the profile as a forum to attack the Electric Sheep (by name) while I can’t do the same citing *no* names.
I don’t “attack the Electric Sheep”; I urge that they be boycotted until they make Grid Shepherd’s data scrape opt-in. That’s a consumer advocacy movement, not a personal attack.
I don’t accuse them of RL crimes. I don’t attempt to smear them. I boycott them legitimately on the basis of their actions in world.
csven in the meantime lies about me, puts a link to my blog, and portrays it tendentiously. Big different? There’s no falsehood in my portrayal of the Sheep; they don’t have opt-in, they have opt-out.
>Should they suspend my account, no problem. It’d just give me more time to blog about Linden Lab’s failings. I’m okay with that.
Rolls eyes. What an evil fucktard.
Karl
Jun 1st, 2007
I’m glad LL finally took a stand on this. It was embarrassing admitting to people that I play second life because so many pathetic losers use it to pixel bump. If you’re so upset about this I suggest you go out and get some real action. That might put things in perspective.
Obscure Doodad
Jun 1st, 2007
People, stop.
It’s about money. It’s not about anything else. It Doesn’t Matter If LL Wins Any Court Cases. It only matters that they have to pay $400/hr to defend themselves. And fare more important, what is unfolding is the new application of prosecutorial measurement of cooperation.
When they attract the attention of law enforcement, they will fall all over themselves to claim they are cooperating. They will hold meetings and make loud announcements that they are cooperating. They will announce policies like is in this Linden’s Blog post and wave them over their heads. But eventually a prosecutor is going to sit down with them and tell them to stop the crap and the jig is up. Cooperation will be measured numerically — as in what percentage of annual gross revenue is funding a staff that polices the grid. They will be told to get that number up over 10% or the officers of the company will become persons of interest.
That is what it all unfolds to. Talk is cheap. Announcements of policy cost management nothing. When they have to spend money on legal fees or are forced to spend money on demonstrating the cooperation they claim . . . that is when the board of directors will have a hard look at their CEO’s decision making and the growth potential vs risk potential of the business.
Don’t expect Meta Linden’s economic stats to look very rosy in days to come.
csven
Jun 1st, 2007
“Because it’s a personal attack, that’s why. I’ve found that using profiles for personal attacks usually winds up in getting the material removed and the avatar even banned.”
I don’t have a problem with being banned. There are fewer and fewer reasons to stick with Second Life imo.
Do *you* have a problem explaining why you didn’t contact real life authorities after claiming to see real child porn inside Second Life?
-
“I don’t “attack the Electric Sheep”… I don’t accuse them of RL crimes.”
I’m asking questions, nothing more. Read my profile. No accusation there. And no names either.
What’s most interesting to me now, however, is how you’re reacting to these questions. Guilty conscience, Prok? Realizing you’re losing touch with reality when you find avatar porn more upsetting than real life porn? Or maybe you’re protecting customers? I mean, cybersex is the real reason people use Ravenglass rentals isn’t it? I’ve certainly seen my share of Prokofy-enabling activity. Which is worse, the “sickos” or the one’s that give them a place to do their thing… for a price?
shockwave yareach
Jun 1st, 2007
Here is a solution — private clubs within the private club.
Someone has land? Wants a Gorean Slave pit? Make it an opt in place where everyone wishing to come inside a) has to mail in proof of age and b) signs a form saying that they are knowingly entering a mature sim where virtual sex/bondage/weasel abuse takes place and that they are c) not breaking any laws of their home country and d) pay one US dollar and e) acknowledge that if any charges are filed, their purchase makes them an accessory to the crime. No form, no entrance. It’s a snap to have a parcel that bans anyone but a certain group and a nextdoor entry place where the instructions and the rules are clearly spelled out. Slows things down, yes. But everyone is much safer this way — kinda a speak-easy approach.
Shoot, I smell a business oportunity here.
Ariane
Jun 1st, 2007
“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.
…
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 completely disagree with these statements. Virtuality does not affect Reality, in fact there is good evidence that the exact opposite is true.
Violence has gone DOWN as violence in video games has gone UP.
Reported rapes have gone DOWN as internet porn has gone UP.
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
The virtual utopians are basically the opposite.
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?
“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?
Jessica Holyoke
Jun 1st, 2007
Prok,
To your points:
If SL is a “private club”, why can anyone join?
If the Lindens invited people in to create what they want and to do what they wish on their own virtual land, how is that consistent with the policy of being able to terminate your account and take your land if what you do on that land is disagreeable to them?
The Lindens did not have to go this far to protect their image. They could have restricted Groups and Search in such a way that the type of content being contemplated now is not allowed to be promoted by the Lindens. This would likely be acceptable to everyone involved as opposed to a blanket ban. However, what the Lindens are doing is overreaching in their application to which people who this policy effects are trying to make their voices heard.
If our land is considered like a website on which we can create, then how are the Linden’s liable for what is created there? I don’t believe anyone has ever hid behind the Lindens. I would also like to hear who exactly are making these types of inquiries into SL. (not from you Prok, but from other people.)
LALA FACE
Jun 1st, 2007
I agree what Ariane said about role players versus non role players.
DO YOU HAVE THE BOOTS OF ESCAPEMENT?!?!
http://onlyatest.org/jdjFiles/dungeons_n_dragons.wmv
LALA FACE
Jun 1st, 2007
aw link no workee
csven
Jun 1st, 2007
“virtual utopians”
Uh oh. She applied “utopian” to those supporting this action by LL. I sense a ProkLash coming.
Kahni Poitier
Jun 1st, 2007
If it’s offensive or illegal in “some” country?
Which ones are we kow-towing to?
Is SL going to become Baptist or Muslim?
An Actual Attorney
Jun 1st, 2007
Prok,
I don’t mean this in a snotty way, but are you actually a lawyer? I thought you were a Russian Translator, but this quote makes me think you’re an attorney
“A little law school is a dangerous thing. When you come out of the Ivory Tower and actually have to *practice* law instead of just *read about it* in *the real world* you will see that you have to look at a huge host of factors from the judge’s reputation and rulings to the precedents to whether your client is actually guilty but you still have to do your best by him. I think you simply have no clue as to how different it will be from what you imagine. Experience will knock all your assumptions flat.”
If you’re a senior partner at a law firm bringing in big dollars or clients or clout, or a judge appointed (non-politically) to a nice seat, you have every right to be that condescending.
If you were once one of those things and have since moved on to your dream jon of translating Russian, ok.
If you’re a law school grad who practiced a little but found it wanting, maybe.
If you’re none of the above you’re the biggest bitch on the planet.
Please let me know, I like this blog and want to keep reading it but I need to know what your tickets are before I’ll listen any more.
Thanks,
A Senior Partner
Sn4X15
Jun 1st, 2007
test
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
Prok,
To your points:
If SL is a “private club”, why can anyone join?
Could you please go read about the Boy Scouts of America case, hon? They won the right to discriminate against gays by now allowing them to advance as Boy Scouts. Bad decision, you say? I found it so. But that’s America. The right to have the culture you want in your club. And your club can be open to anyone. Anyone can join! It can be a HUGE club with MILLIONS! But…it’s still a separate, private, non-governmental organization?
Now, one might argue, as I would, that if this BSA met in schools, church basements, municipal parks and such, that made it something not so private? But…there you have it. It won the case. I don’t see the ruling successfully challenged. Becaue of the First Amendment. You can’t force political correctness. After all, you could make a separate club, also big, also meeting everywhere, but only Gay Scouts of America or whatever, see how it works?
>If the Lindens invited people in to create what they want and to do what they wish on their own virtual land, how is that consistent with the policy of being able to terminate your account and take your land if what you do on that land is disagreeable to them?
I think it has to do with it being all their servers, really. We’re all really just tenants of Governor Linden.
>The Lindens did not have to go this far to protect their image. They could have restricted Groups and Search in such a way that the type of content being contemplated now is not allowed to be promoted by the Lindens. This would likely be acceptable to everyone involved as opposed to a blanket ban. However, what the Lindens are doing is overreaching in their application to which people who this policy effects are trying to make their voices heard.
Oh, I totally agree Lindens overreach. I think we could be more effectively battling them on areas where we might make a difference appealing to liberal sensibilities and the broad public; somehow, uh, child rape simulation rights isn’t the area I wish to push our Lindens on.
>If our land is considered like a website on which we can create, then how are the Linden’s liable for what is created there? I don’t believe anyone has ever hid behind the Lindens. I would also like to hear who exactly are making these types of inquiries into SL. (not from you Prok, but from other people.)
Every single one of you “ageplayers” and “BDSM” are hiding behind the Lindens. Indeed, such was the culture that last summer, it would never occur to me to try to start some posse to go to RL authorities about “consenting adults on their own property”. Because…to find out what they’re doing, I’d have to invade their privacy and spy on them, and isn’t that wrong? Isn’t that against the TOS?
But, nothing in excess, as the ancients said. I find it reasonable, indeed, that if somebody has RL child porn on their walls, they should be reported to the Lindens. And they were. And they were forced to take it down. And this repeated again with German TV also claiming to find it. I wonder why, of course, csven thinks that German TV diddn’t see it, doesn’t have it, and the Lidnens can’t find it, but he thinks a year ago, if I glimpsed it as it was being whisked away, I’m liable to report it…and none of them are. Oh, well, never look for any consistency from the deranged.
Tabatha Dagger
Jun 1st, 2007
As Lenny Bruce says “It’s ok to show the titty if it is cut and bleading, that’s a good titty. But if you show a man put a pillow under a womans ass to have sex that’s offencive.” You know what offends me in SL, WAR DOES. If you are going to ban sex then for God sakes ban war. Is there no place we can get away from it.
Jessica Holyoke
Jun 1st, 2007
What I meant by how is SL a private club is more in keeping with the open membership. The Boy Scouts have very specific joining requirements, ie. mostly you have to be a boy. But if the Linden’s invite everyone in, that doesn’t sound like a private club to me. I didn’t mean to reference Dale v. BSA, but what I was going for is that a private club should have more restrictive membership requirements. Other than age, SL doesn’t have any restrictions on membership.
Because I learned about SL in October of 2006, I have no clue what the climate was like last summer in regards to what Prok would consider “fringe users”. I only know what’s going on now and what people are talking about now. (Except I do know that there was a lot of protest over unverified accounts. I did learn that.)
Jessica Holyoke
Jun 1st, 2007
What I meant by how is SL a private club is more in keeping with the open membership. The Boy Scouts have very specific joining requirements, ie. mostly you have to be a boy. But if the Linden’s invite everyone in, that doesn’t sound like a private club to me. I didn’t mean to reference Dale v. BSA, but what I was going for is that a private club should have more restrictive membership requirements. Other than age, SL doesn’t have any restrictions on membership.
Because I learned about SL in October of 2006, I have no clue what the climate was like last summer in regards to what Prok would consider “fringe users”. I only know what’s going on now and what people are talking about now. (Except I do know that there was a lot of protest over unverified accounts. I did learn that.)
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
>I don’t have a problem with being banned. There are fewer and fewer reasons to stick with Second Life imo.
Good riddance, then! People who have nothing to lose become reckless fucktards. Better they just move along if they don’t value something.
>Do *you* have a problem explaining why you didn’t contact real life authorities after claiming to see real child porn inside Second Life?
I’ve answered this already. I simply don’t fear being “shamed and humiliated and cornered” as cven laughingly imagines he is doing. Answers, again:
1. Because I had no pictures, there were no pictures in world, there was no *house* even — no evidence and no place to go to show someone in authority — no *evidence* for the complaint.
2. Lindens themselves did nothing — and it’s on their servers. If it was deleted, what indeed could THEY do?
3. Back then, I was hardly conversant in these issues as now — I didn’t realize that even simulated porn is an offense in Germany; it never occurred to me to seriously contemplate how those making mere miniature copies of porn in the “privacy of their homes” in SL in fact are part of a very evil machine. Once that was pointed out, I could readily see it. But even if I had known these two important aspects of the whole child porn thing back then, I’d still have no handle, no evidence to lodge a report with.
4. Csven has trouble admitting that virtual porn is just as awful — indeed now also criminalized and rightly so — as the real stuff he claims to find me negligent about. *What a dick*.
>”I don’t “attack the Electric Sheep”… I don’t accuse them of RL crimes.”
>I’m asking questions, nothing more. Read my profile. No accusation there. And no names either.
The so-called questions are a tendentious and libelous framing of the story, implying that I somehow failed to report RL crime or do not take RL crime seriously. But I do. It’s csven who does not, not finding something a crime even though IT IS A CRIME in states like Germany, and not conceding EVEN THOUGH IT IS CONCEDED BY RL U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT that the climate of justification created by chat, support groups, Internet sites, and yes, virtual worlds and simulation, make the crime more easy to commit. SICK!
>What’s most interesting to me now, however, is how you’re reacting to these questions. Guilty conscience, Prok? Realizing you’re losing touch with reality when you find avatar porn more upsetting than real life porn?
Um, I’m *hardly* suffering from any guilty conscience; I know right from wrong, unlike csven, who can’t tell evil from good and gives excuses to monsters.
Where do I find “avatar porn more upsetting that RL porn”? That’s the most preposterous thing on two legs. If there were two panels of pictures out in RL in the newspaper, or in SL, one showing RL porn, and one showing avatar that you presume is made with “consenting adults” there’s no qustion that the RL porn made by exploiting RL kids is the far worse thing. The fare more monstrous crime. Who could doubt that? RL pics are RL pics. But you have to see them, not glimpse them. YOu have to have them out, to point to. You have to be able to describe them reasonable and make some judgement about them. I simply cannot do that if I didn’t see them and take pictures and continue to be able to point them. I don’t see why I’d lie about something like that.
Far from losing touch with reality, I’m very much in touch with it by being aware of how I can make an effective case — or not. It’s csven who is completely untethered, trying to bully me into somehow looking “soft on RL porn” (*rolls eyes*).
Perhaps it is csven who is grossly negligent, given his high sense of moral dundgeon and high sense of rectitude and certainty. I suggest he call up the RL police and tell them to raid my home and investigate my computer and see what they can find. Also, fetch up the Herald mailboxes to see if they can dig something up that might show some RL child porn. I’m sure they’re not going to find any, but that’s ok, look anyway. So work on something *constructive* like that, csven instead of blathering on forums.
>Or maybe you’re protecting customers? I mean, cybersex is the real reason people use Ravenglass rentals isn’t it? I’ve certainly seen my share of Prokofy-enabling activity. Which is worse, the “sickos” or the one’s that give them a place to do their thing… for a price?
I hardly fear the loss of business if someone is engaging in “ageplay”. I have 0 tolerance for it — I’ve never seen it on my land. If I saw it or had it reported — I would remove it. And if cybersex is to be outlawed, well, so be it. It’s a busines loss, but hardly some huge crisis. People use rentals for all kinds of things. And why should Mr. Laissez-Faire Liberal csven, who wants the right to simulate child rape, be caring about my tenants in their private homes?
Oh, he thinks it’s ok for busybodies like himself to cam into their homes, eavesdrop on them and abuse report them for crimes he imagines they commit? But I thought he was all for the right of simulated *anything* as it’s all pixels? So…if he believes THAT, what on earth would he be reporting? Is he admitting that he views the existence of this Linden policy as merely a lever for him to try to harass me with? Oh, ok, glad we got that clear.
Kahni Poitier
Jun 1st, 2007
Next up! SEX will be illegal in SL.
Not the ageplay, not the BDSM, but regular man-on-top-get-it-over-with-quick sex. And penises! They’ll be banned! And naked bodies! They’ll be banned soon too.
Time to start selling off my stuff and cash out.
janeforyou Barbara
Jun 1st, 2007
Only on SLX 1800 diff Wepons to use to kill with,neer 20.000 diff wepons inworld.
Tousens of wepon crators.1200 diff BDSM items in SLX pluss neer 22.000 inworld. Tousens of sex item makers.And then there are all the skinn crators. nipples pussy-cock, then all the animaton makers and scripters that makes sex animations.
Put all this together and you find millions off RL USD invested in land-shops-tools-work
The trade on only this items are Millions of RL USD….Take this out and you totaly bake down the SL economy and you get tousens of empty SIM and neer non sold.
Hazim Gazov
Jun 1st, 2007
I refuse to read that shit.
Anonymous
Jun 1st, 2007
Thank you Daniel Linden for being my daddy. Thank you Robin Linden for being my mommy. Thank you Linden Labs for being my nanny and my bestest babysitter. I don’t know what I’d do without you!
Ga ga! goo goo! *wets my pants* uh oh baby go wee wee!!! call uncle Philip Linden to get me a new diaper pweeze!
And please enforce your BRAND NEW policy on all us helpless 18+ children with your ILLEGAL Terms of Service (according to CA law as interpreted by a NON virtual federal judge)! That would be so perfect!
csven
Jun 1st, 2007
“Better they just move along if they don’t value something.”
Like enforcing Utopian standards of decency on the rest of the world and using Code/ToS-as-Law to maintain an Iron Fist over the working class.
You’re right. I value Freedom of Thought and Expression. Even yours. So we disagree.
-
“2. Lindens themselves did nothing — and it’s on their servers. If it was deleted, what indeed could THEY do?”
Assuming it was deleted from Inventory – which I think is a very poor assumption to make when we’re talking about something this bad – then they could very likely retrieve it in any number of ways. That’s what modern computer forensics people do. I can imagine this would cause them a huge headache, but that’s irrelevant.
Problem is, if the Linden showed up late as Prok claims he did, and if he showed up around the same time all the RL pictures she’d *already* seen had been removed, then the Lindens possibly didn’t know about the RL stuff; only the virtual stuff… which *wasn’t* verbotten.
Did Prok TELL them she’d seen RL CHILD PORN???
If she did, then WHY DIDN’T THE LINDENS ACT???
Something’s wrong here.
Cocoanut Koala
Jun 1st, 2007
Daniel Linden screwed up when he encouraged residents to rat out each other.
coco
DRAMA
Jun 1st, 2007
DRAMA goes in all fields
sage
Jun 1st, 2007
sage
csven
Jun 1st, 2007
For the record, I’ve never “cammed” into one of Prok’s renter’s homes. Don’t need to. Some of these classy customers of hers don’t bother going up to their “private” skyhome and instead set their poseballs on the bare land below… completely open to the world.
I’ve never even bothered to AR them even though by previous Linden Lab decree that probably was against the “community standards”. But who the hell cares about that stuff … besides the State Minister for Virtual Morality, Prokofy Neva.
Hazim Gazov
Jun 1st, 2007
Prokofy Neva has nothing to do with morality, I heard he smacks his cats when they meow too much.
slots
Jun 1st, 2007
That’s our Danny-boy! The guy who publicly condescends towards residents, in addition to calling them “weird” “shutins” and “unemployed”!
http://slcreativity.org/blog/?p=32
Stick it to em Dan! Let em all know your “already existing” policy (not “brand new” policy, *hint* *hint* *wink* *wink*) has absolutely nothing to do with coincidental:
Virtual child porn being illegal in Germany and reported by ARD
and
Belgium police investigating virtual rape
http://www.secondlifeinsider.com/2007/04/21/belgian-police-patrols-second-life-to-prevent-rape/
Help to cleanse the foul odors that pervades our –err.. I mean “their”– world (*wink wink*).
(Psst.. Danny-boy, ya might wanna start deleting comments on the blog cause from where I’m sitting, looks like most people don’t like the policy..kinda hard to claim residents want it and it’s “broad” with that kinda “dissent” garbage going on. Just between you and me.)
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
For the record, I’ve never “cammed” into one of Prok’s renter’s homes. Don’t need to. Some of these classy customers of hers don’t bother going up to their “private” skyhome and instead set their poseballs on the bare land below… completely open to the world.
So csven believes in spying on people while they are on their private lots, engaging in activity that…is illegal? in RL or SL? Has he made a determination about this? And…then reporting this so-called “illegal activity”? He’s actually able to “camp” near my parcels and watch my tenants such as to report them, and report them for things that in fact he thinks he and others should get to do unimpeded on their land?
Just what is “out in the open”? I mean, most land, you’d have to still come over near it to watch what is happening. You’d have to be peering over the hedges. So is csven the new virtual Gladys Kravitz!? Yes! csven is the spirit reborn of Gladys!
http://www.harpiesbizarre.com/gladysreactions.htm
>I’ve never even bothered to AR them even though by previous Linden Lab decree that probably was against the “community standards”. But who the hell cares about that stuff … besides the State Minister for Virtual Morality, Prokofy Neva
So…wait a second. If there was something that WAS PROBABLY against the “community standards” and csven saw it and didn’t abuse report it — saw it most definitely such as to have a concern about it! And didn’t report it! My God! Could he be aiding and abetting criminality here??
I personally don’t belong to any State Ministry, running not a state, but a rentals company.
Gladys!
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
Oh, let me answer THIS one from Gladys!
>Like enforcing Utopian standards of decency on the rest of the world and using Code/ToS-as-Law to maintain an Iron Fist over the working class.
You’re right. I value Freedom of Thought and Expression. Even yours. So we disagree.
Hardly. A person trying to intimidate someone through bullying and harassment and Googlization of their RL name to odious terms is NOT valuing freedom of thought but is a TYRANT.
I don’t consider the TOS to be the rule of law. It’s a policy for a tribe. It’s all we have. It’s not great. But convincing the Lindens at least to adhere to that and be consistent and fair with it is the first step in the very long road to the rule of law and a state answerable to the rule of law.
>Assuming it was deleted from Inventory – which I think is a very poor assumption to make when we’re talking about something this bad – then they could very likely retrieve it in any number of ways. That’s what modern computer forensics people do. I can imagine this would cause them a huge headache, but that’s irrelevant.
Well, sure. They probably have a way to get stuff that was made ages ago if they want. After all, we see the chat histories come up out of years ago when necessary. So go to the Lindens with this concern then, not with me. Call them up, and express alarm at what they left unattended in August 2006.
>Problem is, if the Linden showed up late as Prok claims he did, and if he showed up around the same time all the RL pictures she’d *already* seen had been removed, then the Lindens possibly didn’t know about the RL stuff; only the virtual stuff… which *wasn’t* verbotten.
I have no idea. I don’t think THEY were removing the stuff themselves but I can’t be sure. They don’t tell you. They say absolutely nothing.
>Did Prok TELL them she’d seen RL CHILD PORN???
If she did, then WHY DIDN’T THE LINDENS ACT???
Something’s wrong here.
I IM’d the Linden and asked him if he had a comment, and what was allowed and not allowed in the privacy of one’s home. No comment. I had no pictures, no evidence, and nothing to point to about any RL porn. Sorry to disappoint, csven has worked himself into a frenzy about being able to catch some RL porn here, but he’ll have to look elsewhere.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
Gladys should really get some opera glasses!
http://www.harpiesbizarre.com/gladysreactions.htm#
csven
Jun 1st, 2007
“So csven believes in spying on people while they are on their private lots, engaging in activity that…is illegal?”
More like having to look the other way because they’re completely out in the open.
(Prokofy attracts only the classiest people, I guess)
-
“He’s actually able to “camp” near my parcels and watch my tenants such as to report them, and report them for things that in fact he thinks he and others should get to do unimpeded on their land?”
No need. I have that large parcel you wanted to win at auction, remember? The one in Patagonia that’s in between your others; the one you always complain about.
(If only I’d known I’d be surrounded by fornicating avatars too lazy or too excited to tp up to their skyhomes)
-
“If there was something that WAS PROBABLY against the “community standards” and csven saw it and didn’t abuse report it — saw it most definitely such as to have a concern about it! And didn’t report it! My God! Could he be aiding and abetting criminality here??”
Yep. I saw some avatars and didn’t report them. Was I concerned? No. But I suppose I’ll have to AR them from here on out.
However, what I’ve not seen – unlike Prokofy – is REAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. If I had – unlike Prokofy – I’d have contacted the authorities… because I know the difference between Real Life and Pretend.
-
So Uri, there’s a story here:
Did Prok TELL Linden Lab she’d seen RL CHILD PORN???
If she did, then WHY DIDN’T THE LINDENS ACT???
If they say she didn’t, then WHY DIDN’T SHE or WHY ARE THEY LYING???
Is the Second Life Herald going to investigate this or will it be forgotten, just the way Prok says she “forgot” about the REAL LIFE CHILD PORN she says she saw?
(Just wondering if you’re the same person that earned his reputation reporting on activities in the Sims, or if that person is gone.)
Klink Epsilon
Jun 1st, 2007
Prok why do you label BDSM and pedophilia in the same sentence? Thats really small minded which btw I’m not suprised coming from you. Try looking BDSM up in the dictonary and tell me where it says the word pedophilia. What next prok are you going to label gays and aids in the same sentence.
Only a small number of people practise ageplay in the bdsm commutiy even then there are two types of it sexual(two adults acting out a sence where one is the adult and the other is a child) and normal ageplay (which is regresing back to childhood). I don’t personaly do the ageplay thing it ain’t my thing and the steps the lindens are talking to route out the sexual ageplay between an adult avatar and child avatar is the right thing to do. I don’t condone that behavour.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
>More like having to look the other way because they’re completely out in the open.
Go Gladys! Guess you didn’t need your opera glasses that day! I find that sort of tenacity a marvel. I’ve been around these sims a zillion times, never saw anybody cybering in the open like that, gosh, I miss all the fun.
>(Prokofy attracts only the classiest people, I guess)
Classy or not, if they are on their own rental in their backyard, and they decide to become one with nature, it’s not my judgement call, unless it appears to be the promotion of explicit and extreme sex! Which it was, evidently! And…imagine! Gladys didn’t report it!!!
>No need. I have that large parcel you wanted to win at auction, remember? The one in Patagonia that’s in between your others; the one you always complain about.
Win at auction? That’s a rich one. I have more than enough land in Patagonia. I bid on some auctions in my sims just because it’s cheaper often to get it off an auction than inworld. I remember I had to buy from Anshe there for a lot of it. But I don’t feel any sense of loss whatsoever, as I have plenty of land, all rented, with enough prims, thanks for caring tho.
>(If only I’d known I’d be surrounded by fornicating avatars too lazy or too excited to tp up to their skyhomes)
I can only hope Gladys will avert her sensitive eyes next time — or report it to the Lindens! They’re standing by 24/7 now for stuff like that!
>Yep. I saw some avatars and didn’t report them. Was I concerned? No. But I suppose I’ll have to AR them from here on out.
Guess so!
>However, what I’ve not seen – unlike Prokofy – is REAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. If I had – unlike Prokofy – I’d have contacted the authorities… because I know the difference between Real Life and Pretend.
They are very much related, and one is feeding the other, so we’ve learned. I can’t report what I don’t have a copy of and can’t point to. The Lindens evidently couldn’t either. I suggest *Gladys* report it though! Because to hear about a glimpse of a something that is now a story some 9 months old is hugely relevant and important and csven might be aiding and abetting crime if he doesn’t act, and soon! Of course, he didn’t think there were any German pictures and think there isn’t any RL porn at all, really, so it will require some exercise of faith, but I’m sure our Gladys is up to the challenge!
>Did Prok TELL Linden Lab she’d seen RL CHILD PORN???
>If she did, then WHY DIDN’T THE LINDENS ACT???
Why would I tell a Linden I’d seen RL porn when he was flying right nearby, seeing the same scene, which involved WHISKING AWAY of said apparent RL porn, and not any copies remaining to point to, or screenshots? And…when I asked a few questions, I was ignored.
People who apparently had out RL porn removed it from their walls, and sold their house and left. What am I reporting…again???
Why would I recount to a Linden flying by the scene that both of us were viewing inside a house? I was trying to cam into the house. It was laggy and difficult. I IM'd him and he didn't respond.
It would never occur to me to report something I could no longer point to, which appeared to have been ended as an offense one could report.
>Is the Second Life Herald going to investigate this or will it be forgotten, just the way Prok says she “forgot” about the REAL LIFE CHILD PORN she says she saw?
I’m glad I forgot that awful stuff — ugh! I put it out of my mind, and I don’t wish to be battling pedophiles — because just LOOK at the methods they use! Instead of conceding you may have a point about virtual porn, all they can do, like Gladys here, is keep insisting you’ve done something wrong yourself on this topic — classic, classic propaganda trick and one visible for miles.
There’s no pictures of RL porn I can point to.
>(Just wondering if you’re the same person that earned his reputation reporting on activities in the Sims, or if that person is gone.)
What Uri and report on in the Sims, and what I can report on in Second Life, does at least have to be based on something with evidence, a picture, a land where something is hanging, something. This did not rise to that test.
I do what I feel is the right thing to do — I witnessed this sordid scene where both sides were so wrong, and I concluded it was not a tar baby I wished to touch — I did not even want to have these simulated pictures on my hard drive. Walker can attest to that. But he also was not moved to tackle this sordid story. For one, the story was over. The stuff was removed, the house and land gone, sold, the group disbanded. Hard to make much of it.
csven
Jun 1st, 2007
“Why would I tell a Linden I’d seen RL porn when he was flying right nearby, seeing the same scene, which involved WHISKING AWAY of said apparent RL porn, and not any copies remaining to point to, or screenshots? And…when I asked a few questions, I was ignored.”
So by this I assume Prokofy is saying that LINDEN LAB’s REPRESENTATIVE WITNESSED THE SCENE AND UNDOUBTEDLY SAW REAL LIFE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY… AND DID NOTHING.
Holy Crap.
And when Linden Lab did nothing, “ignored” her, PROKOFY COULDN’T BE BOTHERED TO CONTACT THE REAL LIFE AUTHORITIES TO REPORT A REAL LIFE CRIME???
Wow.
The more I read, the deeper the hole that I see being dug.
Seth Mandelbrot
Jun 1st, 2007
Neva sums it up quite well: “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.” SL has (apparently to the Lindens’ chagrin) a very stratified community. We’ve tended to get along very well, though. What “our community” is is no more than an imposed vision by the Lindens, one that is not uniform or clear.
Here’s a couple letters I’ve written LL on these sorts of issues of imagination.
Written and sent 1 June 2007 by Seth Mandelbrot:
==Subject: Keeping Second Life Safe and Free==
Dear Linden Lab,
I am profoundly disappointed today. I have trusted Linden Lab. I have trusted it with a lot of things, and have repeatedly told worried friends that the Lindens were going to be true to their claim that this is our world, our imagination. I’ve found out now that this trust has made me a liar.
Today I get open the Second Life blog only to learn that Linden Lab has chosen to restrict people’s imagination when it hurts no one. That’s not the world I signed up for.
Safety isn’t the issue with imagination. There is no one hurt when it’s not reality. Real life violence, including rape (especially rape of children) are wrong and illegal. Real-life images of rape, child sex, and extreme violence are also illegal for good reason. They should not be allowed in SL and (I believe) should carry harsher punishments in RL than they currently garner. Avatar portrayals are make-believe and thus no one is hurt. With no victim, there is no crime. Pretending those who profit from hurting people are the same as those who do not doesn’t make it true.
Yet this policy I read does just that–it limits imagination by pretending that imagination is reality. This does nothing to help or protect anyone. If your goal at Linden Lab is to promote safety, you would make it so it is not easier for children to get on the main grid than the teen grid! I’m really not sure who you believe you are helping or protecting now.
Please, return Second Life to a state of openness. Our world, our imagination. There have to be limits to behavior, but imagination should have no limits. More and more, though, I see a replacement of imagination with your own social vision. Excuse the charged rhetoric, but this resident is beginning to feel like a subject.
A disappointed resident,
Seth Mandelbrot
Written and sent 10 May 2007 by Seth Mandelbrot:
(No reply as of 1 June 2007.)
==Subject: Some concerns from a SL resident==
Dear Torley,
Thanks for your constant hard work serving the SL community through the years.
I’ve been in SL a while now and have enjoyed it a lot; well, to say I’ve enjoyed it a lot is an understatement! I remember my first night on grid, wandering through the tutorial island, stumbling through a laggy welcome area, then finding myself in a world that felt very big and very empty. So I resort to introspection, turning to the edit appearance window. When I saw the sliders, I had to try it. How short can I get? Can I get everything to look right? Before I’d met another kid avatar, I had a very n00bish me built.
And since then, I’ve been enjoying my second life. My second childhood. To paraphrase a friend of mine: If you could have a second life, wouldn’t you be younger too?
As fun as it has been in SL, there have been a few naysayers too. Orbited, caged, cussed out…it’s not like I’m surprised. But I’ve been glad to know that Linden Lab was working hard to keep this my world, my imagination.
And it’s been so fun letting imagination roam free! SL is a very free place. Free as in speech, they might say. I just loved learning to build the world around me, rezzing something, delinking it to see how it works, opening the scripts and fiddling around, and just building my world. (Even pretend kids like to take stuff apart!) But reading the recent blog post “Accusations Regarding Child Pornography in Second Life,” so many of my friends feared that the freedom or our world with out imagination would be ripped from us.
Protecting children is very important. Completely essential. And LL is finally working hard to do that with a meaningful age verification system. (Thanks!) This effort isn’t really affected by limitations on roleplay, though. As Robin says in her blog post, “minors are not allowed in Second Life.” No minors are harmed when two adults roleplay. There are no victims at all.
I am very disappointed that the blog post seems to reflect a policy that muddles roleplay and crime. People roleplaying, communicating, exercising their free speech are placed along side with people who cause and enjoy the exploitation and harming of children through child pornography.
SL has bandits who pretend to kill people who are not placed alongside RL murderers, goreans who pretend to rape people who are not placed alongside RL rapists, and people who pretend to cause their own deaths who are not placed alongside RL suicide victims. Why? Because they have not actually murdered anyone, raped anyone, or committed suicide. Similarly, it does not make sense to subject people who have not harmed children to punishments with those who have.
I hope LL continues to support freedom of speech and imagination. That’s the world I signed up for and I am looking forward to continuing to live my second life in.
Yours with lag,
Seth Mandelbrot
The Aristocrat
Jun 1st, 2007
To keep a few people from acting like children and getting plooked, LL treats their user base like children and plooks them.
There’s a joke in there somewhere, but I’m too dizzy to find it right now.
Suggestion Boy
Jun 1st, 2007
I suggest csven is a pedophile.
Pussyman Cowpoke
Jun 1st, 2007
Prok – let me preface by saying I love you (but not in a “Brokeback Mountain” kinda way). Blogs/forums wouldn’t be the same without your point/counterpoint arguments. Sometimes I agree with you when others disagree, and sometimes I totally fail to see your logic. But I do so love how, when someone comes up behind you and goes “BOO!” you spin around, grab them by the nuts and swing them over your head.
But I must point out today, that when you file an abuse report, a feature there allows you to include a snapshot – which is not in your inventory or on your computer – so an AR shot of the scene you said you refused to take for the abuse report would not incriminate you by possession.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
>Prok why do you label BDSM and pedophilia in the same sentence? Thats really small minded which btw I’m not suprised coming from you. Try looking BDSM up in the dictonary and tell me where it says the word pedophilia. What next prok are you going to label gays and aids in the same sentence.
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.
>Only a small number of people practise ageplay in the bdsm commutiy even then there are two types of it sexual(two adults acting out a sence where one is the adult and the other is a child) and normal ageplay (which is regresing back to childhood). I don’t personaly do the ageplay thing it ain’t my thing and the steps the lindens are talking to route out the sexual ageplay between an adult avatar and child avatar is the right thing to do. I don’t condone that behavour.
I don’t condone violence, coercion, slavery, rape, and pedophilia. None of these phenomena contribute to civilization or the dignity of the individual, vital for a free society.