Second Life / Discuss

Mariel V says:

Honestly, I don't think this one should be addressed to LL. I think it's something that should be addressed, for that matter, to the government in California, the US government and even the UN.

For good or bad, LL has no bigger role whatsoever in saying what is legal and what is not in the First Life, which will always dominate the Second one.

I respect your opinion, though.
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Annette Blachere says:

Ok... I agree... Change LL for "te social moralism", "Politic Power" or whatever... I don't know how to call it... :-(
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Stephen Venkman    says:

If they make child avatars forbidden in sl... I am done. I will no longer play in this madness....because sooner or later, something I do or avatar I morph into, will be the next thing to be forbidden! I came here to secondlife and "stayed" here due to it's openess and diverse culture. As the doors have been flung open to the masses, the openess just keeps getting narrower and the diversity I so seeked has been tainted and almost crushed by the smallness of a few.

I don't want you to die, or have fear in your age-play. I'm not sure what is to be done here, but will be looking into this more with the businesses that cater to and are created for "child" avatars. I can't imagine they are going to sit and watch their dreams and wallets be wiped out.

We can talk about this more inworld Annette. Thank you for your courage and your friendship. It has meant more to me than you know.

Love and Hugs,
Stephen, (childless in rl)
Originally posted 61 months ago. (permalink)
Stephen Venkman edited this topic 61 months ago.

~Silver~ says:

Hi Netty! I ranted and raved about this issue on SLP (not sure if you need to be a member to read this, but it's worth joining just for that!), and after discussing it with some sensible adults, decided that LL has chosen a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, meaning, they have made their position clear that activities coming to the attention of the media or the police will be dealt with. I'm not convinced they have the staff or the interest in actually processing a flood of abuse reports, since they can't even deal with the technical and griefing issues as it is.

I do worry, of course, that some nasty person will take a dislike to me and "report" me, but at that point, I think it will be time to start the revolution and give the community a real vote on how SL is run.

*big hugs* Silver will protect you as best she can, don't worry. :)
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

♥ Codie ♥    says:

Well fantasy ageplay between 2 consensual adults, and especially NON-SEXUAL ageplay like our dear Annette does is NOT illegal under any circumstances. What people don't realize is that most ageplayers like Annette don't hide themselves, are public and knowned avatars, many of them use it as a therapy to exorcise RL child abuse or rough childhood conditions.

If we start accepting that my friends, this is a slippery slope. SL will become nothing more than a big Barbie doll playset with no soul, and we will loose our freedoms for false excuses. Like Bush did with terrorism, pretty much. If you don't believe in fundamental rights like freedom maby you should all revise America's definition as the land of freedom. And SL is one of the last free playground since everything is thought controlled.

1984 anyone?
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

marianne.mccann says:

I've been talkin a lot about dis in the SL forums the last couple days, an also in my column in the Metaverse Messenger. Dat LL made such an intentionallly vague policy, invited people to "enforce" the policy on the basis of keeping stuff "safe," an did not provide any safeguards for those of us who might be unfairly targets is horrible. I know I've hadda deal with a lot of really, super bad stuff lately, even in places I know to be safe. All the while, I wait for someone to file an AR on me or someting, jes for bein a kid avvie, or because they tink I *might* do someting, for talkin like a kid, or whatevers.

I would like to think dat stuff will even out soon, but I dunno. I'm worried right now, cuz LL is jes tryin' to run a business, an "morality" peoples are really loud sometimes.

Oh, an I got word from Robin Linden an Chadrick Linden recently, Annette. Us kids is okay. Their big problem is kids bein sexual, which we dun do anyway. So they ain't gonna get rid of us avvies. Still, we GOTTA make sure dat stays dat way.

More'n dat, I hate the discrimination I get to face. I already deal with dat in the real world, why here? Why cannot I be myself - whatever self I choose to be - without the hatred of others? It makes me sad, an I try not to show it, but it still does.

What I tink, an this is hard cuz we gots to be all brave an stuff, is dat we gotta be out there, an talkin' to folks an goin to Linden Village stuff, an so on, an makin' it clear who we is an what we is. We gotta kinda teach what we is, so people can know the real stories instead of assuming or goin on what the "morals" peoples wanna claim we is.

An jes like you, Annette, we tell a story through our piccies. We give people the chance to see what we really are about, jes with them even. Maybe we need a "Second Life Chidren" flickr group or someting, to help people see our lives?

Mari
Originally posted 61 months ago. (permalink)
marianne.mccann edited this topic 61 months ago.

Mariel V says:

"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."

I think that all those who consider themselves affected by this policy should contact LL and exhort them to clarify the first sentence. To me, it looks like it was written in the middle of the ARD turmoil. When I first read it, I thought they were refering to sexual ageplay (something I honestly doubt could be considered legal at some point), but English is not my first language, so there...

LL should write a more extensive blog post on this, and I think that the only way that will happen is if any of the interested people actually contact them in an official way.

Also, I don't think this is related AT ALL to morality. It's mundane; legal. LL is not trying to make a philosophical statement by doing this, I assume - they are trying to comply with the not so few laws not to be shut down.

I'm honestly not a lawyer or a philosopher, so I'm not anyone to tell what is riight or wrong... What I do think, though, is that everyone should shut up for a moment, sit down, read, think about it, and then do what he considers best. It all seems to me a bit hurried, and it's not like this is a very easy thing to solve.

Whatever happens, I hope it's for something as moral as it can get.
Originally posted 61 months ago. (permalink)
Mariel V edited this topic 61 months ago.

Icha! [deleted] says:

Nette,

All I can say is live dangerously and know that we love you.

Ich.
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Annette Blachere says:

@ Stephen: I love you!

@ Silverdrake: Cool! Dankoo Silver. I saw the link. I'll read everything carefully. I love you too.

@ Code: You are wonderful! Oh, and my Real Me wants to clarify that she has never been abused in her RL... Hahahaha, however she's agree on what you said.

@Marianne: You are the most active kid I never met. Thank you for taking care of us. It's so good to know that LL don't want to ban us, at least, not for the moment... I agree about showing a "normal" SL child life... perhaps that group you're talking about it's a great idea!!!

@Faerei: I think that LL has been contacted by regular channels several times, (look for example at Marianne's post) and I also think that they are in a very difficult moment, full of pressure for the intervention of RL Mass Media. Being important it's not easy but I also consider that things are not being done in a good way. I didn't receive any note asking my opinion about important things that have to do directly with my life... and, eih! It's my Life!!! I also think that the post you are referring to is not so "innocent" and "good intentioned" as "they" want to say. English is neither my mother language, as you can read, but I can see there a clear intention of not discussion. It's a decision, not a question.

I would like also to remark that this discussion is not only about children in SL, is about freedom of expression... I could be agree on accepting some regulations, as for example "Don't kill or offend anyone in a safe area", but, it should have to be a decision taken after a big discussion process and agreement solutions. I could agree with Faerie about the “shut up” question if there was enough considerations in which think about, but, actually, nobody gave us the opportunity to reflect on anything... they just forbidden, so now, in my opinion, it's precisely the time to talk, shout, ask, and fight. Otherwise SL will be exactly what Code said:

"SL will become nothing more than a big Barbie doll playset with no soul, and we will loose our freedoms for false excuses"

Annette Blachere says:

ICHAAAAA!!!!!!
/me giggles and waves the capitan!
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

marianne.mccann says:

@ Annette
Ya, I also liked the "normal" in quotes, an 'cuz I tink how I have a store, an have gone hang gliding, an do tons of other stuff dat RL kids dun do normally. An ya, maybe a group would be kinda a good idea?

An thankoo for yuour fcomments. I kinda have done activism stuff in my RL, so it's kinda funny findin' me doin a lotta the same stuff here, too. It jes comes all natural to me. :-)

Mari
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Mariel V says:

The point is that I don't think precisely freedom of expression can be taken so lightly. It has enough implications to be debated for centuries, and I think that the best proof is that it's been discussed for centuries without end. Does freedom of expression (or speech) stop at some point? If it does, where?

If people are free to hold in a virtual manner sexual encounters involving ageplay, then why shouldn't it be allowed in offline brothels (where they are legal) too?

In my opinion, blaming LL for this is not justifiable. Why? Because it's not their fault that the governments have delayed so much in taking action to make laws for the digital environment. This is not a unique problem of SL, but of any type of digital media. The day LL stops being private investment and becomes a company of the UN (because not even state company status would be enough), then I think everything should be blamed on them.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against furries or ageplay. All I'm saying is that, if you feel like their freedom of expression is being violated, it's because of the current laws we have.

Is ageplay, sexual or not, consensual or not, riight or wrong? That's up to each of you. If you feel like this cause is worth fighting for, then I do encourage you again to attempt to contact LL until they respond. Don't they have a phoneline? (Sorry for the ignorance in this matter, but I've never had the need to contact them). Don't they have a postal address?

Now... If you want to make the whole international jurisdiction to change, then it will take a bit more effort than that. There are millions of us begging already the governments to sit down and think about Internet, so I'm sure you won't have trouble finding local or internatiional campaigns, or even petition letters.
Originally posted 61 months ago. (permalink)
Mariel V edited this topic 61 months ago.

Ordinal Malaprop says:

At the moment there aren't actually any legal issues in the US that I am aware of that would result in LL having to take this sort of action; that may change at some point, but one of the advantages you chaps and chapesses over that side of the pond have is that you do have this "freedom of speech" thing built into your legal system, including freedom of expression by precedent, and that is hard for anyone to get rid of. These are voluntary decisions on their part.
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Annette Blachere says:

"If people are free to hold in a virtual manner sexual encounters involving ageplay, then why shouldn't it be allowed in offline brothels (where they are legal) too?"

marianne.mccann says:

@ Annette
Do we gotta be pro to open it or anyting, cuz I'm game. :-)

@FaerieDevilish
If people are free to hold in a virtual manner sexual encounters involving ageplay, then why shouldn't it be allowed in offline brothels (where they are legal) too?

Really, it is allowed in RL.I dunno nuttin' about brothels, cuz I ain't never been around any, but I 'spect it is there, too. I mean, anyting someone puts on a school girl outfit an says "spank me daddy" or stuff like dat (I dunno, cuz I ain't never done dat either). Anytime you have adult pretendin to be kids for sex stuff, RL or SL, dat's 'sexual ageplay.'

A lotta people wanna say different, an compare it to child molestation, an ya I tink in SL it can be reallly close on a whole lotta lines an stuff, cuz you getta have a kid shape, not jes kid clothes or stuff. An I bet some in here (more the adults who would be doin; dat with a kid in here, not the kids themselves as much) might be some real sicko in the real workd who'd hurt real kids. But I s'pect dat most who do the seual ageplay stuff are diffrerent from dat.

Mari
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Mariel V says:

Question, then:

If there is no single law about this (of which I wouldn't know, anyway, because I'm not a specialist in intl. law) or any law that is flexible enough to cover this form of paedophilia (I'm not sure if something derived from 'pederastia' exists in English either, so I'll just go with the same form), then how on Earth did it become a deal so big that even ARD and the German police were (are?) involved in it? OK, ARD is part of the media, but the police? As far as I know (here I'd like to ask anyone from Germany, 'cause I'm nor German nor a specialist), there are some very specific laws in Germany about these cases (faced something similar in a gymnastics e-forum and there was some action taken, so)...

Random media example: regulations of TV content. Can Playboy display a hentai series openly involving ageplay? I mean - there's no actual people involved behind that. They're just fictitious characters.

What happens if people have sexual ageplay on SL, take snaps or machinima and publish it? Does that become a violation, or are they still free to do so?

Even if I've not really seen children avvies on the TG, I don't think they should be banned - and that's why I think that LL should expand the post on this issue to clarify many points - the basic one, saying whether all children avvies are banned or not, or if only sexual ageplay is.
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

RedDawn Bade says:

Ageplay in RL - legal in the US (consenting adults), not in SL. Sounds crazy to me.

I'm with everyone else on the slippery slope argument here. Given the blog used the term "broadly offensive" with no definition - seems like a lot of leeway to ban people based on typical narrow minded RL prejudices.

If SL turns into some sort of sanitized fantasy world along the lines of Disneyland or the existing teen grid - I'm out of here.
Originally posted 61 months ago. (permalink)
RedDawn Bade edited this topic 61 months ago.

Ordinal Malaprop says:

"how on Earth did it become a deal so big that... the German police were (are?) involved in it?"

Whenever anyone reports anything to the police, they have to become involved. The Belgian police becoming involved in a "rape" case seems similar; they are obliged to investigate if something is reported, it doesn't necessarily mean they were motivated to do it themselves or thought it was worthwhile.

If German citizens are accessing things over the internet that are illegal in Germany - or if it's suggested that they are - then I'm sure the police there will be interested, just like they would if someone said you were using SL to launder money. They don't have any jurisdiction over LL though, even if the laws concentrate on the server owner rather than the client, as LL are a US company. Nobody outside of the US cares about the US' dumb internet gambling legislation, why would anyone outside of Germany care about dumb virtual ageplay legislation? Unless they were simply concerned with bad publicity.
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

marianne.mccann says:

@FaerieDevilish
The issue is two fold. German law prohibits even the depiction of child/adult stuff. They dun hafta be real, they can be cartoons. Also, people have a visceral reaction to child/adult stuff like dat, too. So if the news media wants to knock some holes in glass houses, it's a good rock to toss.

- Playboy would be liaible in the instance you gave. It would be TOSsable, But would LL take down a major corporate sim for doing such? Dat I dunno.

- The sexual ageplay in SL example you gave wouyld be a bannable offence, according to SL

From my e-mail recently: "child avatars are fine, it's the depiction of sexual activity with children that is grounds for terminating an account, and could have potential implications for real world action." - Robin Linden,

Mari
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Bella March says:

Marianne, Annette: Ageplay not involving sexual or nude activity is okay.
And if people find it strange to see a 6 year old kid to walk around SL without a parent, then I will gladly adopt you and try to be a good mother.
Don't let some narrowminded people chase you from SL ...
You can always share your cookies with me Annette ...
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

RedDawn Bade says:

SL is NOT REAL, and sexual ageplay between adults in SL is NOT pedophilia. That's the whole point - SL is an engagement of the mind, nothing more.

No RL children are harmed by SL ageplay anymore than RL children are harmed by playing violent video games or watching TV.

RL pedophilia is sick - and if someone in SL is using that platform to engage in or distribute RL pedophilia material - then there are already laws that apply - not to mention the TOS.

We don't need to create a witch hunt and make people like Marianne and Annette feel like they are being singled out and punished for having child avies.
Originally posted 61 months ago. (permalink)
RedDawn Bade edited this topic 61 months ago.

Mariel V says:

Wow, so many responses. o.o

Marianne -

From my e-mail recently: "child avatars are fine, it's the depiction of sexual activity with children that is grounds for terminating an account, and could have potential implications for real world action." - Robin Linden,

Thank you SO much for clarifying this. I guess they should say this in public. I think this is enough to calm many of you down, as they won't chase child-like avatars down.

Also, I think that LL will have to begin at this point thinking of laws not only inside the US - after all, SL is rather international now. I haven't seen many people outside the UK/US/Canada on the TG, but there are some of us still who don't live in either.

I agree that laws are flexible enough for these cases, but I am not sure if LL should take advantage of this flexibility - after all, in things so massive like this, the flexibility might turn to the other side at court.

RedDawn -

"SL is NOT REAL, and sexual ageplay between adults in SL is NOT pedophilia. That's the whole point - SL is an engagement of the mind, nothing more."

For that matter, hentai is not real either, nor is even a fictitious, acted TV show, or a theatre play. Nor a tangible painting or comic.

Also, I think you will be a bit relieved like me to see that they will only take action against those using ageplay with sexual content. Perhaps not entirely relieved (I wouldn't know), but I thought I'd mention it :)

Well. I'm no specialist, again, and I'm not even on the MG, so I guess I don't have much else to say in this thread. I just hope that the best decision is made, and I hope that now you will be relieved to see that they only will 'hunt down' those who involve non-PG content in their ageplay.

Best wishes! :)
Originally posted 61 months ago. (permalink)
Mariel V edited this topic 61 months ago.

Steve 'M' [deleted] says:

Hi Annette,

This latest mess is yet another knee-jerk reaction by Linden Lab to appease the critics. But they have gone too far, banning the use of the word "Lolita" for instance for clothing styles is just so naive and shows how out of touch they are.

I remember on Marianne's snapshot on Snapzilla when we got into a debate, that someone said that children should never be sexualised, well in that case what about those horrendous children's beauty pageants they have in America? If we're going to go into that territory then let's start with that kind of thing which is far more influential and damaging to REAL children than consenting adults fantasy roleplaying online.

Also, people like yourself and Marrianne are getting caught up in this bullshit which is so unfair.

I have lost interest in SL lately, so much so that my land is up for sale and I am downgrading to a basic account. The exciting, promising world it once was is gradually being sanitised to appease corporate interest and satisfy the lowest common denominator. Aside from all the horrific technical problems that often ruin basic functionality, any illusion of freedom we thought we had there has been eroded.

-Arahan-
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

marianne.mccann says:

@ Bella March  
Well, I think you'd hafta go through my mommy an daddy first before you could try an 'dopt me. An, well, I know mommy would defend me with as much passion as any of her RL kids. Thanko for all the kind thoughts, though! I jes wish the narrowminded weren't so many.

@ RedDawn Bade  
We definitely dun need witch hunts. Unfortunately, from anyting I've experienced, an everyting I've heard from other in-world kids, they are happening.

@ FaerieDevilish  
Yer welcome! Robin's words were somewhat soothing. Now if only they would say something like this publicly, or at least say someting about respecting tothers, or olerance or someting, ya know? Maybe making it clear dat frivilous ARs are also not allowed, I dunno. But really, with all the furor, I wish they'd say 8somethign * jes as simple as "child avvies are a-ok in SL."

I tink it's more than jes an issue of laws, but of public image. Will some of these corporations wanna come in if they see trumped up, maybe even false, headlines about virtual icky kid an adult stuff? It's be bad for their business, an I tink dat's a whole lotta the reaction from LL. Way more than the laws, even, I tink.

@ Arahan Claveau 
Now's the wrong time to mention having one an in-world kids' beauty pageant, innit? 'least I didn't hafta wear a buncha Jon Benet makeup or nuttin'!

I'm sorry to hear about you fading off. To me, it's the artists, and dreamers, and visionaries dat make the world -- any world -- what it is. Without you an others like you, well, blandness wins. I'd rather see pink hair an green armbands than a whole world of beige,
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Thaumata Strangelove    says:

"accusations of child porn" is like... THE scariest phrase an online company can ever hear. Not only is it illegal pretty much everywhere, it's bad for business and public image. REALLY bad. i think linden labs is wise for treating this the way that they have been - carefully and sensibly and with a bit of wiggle room in their statements. they are OBLIGATED to keep their company respectable and profitable - not to you, but to their employees! if the grid goes down, i have to find a new hobby. but everyone who works there needs to find a way to feed their families, and who am I to think that i can possibly trump that in terms of need??

in a community, guidelines are always better than strict rules. there are a lot of reasons for this but the biggest one is that there is a sect of the population who likes to focus on getting away with it via technicalities. if they tried to write hard and fast rules about child AVs in LL, you'd ALWAYS have some ass who would come back and be like "well, your regulation says i must be at least 4 feet tall, and i *AM* when i am wearing these platform heels." there are better things for them to worry about and sensible people know that there are a lot of grey areas in resolving community issues. leaving that statement vague is good for people like netty and marianne. really.

the most interesting thing to me about all of this is that there is a really similar debate raging over at livejournal right now. there were some right-wing extremist child protection groups that raised a stink about communities there that cater to age play. LJ also knee-jerked - way worse than LL - and actually went so far as to suspend accounts that simply mentioned pedophilia as an interest (many of which were people who were SURVIVORS of it). after a huge outcry from the community there, they reinstated many of them.

anyway, in the end, i think they're handling it pretty well (LL). they have a ton of pressure on them to make a lot of people happy and you KNOW they like their residents and want them to be happy also. i don't envy their position at all.

if you really wanted to make a statement, why not have a children's carnival or rally, where people could come dressed as child AVs and demonstrate that child AV does not equal pedophile. if you REALLY REALLY want to make a statement, start getting the press to cover positive events in SL - all of the amazing art installations and charity work done there - instead of continuing to allow them to write these crazy sensationalist BS stories that seem to be so popular. (the washington post has a really ridiculous one this week, about policing virtual worlds like SL. it made my blood boil so that i wrote them a REALLY long letter about how they should actually research their stories before writing them.) some positive press would be very very good for LL and problems like this wouldn't seem so massive and insurmountable.

i really do wonder who LL has handling their PR. they should look at that again and hire someone to start doing press releases about GOOD happenings in world. the blog network is pretty strong but some official love and encouragement from LL would be helpful to take the spotlight off these things (which we all know are NOT what SL is really all about.)

(omg. longest response ever. ha ha.)
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

~Silver~ says:

I agree - we never get to read news stories about SL that don't have some lurid take on people's sexual experimentation.

I'm just even more disturbed about the mention of banning rape and violent roleplay. That's QUITE broad, and I think would wipe out all the roleplay sims in SL if it were actually enforced. I don't understand why it's okay for Grand Theft Auto, but not SL...

And since the TOS can't actually be enforced (see the recent Bragg case in the U.S. courts), seems like this might be a lot of hot air.

I would absolutely hate it if all the artists and perverts and perverted artists left SL, too.
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Concord Comet says:

LL makes a lot of money "selling" islands.

Corporations, non-profits, educational Institutions are SL's biggest growing market ... child sex does not fit in that business model.

Actually nudity does not fit in that business model.

Now that SL is more "popular" it's only natural that they feel the pressure to comply with corporate laws.

It's all about profit .. sadly.

I hope LL finds a way to keep their loyal customer base happy while complying with these legal and corporate requirements. Interesting problem ... I think
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Thaumata Strangelove    says:

yeah... if you want to get in on an SL type environment that doesn't come with a for-profit company at the end, you should check out Croquet, which basically provides a way to build something quite like it but on an open source platform.

Actually, that's how I got into SL - I was looking for something like this and started researching croquet and smalltalk and squeak and someone pointed me here. :) I fell in love with SL because my specialty is communities and SL has a very, very strong one. It's the user friendliest!
Originally posted 61 months ago. (permalink)
Thaumata Strangelove edited this topic 61 months ago.

TinyPirate says:

Oddly, if age players had adult avatars, but dressed and acted as kids, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. Thing is, people see folks looking like kids, acting like kids, but getting their sex on. Society will not accept that image (I mean that literally, as in, the scene of a kid in SL sexing an adult). Frankly, I think society is correct in this case.

LL will act to protect their business, which is their right. The last thing SL or games needs is a Falwell like guy getting their teeth into sexual ageplay in SL.
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Lilith Lunardi says:

TinyPirate says:

"Thing is, people see folks looking like kids, acting like kids, but getting their sex on. Society will not accept that image (I mean that literally, as in, the scene of a kid in SL sexing an adult). Frankly, I think society is correct in this case."

Frankly, I am convinced society is wrong in this case. As you put it so well, it is an image. It is fantasy. No real child is being harmed. We can find such an image distasteful (I do), but that is completely besides the point. Punishing an image is punishing fantasy. Punishing fantasy is punishing thought. Punishing thought is fascism. Anyone harming a real kid is a criminal. Anyone fantasizing about it is a human being like you and me.

Annette and RedDawn and all the others really have a point here. I sympathize strongly with their concerns. We all know enough about role play and fantasy to be able to know for sure that it is just that: role play and fantasy. As soon as someone wants to determine which fantasies are allowed and which are not, we really are in big trouble.

TinyPirate also says:

"LL will act to protect their business, which is their right. "

Unfortunately that is true. It is their right. It is also their right to pull the plug on all of us as soon as they wish. If SL is ever to become something more than laying on a poolside in a Bare Rose string, if SL is ever to become more than a harmless computer game which is not even a game, then this exactly should be changed: that LL have the right to protect their business. It is our world, not theirs. We build it. They simply host it on servers.
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Khamudy Mannonen says:

I think Ms Strangelove has summed up my thoughts on this issue. LL has made this statement, but its wording is vague and I am not convinced they really have the resources to begin the process of deciding what is and isn't acceptable. As with many things in SL, the day-to-day details, in this case the "enforcement" of this, comes down to individual landowners and communities on the grid. I think, as Ms Strangelove eloquently put, it is a matter of educating the greater bulk of the grid that whilst age-play might not be to everyone's taste, this does not automatically equate to pedophilia. It is the sort of short-circuited thinking that makes the same connection between homosexuality and pedophilia; short circuited thinking that is perpetuated and promulgated by the histerical media.

Utlimately, it comes down to us as the residents and members of communities on the grid, to stand together and ensure that illegal activity is properly reported, but also, more importantly, that there is proper education, fair enforcement and a continued sustaining of the creative environment here. Linden Labs believe themselves to be responding to the demands of the community, perhaps we, as the community need to point out to LL, through another open letter perhaps, exactly where they started mishearing us.

I'm not sure of the validity of the slipper-slope arguments I see being banded about, I think it makes too many assumptions on the part of LL and the Lindens team - to the point of unfairness I feel. If anything, the plans for shared support of the grid with other companies and the virtual granting of absolute autonomy to estate and island managers many provide self-havens for out communities of artists and creators to thrive.

It is a very tricky area and having worked in Child Protection for the Social Services, I can see why such steps are being taken to protect the metaverse as a whole - but the approach LL should be taking is to empower us as residents to make these judgements and responsibly maintain our lands, rather than arbitrary action from above downwards.
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Mai Yip ღ says:

I have to say that although I am not a fan of LL's new and badly worded policy I don't see it as much of a problem.. Yet.

Since the program that was aired in Germany I have recieved more greifer hassle and people wont talk to me, I never realised I was so scary.

I believe LL is taking said action in order to prepare for the commercial interest currently being displayed as SL is becomeing more widely known. This is about profit, and although people like me spend a lot of money in SL a large company would spend more.

I do't know what we can actually do to ensure child AVs arn't banned guess we just stick to the rules, at the end of the day SL has it's rules and we either learn to live with it or leave.

I would also like to point out that LL's complaints proceedure isn't particularly great, I have been harrased by certain narrow minded people and accused of things which are horrible and want this witch hunt to end. If you see some one acting in a way that breaks the TOS then report it, do not verbally abuse the ageplayer or asume because they are an ageplayer that they break the TOS or have a dirty mind like you.
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

WolfHartnell [deleted] says:

This is an incredibly important issue for all of us in Second Life, whether our lifestyles are directly affected or not. I haven't been sure whether to offer my own thoughts on the subject, but I shall do so here.

LL is taking what they see to be a "safe" legal route, by covering themselves with generic terms of service and placing the onus on other people to seek out what they personally consider to be offensive. As a businessman I can see their reasoning, but there are larger corporations than LL who risk more in the name of freedom of expression and I am immensely disappointed that LL seem to be ducking even a whisper of scandal with little care for the feelings of their customers.

It would not be hard for them to implement a strict set of rules as to what is and is not permitted, even if they later decide to revise those rules, and to a great extent we would have to respect their right to do so, but this generic with hunting can only lead to exactly the kind of witch hunt that everyone fears.

I'd love to think that we could appeal to LL's ethics and general sense of community, but since they scaled up to corporate client level that is unlikely to have any effect - they are driven on this issue by their lawyers and the press. Nor will it help much to appeal to the better judgement of those who conduct such persecution - fairness is not their aim! What WILL make a difference is giving LL an equally strong legal and/or PR reason to stop the witch hunt and be clear on what they will and will not permit, and to be reasonable about that.

If anyone in the US has a friend in the legal profession I would urge them to have a chat and find out where we stand, as paying customers of LL, with regard to such a drastic change. Anyone who has connections with the press should also let it be known that this perfect world is now subject to greater persecution than would ever be allowed iRL.

I am based in the UK, but I shall be looking into what rights I have to express my individuality in an online world, under European law. For what it is worth, and if anyone thinks it is worthwhile, I am willing to set up a web site for those of us who believe in freedom of expression and choice, whether in age role play, or in any form, to discuss, agree and publicise our views. If there is something like that already then let me know where it is and I shall sign up. Whether in Second Life or any other virtual environment, civil rights need to be established, and they never are (in ANY world) unless we fight for them. I am not a militant man, by any means, but I feel passionately about this issue.
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Hiro Edelman says:

Uff, some hours off and so much to read. At least not much to add.
No idea about the law-side of the discussion.

The only thing worth to discuss for me, cause I agree on a special protection-level for kids, is the ageplay. All other censorship is totally out of the question .

Im strongly feeling with Omi Yip here. Experienced this :"falling under suspicion" of me being pedophilic by someone while being at her place. 2 hours talk later we shook hands and the guy left with a more differentiated and less aggresive view on the things.

Ageplay is much to valuable for many, here mentioned reasons, to "throw the baby with the bathing water out".

Thats the first thing we should fight for in my opinion. Against generalisation. Drawing lines. Positioning. Promoting this child group sounds like a good idea to me.

So, sexageplay...
Emotionally and intellectually its hard for many ppl to understand some healthy adult RL-guy behind an avatar wanting to have sex with a child avatar.

Counts for me, too.

If I want to play it that way in SL I should want my inventory and its movements being scanned for RL-childporn, - that type of shit it is my worst enemy if I am no RL-pedophilic. Thats the way sexageplayers should organize themselves from my point of view - open the drawers, speak out, explain. Evryone sexageplaying joining a special group, agreeing on selfcensoring for example.


Dunno if its now to late for that.

Thats the only exception I do in demanding freedom.

Pretty good article and groups to organize against censorship btw here :

www.slpixelpulse.com/2007/06/06/united-protest-speaks-up-...
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

voodoobuwan says:

I started a debate on this very issue on the paper I work for www.sl-newspaper.com. Find it here: http://15timez.blogspot.com/2007/06/truth-according-to-voodoo.html
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Icha! [deleted] says:

Wow, everyone is so eloquent on this subject. It is so refreshing compared to the other "discussions" i have subjected myself to elsewhere in the old blogosphere. I have nothing to add but an anecdote and a question.

About a week or two ago, I was hanging out in a parcel that is still used to make connections for sexual ageplay and I ran into someone who I vaguely knew from the days when Jailbait was still open. We talked for a while and I let him friend me and everything was copacetic until we started to talk about ageplay. He admitted to me that his new "kick" was getting a child avatar to humiliate him with all the epithets the griefers use to attack all child avs: sick, vile, disgusting, pedophile, etc. I told him two big important facts - the first, I don't ageplay, and the second, I am involved with someone that I love very much. This didn't seem to make any impact as he made numerous requests that we go away somewhere and I do for him what he wanted. I feared that if genuine coercion were possible in Second Life, then he would have assaulted me to receive his gratification. And if that were not enough, he revealed to me that he owns little girl's dresses in RL which he uses to masturbate with. At that point, I was so upset that I muted him and removed him from my friends list. I am not qualified to make a diagnosis of pedophilia but from what he said to me I am fairly sure he was admitting to it. So, big surprise, there are actual pedophiles involved in the ageplay scene in Second Life.

I don't even know how to correctly frame my question beyond: what does one do about this? It seems to me we are far beyond the realm of consensual adult roleplay here and so the defense of anything goes as long as its consensual doesn't seem to apply. I am conflicted because I believe that sexual ageplay is defensible and that if a couple wishes to explore those dynamics then they ought to be allowed to do so without fear; however, does this mean that I also have to defend the use of child avatars to provide sexual stimulation to an aggressive pedophile? For me it is a very difficult question and the fact is that the welfare of actual children might be at risk so the stakes are very high. I would delete Little Me without reservation if what I find enjoyable put a real child in jeopardy.

I do know one thing with absolute conviction and that is that Linden Labs should state unequivocally that child escorts will be immediately banned from Second Life upon detection.
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

marianne.mccann says:

I do know one thing with absolute conviction and that is that Linden Labs should state unequivocally that child escorts will be immediately banned from Second Life upon detection.

I believe they have, in the blog posting on the german TV issue. At the least, if this person was harassing you with this sort os horrible stuff, I hope you sent in a big, far AR - an I'm sorry you hadda deal with that kinda ick.

Mari
Posted 61 months ago. (permalink)

Annette Blachere says:

Hello evybody again...
As a result of these discussions in flickr, Mari and me decided to open a new SL flickr Group...

---Second Childhood---

Please, consider to join us and to promote a safe vision of SL kids!!!

Dankoo Very much for all yur support!

/me passes one coockie per person at the time that whispers a personalized and sweet "Dankoo" for each one.
Originally posted 61 months ago. (permalink)
Annette Blachere edited this topic 61 months ago.

Felony Fabre says:

Wish you the best of success, Annette, with your new group! It is sad when people attempt to categorize us by telling us how we think as a prelude for telling us what to think. I cannot help but believe that most are simply not comfortable with what goes on in their own minds, and thus we must all be as weak willed as they are. The close-minded are generally envious of those of us with imagination ...

FF
Originally posted 60 months ago. (permalink)
Felony Fabre edited this topic 60 months ago.