Dutch Prosecutor Drops Second Life Ageplay Investigation

by Alphaville Herald on 03/09/07 at 12:26 pm

“child avi’s not realistic enough”

Urizenus Sklar, Dutch Morality Desk

ShrugAs reported in the Herald back in February, a Dutch prosecutor opened an investigation into ageplay in Second Life on the grounds that representations of child sex are illegal in the Netherlands, even if children were not involved in the making of the porn. Ageplay, which involves adults adopting child avatars and (sometimes) engaging in simulated sexual activities online was at the time a widespread phenomenon on the grid. Since then, Linden Lab has cracked down on ageplay and other forms of “broadly offensive” behavior, but its new policy has been criticized as vague and excessively broad by residents and legal experts alike.

While visiting the University of Twente in the Netherlands this past June, I discussed the issue of the Duch prosecutor with reporter Lucien Baard (Luuc Writer in Second Life)of the Tentsche Courant Tubantia newspaper. Lucien contacted the prosecutor’s office immediately, but was told that the matter was still under investigation. Today, Lucien reports the following:

I know what will happen: nothing. There will be no case. They think the children in SL are not realistic enough.

All of which makes us wonder: Did Linden Lab jump the gun on their new ban on the “broadly offensive?” Did they freak over nothing? Did they do the right thing anyway?

22 Responses to “Dutch Prosecutor Drops Second Life Ageplay Investigation”

  1. humanoid

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    Why would they give a damn about what Dutch prosecutors think, anyway? Who would be dumb enough to base any part of a business based on social interaction in a country with such silly laws? I can see setting up a tool and die factory, or a food business in Europe, but certainly not any sort of business that relies on freedom of speech to function.

  2. GodGodsOrNoGodBlessUSA

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    In other words, it’s not considered “child pornography” in the Netherlands either. Who said all Europeans are backwards thinking (Netherlands also rejected criminalizing Holocaust denial in 2006)? To put roleplaying adults in jail is illogical, pointless, and reactionary measure that protects no one. Like the United States Supreme Court wrote in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition: “few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice”. Laws should be implemented only to protect real people, not computer characters, and they should stay away from our thoughts, no matter how “unacceptable” others may think of those thoughts.

    Any word on the exact codified Dutch laws that were considered by the prosecutors?

  3. Second Lulz Vigilante

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    “All of which makes us wonder: Did Linden Lab jump the gun on their new ban on the “broadly offensive?” Did they freak over nothing? Did they do the right thing anyway?”

    Even if it isn’t illegal in any jurisdiction in the world ageplay on the grid still makes for bad publicity. I’m almost surprised that LL waited to crack down on it. There was a huge movement inside the grid to ban it dating back at least a year. They should’ve guessed by the reactions of a large part of the SL populace what the outside world would think of it.

  4. Pierre

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    This is really journalism at its best – a herald ‘reporter’ makes a statement based on no evidence – and the herald runs a story on it. wow.

  5. Myrrh Massiel

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    …yes, yes, and no…

  6. Prokofy Neva

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    Uri,

    Did this reporter call the prosecutor’s office? And get an actual answer? or is he just speculating? His actual quote sounds like his take on what might happen and the scuttle — but it doesn’t seem to me to constitute an official dropping of the case.

    I’d also be interested to see this Dutch reporter and prosecutor visit Lisae’s store and give a reading on it — will it match Michael Linden’s?

  7. Nina A

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    They were, and still would be getting negative media attention about the issue, even if no crime is being committed. Shit stirrers and the ‘moral majority’ would have seen to that. LL is private company and doesn’t want the bad press. They probably made the correct decision to protect their product.

  8. Nina A

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    They were, and still would be getting negative media attention about the issue, even if no crime is being committed. Shit stirrers and the ‘moral majority’ would have seen to that. LL is private company and doesn’t want the bad press. They probably made the correct decision to protect their product.

  9. Ann Otoole

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    Yes LL failed to obtain Constitutional Law Legal advice from a legitimate legal expert. Had they done so all this baloney could have been averted. (digital representations are not real nor do they fall under the jackboot of the police state. already been tried and tossed out over anime)

    But then LL is usually too stupid to think anyone else is smarter than them so now we have a rapidly decaying economy coupled with a rapidly decaying technical environment designed by book smart noobs that couldn’t get a real job in IT to save their lives.

  10. Ann Otoole

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    oh yea… i sort of pity island owners that set the restricted flag on regions only to find a lawyer from the ACLU banging on their door. LL did, however, attempt to put that liability off on their customers.

  11. Myrrh Massiel

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    …rather, i should say yes, sort-of, and no…

    …to characterise the ageplay controversy as ‘nothing’ really does injustice to its galvanic reception…certainly it’s nothing more insidious than a shared exercise in imagination, and in that sense it’s ‘nothing’, but it’s also one of our strongest examples to date of make-one’s-blood-boil free expression, victimless and consensual and a prime target for persecution, so in that sense it’s very much a significant issue…

    …linden lab did jump the gun on preemptive self-censorship – that’s their standard posture these days – and in casting aside their common carrier status they very much threw away SL’s potential as a richly burgeoning open platform…the TAZ has moved on, and i’m skeptical that SL can capture again that magic in this bottle…

  12. Angel

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    I still can’t understand how people can want to protect (or grief) a bunch of pixels that represents a small avatar with such passion when outside their door, in the real world, there are genuine young minds being abused, tortured, hurt and terrorised.

    Would not the efforts be better spent protecting real kids?

    Obviously I don’t buy the Ageplay causes Paedophillia argument any more than I buy the FPS shooter games cause murder one.

    And yes, I was the victim of childhood sexual abuse, so that argument also doesn’t ring true for me.

    /me waits for the flamefest and will not respond to Janeforyou or Misty.

  13. Stan Ison

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    Sounds like an enhancement request to me.

  14. urizenus

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    Prok, the reporter contacted the prosecutor’s office directly, both in June and more recently. If anyone wants to follow up, as I said the reporter is luuc writer in second life and can be reached at luucwriter@live.nl or at L.Baard@tubantia.wegener.nl.

  15. urizenus

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    Pierre, were you even paying attention? Luuc is not a herald reporter, but is a reporter for the Tentsche Courant Tubantia, which is a Newspaper in The Netherlands, as I said. I even gave you the link: http://www.tctubantia.nl/. By contrast, the Herald is a blog/newspaper covering second life, in English, and *this* is the link: http://www.secondlifeherald.com. I know I know, they look so much alike. I can see how you got confused.

  16. Wilburr

    Sep 3rd, 2007

    “Uri,

    Did this reporter call the prosecutor’s office? And get an actual answer? or is he just speculating?”

    Since when did YOU have anything against speculation there Prokzac?

    *snickers*

  17. Nicholaz Beresford

    Sep 4th, 2007

    Excuse me, but is

    )) I know what will happen: nothing. There will be no case. They think the children in SL are not realistic enough. ((

    anything but speculation?

  18. Darkfoxx

    Sep 4th, 2007

    Interresting to note that there still ISN’T any law in the Netherlands against sexual ageplay on SL, or wherever.

    The goverment did LOOK at virtual peodiphilia, but a law was never made. Only concidered.

    Still, I hear everyone mentioning the Netherlands as a country where “representations of child sex are illegal in the Netherlands, even if children were not involved in the making of the porn”.

    Not true. Our country, LUCKILY, realizes very well the difference between ‘real’ and ‘fake’ and still holds freedom of speech in very high regard.

    As opposed to some countries where certain games are forbidden for example for being too violent… >.>

  19. Maria Leveaux

    Sep 4th, 2007

    What was put forward there;
    “Today, Lucien reports the following:

    I know what will happen: nothing. There will be no case. They think the children in SL are not realistic enough.”

    Sounds like The reporters personal Conclusion, Not a Ruling. He appears to be Speculating. The Last SOLID comment from the prosecutors office was:
    “Lucien contacted the prosecutor’s office immediately, but was told that the matter was still under investigation.”

    The reporter MAY have More Current information But if he does he needs to Put it forward with More certainty than something that sounds like mere opinion.

    Did LL jump the gun on Sexual Ageplay? Actually, i would have to say no. There was a very real atmosphere developing where criminal prosecutions could result. LL in seeing this Potential growing was right to deal with it BEFORE any Charges were laid, or sanctions levied that would have affected LL’s shareholders, and players Much More than the Restrictions they Placed.

    I DO Object to their use of the Impossibly Vague description of “Broadly offensive” Without any Supporting or Qualifying Criteria. In Giving themselves the broadest possible latitude in Dealing with sexual Age Play, they have left the Doors Wide Open to Hinder or ban any number of Popular, and very legal forms of Roleplay as well. it’s created an atmosphere of suspicion, and Insecurity that Will Impact upon peoples chioce to Enter SL when there are other game platforms who’s policies and Practices are made Much Clearer to it’s potential Customers.

    Maria.

  20. Tenshi Vielle

    Sep 4th, 2007

    It’s a slow day for me guys. I’m comment-whoring on the Herald as a result.

    @URI: Uri, I found another sexual ageplay place this morning by way of a friend whose made it her personal duty (oddly) to track these places down. Do you want me to report on it – especially since being told by Lindens that it’s not their job to take care of it? :O :O :O :O ZOMG

  21. bleh

    Sep 6th, 2007

    @ Tenshi:

    It’s no-one damn buisness what others do with their time. So no, don’t report on it, as it’s not your, or your friend’s job either.
    I find the idea of this kind of thought policing and violating someone’s right to decide for themselves what to do broadly offensive.

    I don’t like sexual ageplay either, but it’s not my place to judge.

  22. Flying Dutchman

    Sep 6th, 2007

    @Humanoid

    “Why would they give a damn about what Dutch prosecutors think, anyway? Who would be dumb enough to base any part of a business based on social interaction in a country with such silly laws? I can see setting up a tool and die factory, or a food business in Europe, but certainly not any sort of business that relies on freedom of speech to function.”

    Pardon? Silly laws, yes we do have them. But which ones are you refering to? The law that it’s legal for coffeshops to sell cannabis, but buying it is still a crominal offence, sure, that’s a prime example of a silly law. But in this matter, not relevant. So, which laws?

    Also, why bring up freedom of speech? I don’t think you know too much about the Netherlands, if you bring that up. Freedom of speech is one of the founding laws of the Netherlands, and is kept in VERY high regard by the government and it’s citizens.

    and really, LL has already shown, with the whole German peadophilia case, LL has already shown they care about foreign (for them) laws enough to ensure that their product can legally be used by people in other countries. Which, is a good thing. But, as Darkfoxx above already pointed out, there are NO LAWS against VIRTUAL peodophilia. Only against the real stuff. Know why? The Netherlands respect the rights of their citizens and know the difference between real and fake.

    Who would be dumb enough to open their mouth about things they don’t know anything about? Like, our country and it’s laws, for instance?

    Think before you speak. (or type..)

Leave a Reply