Mona Lisae
by prokofy on 20/07/07 at 9:58 am
Fishy man, fishing in troubled waters.
By Prokofy Neva, Art Dept.
Art — and the figures in and around it — can be inscrutable. In the much-commented thread about the raid in Blister, Dutch amateur artist Lisae Boucher finally provides a link to another SL store where her controversial works are on sale — images that she says Michael Linden has cleared for “keeping SL safe together”. The parcel in Blister is now renamed, and put on “buy pass” for $20, and the art that was the subject of abuse reports, visits, and more than 100 comments at the Herald, has been removed — apparently out of respect for the neighbours’ sensibilities.
In a thread already filled with her threats to report this site to the Internet service provider and claims that her privacy is invaded, Lisae offers to send me the link to her other store inworld, but challenges me not to publish it, claiming that if it *is* published, that could lead to more harassment in world, more abuse reports, even more Lindens. Receiving a poisoned chalice like that isn’t easy, but after she sent the landmark, I visited the store in question I had no doubt that the link could be provided to the public. Why?
Because it’s a store in a giant mall, checked off as a “mature” parcel in a mature region, and a store not only with 22,558 traffic today, before it was written about by the Herald, and when it is not obviously linked to the other site that became the target of vigilantes, but it even has dance poles paying out $2 to build the traffic. The landmark Lisae provided to me teleported me directly into a camper’s pole, and while the store was deserted, she reports that word had evidently gotten out and sales were brisk. When a store is *already* at 22,558 with camp chairs and porn art all over it for sale, you can’t blame a Herald link for visitors.
Perusing the vendor, I pondered whether the images could be construed as child porn. The images are very realistic, but not RL humans. I’m not an expert on this subject — but then, few of us are. And I can only provide my own opinion: the pictures of a tall, black man in an erotic pose next to a short, white, pre-pubescent girl in a shy pose can very likely be construed as falling under the newly-interpreted Community Standards against “broadly offensive material”. Look, this isn’t Gumby and Pokey here.
I think few people looking through the portfolio would disagree. Why? Because Lisae’s stories about difficulties placing penises just right, or calculations of the angle of erection, fall apart when you see the pictures, which show the figure of the man — described as a pearl fisher — in various poses and states. Why does the observer conclude that he is tumescent? Because he’s shown as flaccid in other pictures. The contrast is very clear.
The girl isn’t anything at all like any 18-year-old or even 16-year-old; she’s more like 12. In one scene, strangely, she is lying naked in a tent flashing the finger at the viewer with an angry look on her face. She’s running in another, and in a third, looking angry and seeming to throw a tantrum, shaking her fists.
On Lisae’s website, she has added a back-story of sorts dated July 19, after my first story appeared, explaining that the girl — Pearl, Princess of the Amazon — was kidnapped along with her mother, who was forced to jump off a cliff to her doom for fear of capture, and yet somehow Pearl was saved by the pearl fisherman…The pearl fisher is described as variously “her step-father” and “her father”.
Lisae runs an amateur website which she advertises on her profile, with pictures that seems to have a membership system. I couldn’t help thinking that operating in SL, she felt much of the same set of circumstances applied — that only certain friends or people on various networks, who registered, who seemed to be “like-minded” would be sharing these pictures on the Internet, and by the same token, in SL, it might work the same way.
But SL is and isn’t the Internet. The Internet is so big that your own little amateur site with pictures that you get loose networks of friends and friends of friends to see can actually be a very small pond, be totally lost, and not get much traffic. And SL is so much like a small town — yet a big place, too — that when you put out a store with adult art of this nature, instead of just a close circle of friends, you may well cause a stir and get a stampede of visitors.
You can’t claim on a parcel that has 20,000 traffic and camping poles and art for sale, checked off to be in SEARCH and found with strings of terms (in this case “Club, Art, Shop, sex rooms, nude naked women, free items & money, nice, gadgets, rental shops. 18+ only! Playboy missing…”), with art for sale in vendors, that this is a Tupperware party and that anyone who writes about it and places a link is guilty of “causing harassment” and shouldn’t publish the link.
So, am I suggesting this art should be abuse-reported? No, nothing of the kind. I’d actually encourage people not to do so, in fact. Because as I’ve repeatedly stated, I don’t think any of us should be playing this wierd game with the Lindens, where they pretend there are community standards that a “community” has supposedly defined, and we pretend that we are defining them by abuse-reporting images that appear to qualify both under the LL TOS/CS as “Real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depiction of sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children or minors.” No, not until we get better clarification of just how to understand this with concrete examples — examples we are not ever likely to get due to the desire of LL to avoid appearing to control content and specify boundaries that it can’t keep.
Michael Linden has supposedly “cleared” on this art, yet I find it strange that he has, and inscrutable. Did he really see this particular vendor, or only those that remained after the images that drew the abuse reports were removed? I certainly don’t wish to copy the image here in full — and I don’t even wish to use those black boxes sometimes appearing in the tabloid press because to do so would still present a very disturbing picture of an adult and child in a questionable pose.
Why? Well, it seems like it might well qualify under an ISP’s TOS about obscenity, but more likely, it would inspire even the maker of the images to engage in a curious form of gotcha and report the site as obscene. It’s like the old SSG trick in TSO — they’d trash somebody’s home and make an obscene picture and spell out banned words in floor tiles, then…abuse report it as in violation of the TOS — and get it to stick.
I have faith in the readers of the Herald, however, that by and large, most have no desire to sic any volunteers, neighbours, or Lindens on someone merely because they make art that seems by probably anybody’s admission, at least borderline “non-socially redeeming”. Judging from the sales reported, however, there are plenty of customers for whatever is redeeming or not. Efforts to show that this or that Internet site or this or that store in SL may have far more graphic and questionable stuff are beside the point; it’s *this* set of paintings that we are told are “cleared by the Lindens” and that’s why it’s of interest so that we can start to understand the parameters of what is allowable even under what seems a draconian policy.
All kinds of scenarios are possible, of course. Lisae may not be a real Dutch woman of 18, as stated on her profile, but a sting operation by some vice squad of RL police (not likely, given her meandering justifications of nudism and such in comments). Or she could be Dutch, but a 300-pound 47-year-old truck driver logging on from a truck stop.
But in Second Life, as I have said, everybody knows you’re a dog. If you say you are a young person just starting out learning poser and having difficulty learning to put clothes on the figures, or find it technically challenging to get dicks at the right angle, that’s all plausible, and in the virtuality of SL, we have to take you at your word, at face value. It might very well be that this rather short young figure is really “18 or 19″ as the back story says. And the pink chibi may well have cleared it, and struck a blow for freedom of expression in spite of what appears to be a blanket suppression of it.
I just can’t be sure.
So I’ll let the reader decide. Mona Lisae…or Phony Lisae?
Juan El Negro
Jul 20th, 2007
Prok, We’re not your private army
Alyx Stoklitsky
Jul 20th, 2007
Is *everyone* that disagrees with you a liar and a fraud, Prok?
Prokofy Neva
Jul 20th, 2007
You’ll have to decide that yourself, Alyx, based on actual concrete examples that can be documented if you believe them to be so, but certainly your claims that no one entering your groups in the last months have been griefers and throw-away accounts *is* a patent fraud, and well documented.
As for this story, if there is a claim that publishing the link to this store ALREADY in SEARCH; ALREADY an adult store with 22,000 plus traffic, with camp poles, is somehow going to lead to unwanted traffic, or that there’s something private or special about a store in mature like this with 22,000 traffic, well, sorry, it’s no sale, and to suggest otherwise and make demands that the link not be published is merely to engage in an ongoing game of trying to manipulate and intimidate the press.
Alexander Hayes
Jul 20th, 2007
girl asks you not to post the link so you post it. result: more traffic and more free advertisements. well done prok. real smart. how many people will visit and report it? a few. how many will now visit and buy something there? lots. it will go up in the search engines and thus draw more visitors. thus more profit. possibly she now will get requests from people asking her to make more such art and possibly even paying her for it. well done prok.
Prokofy Neva
Jul 20th, 2007
Alexander, um, girl has a store with 22,000 traffic on it *already* before I visited it, with an add in SEARCH and the words I’ve indicated to draw traffic, along with camp poles. Hello?
Girl is merely trying to manipulate the press, merely trying to play a game of chicken, posting threats, coquettish blandishments (“I’ll give you the link to my store but don’t post it”) etc. etc. Also urging the Herald editors remove me from the staff again; calling for “the team” to hold a kind of “self-criticism circle” and eliminate me and “shun the unbeliever” in the formulas for politically-correct SL journalism. Accompanied *again* by more threats to report to the ISP, etc.
Sorry, but games like that are pretty transparent. Long before I ever got this landmark, the world stampeded to this door, and Lisae reports are already brisk because neighbours somehow had this link. Whatever. It’s a 3-day wonder, trust me.
Thraxis Epsilon
Jul 20th, 2007
“Girl is merely trying to manipulate the press”
And she succeeded splendidly…. bravo for not falling for her reverse psychology…. Ooops…
Dire Allen
Jul 20th, 2007
Wow. You’re a real classy lady Prok. I know not to trust you now.
DaveOner
Jul 20th, 2007
So what was the point of this “article” anyway?
Plot points…
1) She gave you a link and asked you not to post it so you did because you’re ethical like that.
2) You went there and realized you’re not an art critic or an expert. No shit.
3) The place was popular before you got there…like you count for more than one green dot.
4) You find it odd that a Linden OK’d this art because it seems like the kind of thing the LL SS would clamp down on…except you have a black helicopter/fascist government opinion of LL so of course this wouldn’t compute for you.
This would have been sufficient for another post in the comments section of the last article. You would have just had to add a few more of the “fuck you” and “I’m important” style comments we’ve all grown to expect from you and you’d be set!
Does anyone else at the Herald write anymore or did you eat them?
Anonymous
Jul 20th, 2007
Ok, I agree…. telling you not to post the link was a pretty blatent attempt to manipulate you and your press power.
So… why’d you let her do it? All you’ve done is point the way for even more traffic and wider visibility. Prok, you have your issues, but I didn’t think being someone else’s patsy was one of them.
Ananda
Jul 20th, 2007
Still sticking to your story that this vague “broadly offensive” policy isn’t having any effect?
We’ve got Mentors trying to decide if they are the moral police; we’ve got accounts being suspended because the avatars in question are “short”. We’ve got any EGL outfit being renamed to “rori” or some other misspelling just to get around the ridiculous ad filters. And we’re being asked to judge if somewhat unsettling images like these are offensive or not.
This doesn’t sound like there’s no chilling effect, not at all.
Alexander Hayes
Jul 20th, 2007
i had a chat with girl a week ago and she told she gets paid for amount of traffic and for number of unique visitors. some contract that she has with some company in sl but she didn’t tell which one. not sure what she is doing either for them. what’s why she not sells anything and why the rentboxes are so cheap. she wants traffic and you helped her.means she needs less camping chairs. and i noticed there are several more renters too, so they add more traffic too. didn’t she tell that she gained traffic of over 4000 in blister just over this? girl learns fast. i also know more about her. she studies something in computer marketing. her girlfriend studies psychology. two very smart girls who know how to use you. too smart to be 47 old truckdriver anyways. check the search index. they are high on list for words like art and shop and nude and naked and woman and items and gadgets and rental and shops and they are number one if you look for the word nice. better even if you look for word playboy which this site advertises for too. those are good marketing words which draw lots of attention.
Coincidental Avatar
Jul 20th, 2007
“Why does the observer conclude that he is tumescent? Because he’s shown as flaccid in other pictures. The contrast is very clear.”
With both of you girls, I would start from the very basics. Could you girls first point me the body part you think is the penis?
Lesbian Lisae is no expert and Prokofy has probably forgotten, even if she might have some wishful subconscious thoughts of refreshing her memory, which make her see what she wants.
“The landmark Lisae provided to me teleported me directly into a camper’s pole,”
I’m very sorry that I missed your pole dance.
I suspect that Prokofy had erotic fantasies about screwing Michael Linden too when (s)he wrote the article.
I predict that we will soon suffer from an article about flying fat naked little kids called cherubs [warning, religious art kiddie porn here: http://www.florentinecraftsmen.com/default.php?cPath=38_39 and Catholic priests.
Kryss Wanweird
Jul 20th, 2007
I took the time to visit the linked provided by Prokofy. There is a panel with the “art work”. It is a clearly a gross represention of pre-sexual interaction among an adult man and a girl of not more than 12 years old. Calling those pictures “art” is an offense to art and artists. And I mean the whole collection of pictures, not only the age-play ones. I filled an Abuse Report and encourage every one who feels offended in there morals and sense of art (especially) to do the same.
Alyx Stoklitsky
Jul 20th, 2007
>Prok
“your claims that no one entering your groups in the last months have been griefers and throw-away accounts *is* a patent fraud, and well documented.”
I’ve never maid that claim. I KNOW that people have joined the group and then gone against the group rules and griefed. I have cautioned some, and ejected and abuse reported others depending on the severity of their actions.
I am fully aware that griefers have gotten into the group in the past and I am fully aware that they will get into the group in the future. The group is invite only to stop a flood of throw-aways.general, we get only a trickle of new members, although the PN make new accounts almost daily.
You can help me, Prok, by actually reporting incidents of griefing group members to me rather than making inane rants here.
And by griefing, I do not mean simply being in your sim, or mocking you for conspiracy theories, or renting land from you, or IM’ing you in hopes of civil discussion, or any other such crap. I mean crashing sims, flooding sounds and particles, or otherwise violating ToS.
katykiwi Moonflower
Jul 20th, 2007
More frequently of late I have been asked my opinion about the current state of the law in the US relating to child pornography. Much has been made about the 2002 US Supreme Court case in which language in the US Code was deemed too broad to pass constitutional muster. After that decision Congress rewrote US Code relating to the sexual exploitation and abuse of children so that it now includes drawings and computer images as follows:
18 USC §2256(8):“child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where-
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Following this revision there remained the question whether it was required under the code that there be an actual child who was the subject of the drawing or computer rendered image, whether in person or in mind. Subsequent case law will add better definition.
Independent of this section of the US Code images of children portrayed in sexually inappropriate circumstances remain subject to scrutiny under state and federal criminal obscenity laws.
I was asked to look at the images that are the subject of this article. It would take a great stretch of imagination to not conclude that the male depicted is not in a state of sexual arousal. In many images he is shown with a large erect penis. The female is a prepubescent girl of small stature with small budding breasts. If the male is supposed to be this child’s father figure then there are some serious questions raised apart from questions concerning child porn .
Are these images enough to be considered child porn under the law…who knows.
Second Life is not a court, it’s a virtual world where Linden Lab is the rule of law via the TOS/CS. The ruling of one judge in Bragg case concerning one section of the TOS as it relates to a particular set of facts does not render void the entire TOS. Linden Lab can make the determination to exclude any content for any reason. Linden Lab is not a government actor; we have no constitutional right to “free speech” in SL. If Linden Lab wants to remove content because it is deemed inappropriate or in violation of the TOS or CS, then so be it.
Any member who sells content in SL puts it out there for scrutiny by other members as well by Linden Lab. If the review had been raving praise I doubt the creator of these images would be upset by the attention the images have drawn. The best advice would be to bring the images to the attention of Linden Lab for review and if the content is allowed to remain then the creator has to just face the fact that she has some critics who do not admire her work, a reality all artists encounter.
Heywood Jablowme
Jul 20th, 2007
“games like that are pretty transparent”
What are you babbling on about? You’re the one playing a game by posting the article. SL is full of high traffic perversion, you’re trying to incite the people with your propaganda into acting, and incite the PN into attacking this place based on the fact they’ve been known to attack parcels featuring pedophilia.
Also, i’ve always wanted to know, do you own a penis for your male avatar Prok?
Angel
Jul 20th, 2007
Sort of sounds like the indignation on works like “Piss Christ”.
anon
Jul 20th, 2007
Sorry, just a little confused here. Okay, so Prokeva says that there is a potential of the art not being art at all and maybe something not right or legal. But then says not to tell Linden about it if you see something like this in SL?
For one, broadly offensive makes no sense to me anyhow. But one person above in the comments says that they believe that it offends them. So they went and did an abuse report. But Prokefy says that there should be no abuse report.
This mumbo jumbo doesn’t make much sense. Honestly, 3/4 of SL is porn in my opinion. I’ve not witnessed anything that is broadly offensive other than some scammers that stole my money. That is illegal and broadly offensive to me and SL did nothing after 20-30 abuse reports for over a month.
So.. Why should people file abuse reports to Linden, I say go to the FBI online and report Linden to the authorities for harboring criminal activity if you do run into it. Linden does little about anything unless they believe it might cause a bad news report on the web.
The issue is Linden. Did I not understand this well? This is my experience in SL.
DaveOner
Jul 20th, 2007
“It is a clearly a gross represention of pre-sexual interaction among an adult man and a girl of not more than 12 years old…”
“The female is a prepubescent girl of small stature with small budding breasts…”
One question…how can you tell her age? Is there some ID present in the picture? Are you able to cut her in half to count the rings??
Now I admit I haven’t seen these images (and honestly don’t intend to because it’s just not my thang) but what’s the difference between a 12 yr old-looking girl and, say, Nicole Richie? Maybe Lisae is into super skinny chicks with no ass or bewbs!
This is an issue that has come up several times when debating the SL sexual ageplay issue.
This is one problem this new “broadly offensive” “ageplay” contraversy. People are going off of varied opinions of what a kid looks like and what a short person or skinny person looks like in a world where many opt to be 7 ft. tall with bewbs the size of watermelons. Not to mention how everyone is without any blemishes or wrinkles that would otherwise indicate age.
I definitely think that the loudest voices (pro and con) in this arguement are oversexed or undersexed. Why else would you seek this stuff out? It would be one thing if Lisae was making T-Shirts out of this stuff or otherwise putting it where everyone can see without having to search for it.
I’m definitely against all sexual exploitation of children or the image thereof but we have to be carefull that we know what we’re looking at before we start to sling mud and insults.
SqueezeOne Pow
Jul 20th, 2007
Hey Prok! Don’t post a link to Squeeze One Plaza or the SqueezetronicksZ store in Osteria! I have naked robots ALL OVER IT and they are definitely no older than a year or two!
/me waits and watches for his traffic to triple…
:D:D
Seriously, though, if you don’t like it then don’t go looking for it. Lisa isn’t forcing anyone to see that shit.
Go back to your soaps and taped Springer episodes, people…
Kryss Wanweird
Jul 20th, 2007
“Now I admit I haven’t seen these images…”
DaveOwner: I suggest you take a look at the pictures, especially #25.
THEN, come back and tell us your impressions.
Second Lulz Vigilante
Jul 20th, 2007
@Heywood Jablowme
“…and incite the PN into attacking this place based on the fact they’ve been known to attack parcels featuring pedophilia.”
Sometimes griefers do things that even I can’t blame them for doing. Virtual pedophelia sucks even if it isn’t real.
Sometimes you just have to look at the bigger picture, ya know?
Kryss Wanweird
Jul 20th, 2007
Anon,
Kittykiwi says:
“I was asked to look at the images that are the subject of this article. It would take a great stretch of imagination to not conclude that the male depicted is not in a state of sexual arousal. In many images he is shown with a large erect penis. The female is a prepubescent girl of small stature with small budding breasts. If the male is supposed to be this child’s father figure then there are some serious questions raised apart from questions concerning child porn.”
And I didn’t read any comment of somebody who saw the images and didn’t find them disturbing. So, it is correct to say that, till now, 100% of people who saw the images had the same feeling. And, according to TOS: “Real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depiction of sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children or minors.” So, it is enough that sexual or lewd acts **appear** to involve children to be considered against TOS.
But I think we might be missing the point here. This is not about Prokofy, or TOS, or LL. The primary and important issue here is about CHILD PORN IN THE INTERNET.
I admit that recentely I reviewed my thoughts about this matter. I saw age play on SL as a way latent pedophiles could act on their perversion, preventing them from harming anyone IRL. Pedophiles, in many cases were abused children as well, and these people need treatment, and to be locked up until they pose no threat to society anymore.
But, I realized that these age players on SL could be very likely to be consumers of virtual child porn. And, after reading the article below, about the study where Dr. Andres E. Hernandez, PsyD., Director of the Sex Offender Treatment Program, Federal Bureau of Prisons, FCI Butner and Dr. Michael L. Bourke, PhD suggest ** that the number of men who download child porn and also molest them, might be as high as 85% **, I changed my mind because of CIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html
I really liked your idea of filling a report on FBI online.
Nacon
Jul 21st, 2007
wtf prok? looking up on porn?
WTF?
Will someone please get her/him a doctor for god stakes?
Prokofy Neva
Jul 21st, 2007
Thraxis, I actually don’t think it’s “reverse psychology” but merely controlling behaviour — but even if devious reverse psychology, what of it? Sometimes you have to play along with “reverse psychology” to expose it as a tactic. The point is, this is a hugely-trafficked site *in search* and any effort to try to turn it into a private Tupperware club is silly and misguided.
Nacon, this isn’t porn, because Michael Linden ruled that it was not broadly offensive, and not porn. Whatever I think about it is my personal take on it, but you can’t legislate morality, and I wouldn’t advise anyone to be abuse-reporting this.
Kryss, I don’t see what you hope to get by AR-ing these works. Michael Linden has spoken. The Leopleuridon has spoken. Now, you must shun the unbeliever! And seriously, how do you think this is supposed to work?
o group of neighbours get volunteers to raid a porn joint (erm an erotic art salon) and get them to AR it
o the press and gossip circuits pick it up, visit it, some AR it
o the Lindens come, tell everyone to move along, nothing to see here, no porn, bless it as “ok” (so we are told)
o makers of art/porn continue to defend their art, and we defend their right to make art and not be harassed by overzealous volunteers
o however, questions remain, and not only for you, but others, so some AR it
o now Lindens, reflecting on their more robust “community input” now move the sliding bar of “community sensibility” to the right and decide “this is in fact broadly offensive”.
It’s precisely this logic I wish to question. If that’s how it works, that’s wrong. Either there is the rule of law, or there isn’t; otherwise, it’s merely rule of the Lord of the Flies.
Squeezeone, I am not inciting, and in fact specifically called on people not to AR; but I am reporting what is a matter of public interest. I continue to stand by the right to report this: you don’t get to have little special understandings with your private pocket Lindens about what is and isn’t permissible and where the line is drawn, and keep us all in the dark. If we can all benefit from this more expanded and enlightened concept that in fact our Linden friends may have, by all means, let’s ALL benefit from it, and not let just one person be privvy to a private reading only of benefit to her, which in fact she uses to send to the wall her fellow residents if they AR.
DaveOner, you don’t have to cut this girl in half to tell her age, you can look at her breasts — or rather absence of them. Even being a “fantasy character,” her size and posture relative to her “step-father” and the hastily-made back-story of her being “18″ appear to mitigate against anything but a clear-cut interpretation about what she is. From there, you can only go in two directions: yes, this is a lewd pose because the figures are naked and the male is aroused or no, they are nudists as all pearl-fishers have to stay nude to do their jobs correctly or else are too poor for clothes, and it’s wrong to view such images as “sick”. See, it’s that sectarian view that the maker of this art is trying to put over, and either Michael Linden bought it, or he didn’t but decided to let it go, but many others don’t buy it.
The idea that this material “isn’t out where everyone can see it” is one that I STRENUOUSLY AND VIGOROUSLY wish to oppose as that is the major Big Lie here. This material is in a mall; it is open to the public; it is the SEARCH list checked off mature and with widely-searched words like “sex”; it has a traffic of 22,000 plus; it has camp chairs. You don’t put all that together and try to concoct out of that a lie about special little private art salons invaded by evil neighbours, uh-uh.
anon, I don’t think we should abuse report our fellow citizens about what we imagine to be broadly offensive. Because it is a subjective scale that will slide up or down depending on one’s culture, religion, experience, and so on. While most cultures of the world mitigate against child pornography, the Western cultures tend to promote freedom of expression before they promote such concerns. So I don’t think absent any real guidelines like a Miller test that we should be doing this. I think we must refrain. That leaves the road clear to overzealous volunteers and gossips and touts, but that’s then possible to record, too, and examine, which is what I’ve done here.
The FBI is unlikely to bother with this as it doesn’t at all fit any test in existing Supreme Court law, from what I gather, although I believe that we can expect more refinements, changes, and challenges to be coming to such law.
Coincidental Avatar
Jul 21st, 2007
“It is a clearly a gross represention of pre-sexual interaction among an adult man and a girl of not more than 12 years old”
So what. Is pre-sexual something illegal?
“I filled an Abuse Report and encourage every one who feels offended ”
There is a risk that you committed a crime and promote crime here.
Michael Linden is in trouble because the public has seen the pictures and if they are legal, censoring of them might be a hint that the pictures are illegal, and might make Michael Linden a criminal.
“In many images he is shown with a large erect penis.”
Well, what were the numbers of those pictures? Why are you so vague? I didn’t see anything what you describe, but all the pictures didn’t rez properly. Legally we have an unsustainable disagreement here.
“I say go to the FBI online and report Linden to the authorities for harboring criminal activity if you do run into it.”
That’s one way to proceed, because the Lindens are not the police. Then the American police will say that they use your report as toilet paper because the amount of damage to you is less than 4000 USD. Or that you have to start a costly legal operation in the USA to squeeze out the identity of the criminal from Linden Lab. This SL system does protect criminals very well.
The other point is that if you file an erroneus report to FBI, you easily become criminal yourself. Thus, leaving the legal risk to Linden Lab is an alternative.
But I remind that filing false reports to FBI is a crime. Claiming that a crime has happened when none has happened is a crime. And yet again, what does the American law says about promoting crime?
Melissa Yeuxdoux
Jul 21st, 2007
Kryss Wanweird writes: “And I didn’t read any comment of somebody who saw the images and didn’t find them disturbing. So, it is correct to say that, till now, 100% of people who saw the images had the same feeling.”
Eh? That’s not a valid inference. I’ve not seen the images, and from the description, wouldn’t care to, but there’s no reason to suppose that the set of people who responded is a representative sample–once again, responders are a self-selected set, pretty well guaranteed not to be a representative sample. I would guess that anyone who didn’t find the images disturbing would be highly motivated not to say so, for fear of being labeled a pedophile.
(And I hope people will follow your link and read the NY Times article; typing something in all caps does not make it true.)
Melissa Yeuxdoux
Jul 21st, 2007
Prokofy Neva writes: “DaveOner, you don’t have to cut this girl in half to tell her age, you can look at her breasts — or rather absence of them.”
The popularity of breast augmentation surgery would seem inconsistent with that argument… not to mention that there’s a morning newscaster I see on local TV who would serve excellently as a counterexample. Conversely, quoting a web page from Children’s Hospital Boston, “It is very normal for some girls to start to develop breasts when they are 7 or 8 years old, while others don’t start until they are 12 or 13.”
As someone else has already pointed out, in SL you don’t have wrinkles, blemishes, or age spots that are indications of age… and even if/when that’s possible, who will choose to have them?
Thinks With Portals
Jul 21st, 2007
go to art school and they will say the exact opposite about the human figure.have you actually visited the website? if you have you might not have looked close enough to the “models” to notice there actual age. i have yet to see someone even around the age of 12. and where is this evidence of a angry woman flipping the bird at the camera and storming off? be more specific. tell us the exact area to look. i don’t want to go though over 1000 pages of pictures just to see if your point is even valid. personally i don’t like it when someone provides evidence that isn’t decisive. yes i can agree that some of these pictures do seem to lack a artistic side towards it. kinda like they where made for the specific reason for pornographic viewing. but i can also say there are some there that are artistic. but your most likely looking past those ones so you can make “good reading material”. kinda the same way that the global or other tabloids do. they make a bunch of shit up that sounds plausible. but nothing decisive. then you go and interview the said person and use biased questions to get the answers you want. after that you post these biased answers as “proof” to make it so your word is law.even you think the herald is a tabliod! you even said it yourself in this article
Lisae Boucher
Jul 21st, 2007
Prokofy Quote: DaveOner, you don’t have to cut this girl in half to tell her age, you can look at her breasts — or rather absence of them.
Have you ever even seen real breasts? Just visit http://www.007b.com/breast_gallery.php since you obviously haven’t. Your opinion seems to be that anyone with breasts size C or smaller must be a child, apparently.
The same is true about penises. Ever seen one in real life? Do you realize how many different shapes they can have? How they can differ in length, girth and even the angle when flaccid? You would have to see a lot of real-life naked people first before you’re an expert about penises being flaccid or not and breasts being underage or not. What makes you think you’re an expert in this area? You’d actually have to be an Anthropologist to make a valid judgment about these images.
Btw, for whatever reason people also seem to be a bit discriminating here. “The provocative photo of a nude prepubescent girl on the original cover of the Virgin Killer album by the Scorpions also brought controversy. By contrast, most would consider the naked male baby shown on the cover of the Nevermind album by Nirvana to have no sexual connotation.” (http://www.answers.com/topic/depictions-of-nudity-1) So what is the difference between a naked boy and a naked girl?
The current beauty image has been the Barbie doll for many years and even today, people seem to favor young women with a slender figure and huge breasts. Reality? About 40% of all women qualify as petite (see http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Petite_sizes) and if you combine this with small breasts you easily end up with the whole teenage looks. And when you see lots of young adults playing roles of teens in movies and TV series then it becomes easy to confuse things. This whole discussion is about looks and appearances and many people have a wrong view on this.
Another interesting article can be found at http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=18159 which makes some interesting reading about the human body in art. And the PDF at http://www.video-text.com/images/pdf/summit2000.pdf also makes some nice reading about this topic.
Lisae Boucher
Jul 21st, 2007
Quote: And I didn’t read any comment of somebody who saw the images and didn’t find them disturbing.
Actually, there are lots of people who look at those images and don’t even bother to think anything about it. Furthermore, if anyone even dares to admit they like those images in these comments then they’re at risk of being labeled a pedophile by Prokofy and his little gang. Or just fear they will be labeled as such. People do dare to tell this to me in private but they don’t take any risks here in public because of all the negative publicity. So I’m not surprised that there are only negative comments here.
Flack Quartermass
Jul 21st, 2007
RE: katykiwi Moonflower
I think you need to get your facts straight. The courts have upheld the decision time after time that Child Online Protection Act (COPA) is unconstitutional.
In 1998 COPA was enjoined by court order from being enforced
In 1999 the 3rd Circuit Court of appeals upheld the decision and struck down the law
in 2002 the Supreme Court reviewed and passed it back to the 3rd Circuit
In 2003 the 3rd Circuit again struck it down
In 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the injunction, saying it was likely unconstitional and passed it back down on grounds that the data used was half a decade old
In March 2007 a District Court Judge upheld the injunction and issued an order barring the government from enforcing the law
Or were you speaking of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA)? That’s the one most commonly referred to when people assume fictional works with no actual minors involved is somehow illegal.
The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in 2002.
When a federal court (even the Supreme Court), bars the US Government from enforcing a law, the law remains on the books, the Judicial Branch doesn’t have the power to remove laws, it determines whether a law is constitutional. This is why you could still easily find USC info for something that cannot legally be enforced in this nation.
None of that is really the issue here. We have two overlapping issues.
1) It IS illegal in Germany
2) It makes for bad publicity
It appears that LL has decided to stay within the graces of the German government while not becoming too overzealous vs. content that’s legal in other jurisdictions.
It seems like a tricky line to walk, and coupled with the overly abstract rules we’re given by LL, it’s likely that we won’t get a good idea of where the line resides anytime soon, if at all. And that’s likely because it’s in LL’s interest to not do so, due to liability.
Personally, I prefer to make those decisions myself: If I don’t want to see it, I don’t have to go there and look at it (and I won’t).
Coincidental Avatar
Jul 21st, 2007
Hmm. The other one in the lesbian couple is a psychologist. Are we being manipulated here?
What happens when people see ambiguous images? If they are neurotic or mentally inclined, they start to make up stories and fake memories which make the images fit to their mind.
I’ve seen a court case in which five women gave fabricated testimonies against a suspected murderer. One of the “eyewitnesses” didn’t even know the murder place. Another one “was there” with non-existent people.
And the pictures I saw are ambiguous in American culture. And thus on the legal side. They made me remember a Lolita themed movie which contained hints about incest between father and daughter. And the movie is completely legal, even if disturbing. At least to me.
“a girl of not more than 12 years old”
I didn’t zoom in her pubic hair, but she was rather heavily built for a 12 year old. Speaking about the size of her breasts is utter fabrication. Maybe she is a young butch? LOL. That would explain the lack of the breasts.
Breasts or not, but if I can’t soon find the claimed erected cock, you better remove the post claiming that it exists, because Prokofy Neva and the Editor of this publication are legally responsible on the claims of the poster too. If the original poster doesn’t anymore bother to provide detailed evidence, The Editor and Prokofy Neva are in charge to provide it, in case they choose to preserve the currently legally dubious comment.
I don’t want to read yet another detail disaster story like the casino story, in which it became finally impossible to track what was the unpaid sum. When the details are not included/right from the beginning, the story gives an impression that it is being fabricated while being expanded.
“I would guess that anyone who didn’t find the images disturbing would be highly motivated not to say so, for fear of being labeled a pedophile.”
You are right. I found the images disturbing/ ambiguous/ not safe/ manipulative but not illegal or pedophilic! Then there are stupid people who think that disturbing = illegal. They can think what they want but expressing it might be a crime. And I recommend that they stay out of the jury in the court room, because disturbing private life details must be kept separate from the crime in question.
Lisae Boucher
Jul 21st, 2007
Christine Alexis! http://www.christinealexis.net/ She happens to be a porn star and to be honest, I have seen guys with bigger breasts than her. She’s also a bit short. Not too many details about her real age, though. Nor about her sizes.
There is another model called Sarah Peachez who has two sites dedicated to her. (http://peachez18.com/ and http://www.realpeachez.com/) and I think she has been posing for several years now. I heard she started at age 15 or 16 or so but that was all non-nude. Apparently on her 18th birthday she removed her last layers of clothes and now she’s 20 and is doing porn.
I think both models I’ve just mentioned have even smaller breasts than the model I used in my art. So anyone thinking that my model looks underage doesn’t know what real women look like…
Lisae Boucher
Jul 21st, 2007
Qoute: The other one in the lesbian couple is a psychologist. Are we being manipulated here?
No comments…
Quote: I found the images disturbing/ ambiguous/ not safe/ manipulative but not illegal or pedophilic!
Well, that’s just something all art tend to have in common, right? An artists just paints a canvas completely white and sells it for thousands of dollars. Another one draws a few colored lines on a piece of canvas and gets even more. I heard in a documentary about some drug-addicted singer/artist who decided jumping off the Hilton was a good idea. Apparently he never had to pay his restaurant bills since the owner just asked to draw something on a paper napkin and put his signature below it. That would make the napkin worth more than the meal he’d just given away.
So yeah, art can be very disturbing. Actually, when art is disturbing people tend to better remember it.
There is a statue in Brussel, Belgium, called Manneke Pis. A second statue is called Jeanneke Pis. The first one is quite old and is a young naked boy peeing in some fountain. (pis = peeing) Jeanneke however is a much newer statue and is very similar. Except Jeanneke is a young girl. Here are pictures of these statues:
Jeanneke pis: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:2005_jeanneke_pis02.jpeg
Manneke pis: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:2005_manneke_pis05.jpg
Now people might consider these statues very offensive and distasteful. Once in a while a bunch of people will start protesting about them too. And guess what’s the first thing almost every new tourist is going to see when they visit Brussel?
Capt.Negroto
Jul 21st, 2007
Lisae, your art is crap that a 3 yearold with photoshop could make and I think you are just as messed up as Prokofy, however I dont think you deserve this harassment from her. My feeling is she has some longstanding grievance with the possible crime committed in your art (possibly leading to the gender confusion we see today?)
either way, keep making your lousy art, i wasnt offended by it or thought it should be reported
Anonymous
Jul 21st, 2007
RE: Quartermass Quote:
“Or were you speaking of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA)? That’s the one most commonly referred to when people assume fictional works with no actual minors involved is somehow illegal.”
Perhaps you need to read my post again, this time without skimming. I quoted the US Code as it was revised following the 2002 Supreme Court case. My facts are correct. And, if you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that I also stated the question whether a real child model is required as the basis for the drawing or image is a question left open following the revision.
Skimming a post and jumping to conclusions is one way to do it, reading it is better. Look for your fight elsewhere nothing AFTER you read more carefully; nothing I said disputes your points. Maybe you just did not understand.
Kryss Wanweird
Jul 21st, 2007
“Kryss, I don’t see what you hope to get by AR-ing these works. Michael Linden has spoken. The Leopleuridon has spoken. Now, you must shun the unbeliever! And seriously, how do you think this is supposed to work?
o group of neighbours get volunteers to raid a porn joint (erm an erotic art salon) and get them to AR it
o the press and gossip circuits pick it up, visit it, some AR it
o the Lindens come, tell everyone to move along, nothing to see here, no porn, bless it as “ok” (so we are told)
o makers of art/porn continue to defend their art, and we defend their right to make art and not be harassed by overzealous volunteers
o however, questions remain, and not only for you, but others, so some AR it
o now Lindens, reflecting on their more robust “community input” now move the sliding bar of “community sensibility” to the right and decide “this is in fact broadly offensive”.
It’s precisely this logic I wish to question. If that’s how it works, that’s wrong. Either there is the rule of law, or there isn’t; otherwise, it’s merely rule of the Lord of the Flies.”
Prokofy:
I think it is supposed to be just as you described. And I wouldn’t say it is wrong but rather it is evolving. And what TOS states is pretty clear. (“Real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depiction of sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children or minors.”).
Now, if Michael Linden didn’t see the images as lewd acts appearing to involve children or minors, he should visit an ophthalmologist. But I am sure many will disagree with him (maybe even the German press!), and these people should make their point by through AR, blogs, etc.
Coincidental Avatar:
“So what. Is pre-sexual something illegal?”
Yes, if it involves minors.
“There is a risk that you committed a crime and promote crime here.”
I believe the reason you made this comment is that you have the actual intention of suing me, and you should definitely do it. Just IM me, I will be glad to give you the necessary RL details and eager to see you in court.
Melissa and Lisae:
“Eh? That’s not a valid inference. I’ve not seen the images, and from the description, wouldn’t care to, but there’s no reason to suppose that the set of people who responded is a representative sample–once again, responders are a self-selected set, pretty well guaranteed not to be a representative sample. I would guess that anyone who didn’t find the images disturbing would be highly motivated not to say so, for fear of being labeled a pedophile.”
I didn’t infer anything. I stated a FACT. When I posted that comment, 100% of the people who saw the images and posted on this blog (again, UNTIL THAT MOMENT) found it offensive.
And contrary to your “guess”, there are people who posted that they were ok with the images as the thread progressed. Nobody has labeled them pedophiles. And for the others that chose not to post because they are afraid of being labeled, it’s an act of cowardice. Although I respect their choice, I wouldn’t bother at all.
Lisae Boucher
Jul 21st, 2007
Capt.Negroto, thanks for your honest answer. Yeah, I know that for people who are familiar with Poser my art is just nothing special. To be honest, I’m only using it for about 4 months now and don’t have much time to get good practice with it either. Then again, to people who are only used to the images of Second Life, those images look quite fantastic. While their praises are nice, I rather have some negative comments so I know how to improve my skills. Considering this whole article and follow-up comments I have already learned what I should avoid in my future artwork.
And perhaps my future work will just continue to be crap. It could well be that I never be any good with this. But I think it’s just nice to at least give it a try. So your honesty is really appreciated. I do value other people’s opinions. Just as I value the opinions of those people who considered it offensive, childporn even. Just tells me to be aware of some things a bit more in the future.
Btw, is Prokofy a He or a She? Or both?
For whatever reason there is a lot of confusion about his gender for me, since he appeared in the shape of a guy on my land but people refer to her as a woman. After seeing the Prokofy avatar it’s just so weird for me to consider him to be a woman.
Anonymous
Jul 21st, 2007
==>Btw, is Prokofy a He or a She? Or both?
For whatever reason there is a lot of confusion about his gender for me, since he appeared in the shape of a guy on my land but people refer to her as a woman. After seeing the Prokofy avatar it’s just so weird for me to consider him to be a woman.<==
Prokofy Neva is a male avatar. The person playing Prokofy Neva is a woman. She does have alts as well, who are female avatars.
Prokofy Neva
Jul 21st, 2007
>he should visit an ophthalmologist.
I don’t think ophthalmologists can fix moral compasses.
>My feeling is she has some longstanding grievance with the possible crime committed in your art (possibly leading to the gender confusion we see today?)
Since Walker only defends the girls around here in his rare editorial interventions, as he just did with Pixeleen, I’ll have to just stand up for myself getting an insult like that : )
I don’t suffer from gender confusion. I’ve never suffered from any crime or trauma or anything like that, and it’s a funny implication. People who chose transgender actually know their own mind and don’t suffer from “confusion” lol. Prokofy is he. You call a person “he” if their avatar is male. My RL isn’t anyone’s business, and those who make it their business are merely harassing me.
If I’ve given any RL information to RL professional press, it’s merely to confirm identity, and frankly, it’s because their blogs or letters to the editor are moderated and don’t allow for the obsessive, hysterical griefing and harassment that goes on here at the Herald trying to make hay over people’s RL and SL gender discrepancies.
Poor Lisae is the one who is confused, it may take her many years to unwarp herself.
Flack Quartermass
Jul 21st, 2007
RE RE:katykiwi Moonflower
I surely didn’t skim (though perhaps I was a bit sleepy), however I fully see now in the notes to the USC code you mention that there are updates.
For ease of reference, what we are dealing with was known as Prosecuting Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, also known as The PROTECT Act of 2003, which was codified into law in various sections, including 2256.
§2256 is the definition section of Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 110, and in and of itself is only used to define words and terms found in the related sections.
The changes are still winding their way through the courts.
So far..
In 2006 the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the pandering provision of the PROTECT Act 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(3)(B)
The DoJ has appealed the 11th Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court.
There also appears to be a case (brought by the FSC) pending that concerns the recent changes. You’ll have to excuse me for running out of steam to find more info on this at the moment.
Of note: § 2252A. “Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography” Section 3b
“..any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains—
(i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;”
and
section 6
“..or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, where such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct—”
So if the work (art/depiction/etc.) contains no actual minors or is distinguishable from real minors, it is not covered by this section.
Furthermore..
“(c) It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (1), (2), (3)(A), (4), or (5) of subsection (a) that—
(1)
(A) the alleged child pornography was produced using an actual person or persons engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) each such person was an adult at the time the material was produced; or
(2) the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors.”
So even if the work *appears* to be containing real minors, the above-section C explains that if the works were created using adults or otherwise NOT produced with *actual* minors, the aforementioned sections do not apply to the work.
Kryss Wanweird
Jul 21st, 2007
“I don’t think ophthalmologists can fix moral compasses.”
ML’s morals are not in judgment here.
Actually he should be as detached as possible of his moral code when examining the issue. He should observe carefully and, with clear vision and objectivity, answer the question: do these avatar portrayals **appear** to involve children or minors in lewd acts? And: can these images be offensive to a great deal of residents?
Lisae Boucher
Jul 22nd, 2007
Quote: If I’ve given any RL information to RL professional press
Which will just raise the question if they’re even going to be interested in this story. Maybe they will, more likely they won’t. It’s not much of a discussion since much of it is open for debate.
Furthermore, many newspapers will also realize what kinds of effects such stories can have on the generic public. Linden Labs knows this too. Every time a new report is published then the number of players, visitors and whatever just become higher than before. A negative news item on local television in the Netherlands actually made this game quite popular. It was the first time people heard about it. I even notice the effects it has on my own lands. Before, my traffic was an average between 14000 and 18000. During the last week it hasn’t been below 20000. Also the number of different visitors has increased for my land. Before, I would have about 200 to 300 different persons visiting the area. This has doubled this last week. (And I know this thanks to the logs I keep.) I also noticed that more and more visitors spend a lot more time on my land nowadays. At first, it seemed that they would just fly over. Now, the casual visitor spends an average of 4 to 5 minutes on my lands.
Professional newspapers do know about these facts. Thus, they have to balance the news value to the effect it will have on the general public. This whole story is just linked to the question if the published images are legal or not. But considering the fact that there are legal websites out there that contain images that could be considered far more offensive than the images on my land I think they will just ignore you and your “article”.
And let’s face it, Prokofy. You don’t bother to check any facts. You respond by insults and namecalling on any comment that you don’t like. You claim to be in favor of free speech but only when you’re not upset about what others are saying. And when people point out real facts to you, you just ignore them and make up your own feeble excuses. Worst of all, you’re trying to obfuscate the real facts that you just don’t happen to like. So why would a real reporter even want to listen to what you’re saying?
Tay Zonday
Jul 22nd, 2007
What professional newspaper would care about this stupid story? you people have dillusions of grandure and importance from living in the metaverse
Prokofy Neva
Jul 22nd, 2007
>I think the Dutch press would be more than interested in covering this, and people in Holland them would have a chance to more democratically weigh in and give the lie to some of Lisae’s claims here ROFL.
>Every time a new report is published then the number of players, visitors and whatever just become higher than before. A negative news item on local television in the Netherlands actually made this game quite popular.
So? IF that is the case, that doesn’t mean that therefore the press must grow silent and cautious and tip-toe around the tender sensibilities of little 18-year-old game queens ruling their tiny porn roosts, nor does it mean that blogs should be silenced, either in expressing their negative or simply critical appearances. Deal with it, grow up. Can’t stand the heat, don’t go in the kitchen. Any RL newspaper would have made you far more the dubious center of this story than you might care to admit, and had trouble getting the larger issues of how LL justice works.
>During the last week it hasn’t been below 20000.
That’s not due to any Herald publication before yesterday, because the link to the mall was not made, nor was it mentioned, nor was it even known. That may be due to Volunteers, neighbours, sight-seers, gawkers going by word of mouth. Word of mouth is a powerful sales force in SL.
The real test will be to see the traffic now that it *is* linked. Traffic was still at 22,548 yesterday a day after my article, and that means the system may be stuck. Check back again! By tomorrow, you’ll see if the traffic is up or down, and your claims are true or false. If the traffic is lower, what, you’ll blame the Herald for harming your business ROFL? If they are higher, you will gloat because you get more sales even from negative coverage? I’ll bet it will be largely unchanged, because the real factor for traffic is being in search with key words and camp chairs, and we all know that ROFL.
>Now, the casual visitor spends an average of 4 to 5 minutes on my lands.
Great! Then they are helping to find out WHERE THE LIMITS OF BROADLY OFFENSIVE is __ and that”s what this is about< so that not just you personally get a person pocket linden reading on your work< but that we can all take advantage of this action by a public official>
That’s what the press is FOR.
>But considering the fact that there are legal websites out there that contain images that could be considered far more offensive than the images on my land I think they will just ignore you and your “article”.
I don’t know what they will do, but the idea that “somewhere else, it is worse” is never an SL argument anywhere. THIS is the story that got THE LINDENS to make a ruling — and THAT is what news is and THAT is why the public must know about it. Lisae is still in her own private Idaho about this.
>And let’s face it, Prokofy. You don’t bother to check any facts. You respond by insults and namecalling on any comment that you don’t like.
If there is a fact that is “false,” by all means, bring it forward. Bring it. Or shut up, seriously. To continue to make the FALSE claim that facts aren’t checked, or lies are printed merely shows YOU to be a liar. You can’t claim that any statement was falsified, or knowingly lied about, or not checked. Read the story. Two conflicting versions from differing sources are both referenced. Sorry if that is too much news, and too much nuance for you, doll, but grow up, live with the free press, it doesn’t cover YOUR the way YOU wish to be covered but the way the story evolves in spite of you.
>You claim to be in favor of free speech but only when you’re not upset about what others are saying. And when people point out real facts to you, you just ignore them and make up your own feeble excuses.
I don’t see any “real facts” that somehow contradict my simple story, that a) mentors believed the Lindens came in and confiscated AND force-copied material and that b) you were also swooping in and scurrying to get your objectionable content removed, then later telling us this was due to “the neighbours”. We still cannot be sure that Michael Linden cleared THAT particular objectionable vendor, since you PUT IT AWAY and he may not realize it is out again. These are the facts; to pretend otherwise is to do violence to the truth.
>Worst of all, you’re trying to obfuscate the real facts that you just don’t happen to like. So why would a real reporter even want to listen to what you’re saying?
Sounds to me that you’re trying to do that, as you find it unbearable to admit that you removed content under pressure from a visit by not one, but 3 or 4 Lindens and their volunteers. You find it difficult to accept that mentors who abuse reported believed the material was removed — because it was gone. If it comes out later they didn’t remove it and have “cleared it” then the story remains murky because we only have your word for it, and given all the backing and forthing and self-justifying you’ve done in this story, you’re not a credible witness.
Criticial and penetrating questions aren’t “getting upset about facts I don’t like”. It doesn’t matter to me whether the material was confiscated, removed under pressure, or indeed cleared and merely not out in one area. I’m merely writing about this story and have no stake in how it came to remove; THAT it was removed and THAT there is a claim the Lindens cleared it is the important part.
I don’t know you; I came to see what the story was because of two overriding, more important stories: a) volunteers run amok and over-producing ARs b) Lindens possibly confiscating material as they’ve been reported to do on the police blotter — and then c)in fact claimed to have cleared it. A, b, and c are the focus of this story; you and your art, your silly notions about nudism and society and all the rest, and what other people do or don’t do in SL or the rest of society — that’s immaterial.
I always find it laughable that people can come to another story, and lie more bald-facedly in that story’s comments than they could in the original story where the paragraphs are right there in front of them. So I can only requote the first paragraph of my story again:
“Tipped off by some newbie helpers who staff a monitoring network with Linden support, Linden staff may have seized or “force-copied” anime paintings said to contain what was deemed illegal child anime pornography from a cabana tonight in the working-class water sim of Blister — leaving only adult nude amateur art mostly made with a 3D modeling program: Poser.”
All true statements, all reported accurately:
Lindens MAY have seized — you claim they didn’t but we can’t be sure even today, as you were not present during their raid; volunteers believed it to be the case and it was reported based on their story. Are they wrong? They very well may be, but the main thing is, the Lindens DID come and review this material.
Lindens MAY have force-copied — you claim there was no such thing, but mentors present with them say they did do this. Can you prove they did not? Can they prove they did? No, but the story is REPORTED.
…and all updated in the same story:
UPDATE: An additional source reports indicate a reason for the conflicting reports. Apparently some of the worst of the alleged porn was kept underwater and out of sight. And Michael Linden’s avatar is described by eyewitnesses as a small, “violently pink chibi squid,” in wierd “Flying Spaghetti Monster” mode. He could have been mistaken for an underwater creature in the sea of Blister.
FURTHER UPDATE 3:30 PM 7/14: I’m changing the headline to REVIEW instead of SEIZE because it appears from witness reports, some of whom were the mentors who abuse-reported the content, that Michael Linden reviewed and “force-copied” (i.e. used God-mode to copy an item with no-copy permission set) the material, but then the owners, depending on the account, either swooped down quickly to remove it to avoid further action, or conversed with their more reasonable neighbours who persuaded them to remove some of the content. More on this story is coming soon based on further interviews and group posts — stay tuned!
And this update is made because upon further questioning of the same sources and additional sources, they said that they believed that while Michael Linden DID take the material by “force-copying” it, they couldn’t be sure that he removed it for good — and that it was very likely YOU removed it under pressure. Fine distinction, eh, and the results are the same: the Lindens policies force people to change what they would do.
If you can’t live with ambiguities that you yourself create as a non-credible witness; if you can’t live with the fact that reporters cover the news in good faith and update it as more becomes available, then retreat, and go back to your private clubs and membership-only circles. This is the public domain; and if you have a store in search, camp chairs, and ads that say SEX and PLAYBOY even (rolls eyes), then deal with it, live with it, and have a nice shut-the-fuck-up sandwich when it comes to further efforts to harass and bully me with false claims.
Lisae Boucher
Jul 22nd, 2007
Quote: Great! Then they are helping to find out WHERE THE LIMITS OF BROADLY OFFENSIVE is __ and that”s what this is about
True. But with around 500 visitors every day I would also need to know the number of people who consider it offensive. The only way to find out would be to add a voting system next to it and hoping ALL visitors are willing to vote. But how to set up an independent voting system? Something you would consider reliable and which assures the true opinions of every visitor?
Quote: THAT it was removed and THAT there is a claim the Lindens cleared it is the important part.
Yet you continue to make it appear as if the Lindens had anything to do with it’s removal. And you continue to ignore the truth which was that I removed the material since I was new in that area and did not want to offend the people in the surrounding areas. I’ve shown you that the same material that you considered offensive has also been available in some other location. I gave you the exact location even and of course you AR’ed it. And it’s still there. (Well, I replaced it today with a bigger vendor which you might consider suspicious but in the end, it is ME who determines what I put on MY land. Not you. And I have the right to adjust it to my liking.
Quote: Lindens MAY have seized
Well, wouldn’t it be gone then by now if they did?
Quote: Lindens MAY have force-copied
Technically speaking, they don’t have to force-copy things. All they have to do is access my inventory and examine all the images inside, which they did.
Quote: if you can’t live with the fact that reporters cover the news in good faith
Actually, several good reporters came over for an interviews. So far only one person reported about this all and I don’t consider this person a good reporter since he fails to check the facts first. Which is why you needed to write an update. It’s also the reason why you have to write such vague stories full words like “maybe”, “perhaps” and whatever more. It is why so many people criticize your stories. But maybe you should ask the other staff members of the Herald about your reporter qualities and let’s hope they dare to give you a honest answer.
Melissa Yeuxdoux
Jul 22nd, 2007
Kryss Wanweird writes: “I didn’t infer anything. I stated a FACT. When I posted that comment, 100% of the people who saw the images and posted on this blog (again, UNTIL THAT MOMENT) found it offensive.”
You might wish to reread your own comment: “And I didn’t read any comment of somebody who saw the images and didn’t find them disturbing. So, it is correct to say that, till now, 100% of people who saw the images had the same feeling.”
In this context, “so” is equivalent to “therefore,” i.e. you are asserting an implication. Note also that in your original comment you did not qualify the “100% of people who saw the images” with the added constraint “and posted.” With that added, it’s trivially true–all propositions imply themselves–but that’s not what you said originally. Originally you were making an assertion about everybody who saw the images based on the set of people who saw the images and posted their opinion.
Lisae Boucher
Jul 22nd, 2007
Prokofy, I just noticed something. Your last post says: “>I think the Dutch press would be more than interested in covering this, and people in Holland them would have a chance to more democratically weigh in and give the lie to some of Lisae’s claims here ROFL.”
You are clearly quoting someone here, but who are you quoting here? As far as I can see, no one said such a thing yet you make it appear as if someone said this before. Would be typical for someone who is misinterpreting the facts.
And if you made this quote up then you definitely know nothing about the Dutch society. In the USA you might have a huge scandal when Janet Jackson displays a bare breast during some event but in the Netherlands people aren’t even upset when some guy takes a few thousands of naked people into town to have their pictures taken. Actually, there has been a discussion a while ago if gay teens would be allowed to have their own boat during the Canal Parade or not. This will be part of the Gay Pride days which will last for three days. And believe me or not but it’s seen as a family event! Very young kids will probably be kept away but the average teenager will have no problems attending. And you think the Dutch press will consider your story to have any worth?
It is too bad you don’t understand Dutch. Otherwise you’d have some interesting reading at http://www.expreszo.nl/ which happens to be an (online) magazine for gay teens. Including spaces for teens to contact each other for dates and other stuff. I tend to avoid reading the dating sections, though. It worries even me when I see a 15 year old asking for erotic movies. Or a 14 year old looking for someone not older than 17. Checking the sex contacts advertisements I have so far discovered two of people age 16. Friendship advertisements are over 50 in total for people age 16 and lower. But don’t worry. 14 is the minimum age for friends contacts and 16 the minimum for sex contacts.
So tell me again, why would the Dutch press be interested in this story?
Prokofy Neva
Jul 22nd, 2007
Um, do you understand English, Lisae? Evidently not as well as you think. Because the whole reason the issue of the Dutch press was raised is because YOU and others raised *first* (not me) the issue of *any* RL press being interest, and imagining that you can then sic “the RL press” on this “evil tabloid game entity the Herald,” which is laughable, because the Herald/this reporter haven’t done anything wrong but published “all the fairly unbalanced news we see fit to print”. Live with it.
Now, I actually know more about the Dutch press than you might imagine and Dutch politics, and I know that Dutch prosecutors and media have been just as interested in the child porn as any other of the major European governments and press. So live with it. You can’t expect it to be spun in your favour there. The idea that *a majority* of European communities are in favour of nudism *such as to adopt it as a core lifestyle* is laughable. They aren’t. They may see it as a fetish that should be tolerated with lenient laws. They may not make much of a bare breast appearing on TV. Yet they don’t make that *the norm*. It is not *common* or *normal* for people in Europe to appear on TV with their breasts bare. So we can count on normalcy, common sense, and civilization to prevail here, and the press, if it isn’t some hard-left or sectarian press, to cover the major issues here, and not be brow-beaten into glorifying some sect.
So bring it! The Dutch may well be interested in the Lindens bucking the pressure placed by German media and German prosecutors, and upholding the right of a Dutch artist to display what is clearly characterizing an adult male in an erotic pose with a 12-year-old female child. And the issue of what is on some dating site isn’t relative. Bring it, for sure!
In fact, I could very well go *help* them get interested in this : )