Jump to content

enforcement of TOS 8.2 (iv)


Abigail Merlin
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3229 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Abigail Merlin wrote:

I was just told that TOS 8.2 (iv) aka sexual ageplay, is nolonger being enforced.

That hearsay is . . .bsflag2.gif

 


Abigail Merlin wrote:

 

So can anyone confirm if enforcement is indeed dropped because the TOS is not updated in almost 2 years.

Laws once enforced don't become obsolete even they are never updated.

They only come obsolete when they are officially cancelled.

Second Life TOS is like a law.  TOS section 8.2 has never been cancelled by Linden Lab, so it indeed is still in effect. 

 

You did well in not believing hearsay. :matte-motes-smile:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

after the Supreme Court ruling you referring to the US Congress pass the Protect Act 2003

Protect Act makes it illegal again unless can be shown that the work has some artistic merit. the Romeo/Juliet exception

what the Protect Act also does is make it illegal to transmit the depictions

Supreme Court has upheld this since

if linden itself dont do anything about it then they can all get convicted and end up in jail

+

edit: i just add here

the original act (1996 i think) got parts of it struck down bc the way it was worded contravene the 1st Amendment

the Protect Act 2003 change the wording in response to the Court ruling which was right for the Court to do

the new wording mostly center on public safety. Supreme Court uphold the right of Congress to make laws that implement public safety

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Abigail Merlin wrote:

[...] if LL allows it then who am I to judge otherwise, it would be poor business to press my moral values on my renters.

It's very hard to believe that someone actually wrote that, knowing that it's about sex with children. If you are willing to put profits before preventing sex with children, then it says a lot about your moral values (that you mentioned).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just becauise LL determined that somebody's claim that something amounts to sexual ageplay is invalid doesn't mean the TOS aren't enforced.

And given the flood of false descriptions as to what constitutes "child avatars" I find in both the forums and in world, I can predict LL gets a lot of false complaints about ageplay...
I've personally been accused of it by someone who concluded that me being naked halfway across an A rated sim from another avatar who was about 1.50m tall but fully adult in shape and behaviour, more than once.
On other occasions I've been told that nudity in any form is illegal (not just a TOS violation, which it also is not) on M rated land unless that land is group locked to an invite only group (which is blatantly wrong, that only applies, and not even that strict, to sexual activity on M rated land).

Maybe when that idiocy stops, LL can spend more time going after actual TOS violations rather than having to weed through thousands of false reports made only to grief people to find the very few actually valid complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia, three very good overviews of the pertinent laws and rulings:

Will help to remove any confusion anyone may have about the issue because there is a lot of that out there.

Child Online Protection Act (The Struck Down Law)

The PROTECT Act of 2003 (The Current Law)

The pertinent section of The Protect Act:

"The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. However, the provisions of the Protect Act are distinct, since they establish the requirement of showing obscenity as defined by the Miller Test, which was not an element of the 1996 law."

The Miller Test

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have similar legislation in the UK.   However, I'm not at all sure if anything in SL is caught by this legislation or, if it is, how it could be prosecuted.

The offence is possessing a prohibited image.  Obviously if an image is downloaded to your computer, whether intentionally or incidentally in the process of viewing it, that puts you in possession of it.    

But in what sense can someone be said to "possess" something as transitory an image of a scene in SL, unless they make a screenshot or film it?   Where would you look for it on the hard drive, and what could the prosecutor show the jury and say "this is the material about which we're complaining"?  I don't think it can be in your cache, since that's just a collection of component elements of textures and objects, rather than any sort of image.

A chat log might very well be caught under our Oscene Publications Act (since it would be evidence that someone had published an obscene fantasy to at least one other person), but I'm very unsure about images in SL.   I don't think the laws were written with virtual worlds in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

 

...Catering to 'ageplayers' may be legal in some places in the world (in the US, since its all virtual) - but it violated the rules of society, AND the social norms....

Actually this is wrong.  In my state it is illegal to even depict sexual situations involving minors regardless if all the participants are adult.  The prohibition is for all media, including cartoons, digital images etc.

Actually it is correct, but I suspect you misread me.

"since its all virtual" is the key word. No real minors involved. Just cartoon pixels, fictional characters, etc... This is why for example, Romeo and Juliet is still legal in the US. Its also why a lot of hentai is still legal... and similar things.

- Supreme Court ruled on this, so its legal in your state no matter what state law says. Until you involve a real minor... its just disgusting, not illegal.

 

Tell that to the judge and jury that just convicted a guy locally for internetl ageplay in a chat room even though all the people were proved to be adults.  He got sent away for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Yeah, but what was the charge?   I mean, if he was arranging to meet an undercover police officer who he thought was a 15-year-old that's one thing.   If he was role-playing with other adults whom he knew to be adults, that's rather different (unless, as I suggested above, it was caught under obscenity statutes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The charge was engaging in ageplay which is illegal in any form.  An undercover cop was in the chat room and testified.  This wasn't an attempt to meet up in RL with a minor.  The participants were all adults.  The other participants were reported to their local authorities too and the FBI for possible federal prosecution. 

There is zero tolerance for any depiction of sex with a minor or the sexualizing minors in my state even if it is just fantasy, virtual or toons. It is also illegal to transmit that kind of thing to any resident of the state and the web site owner could be prosecuted if it can be shown they knew about it. Both our state and local police have cybercrime units specifically looking for this kind of thing that are undercover on the web.  That is how it should  be IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.  I can see that participating in something in SL might well be caught by  "produces," though I still think the evidential difficulties are pretty large.      Unless the prosecuting authorities are themselves in SL, filming it from a distance, how can they say to the jury, "this is the material we say the defendant produced, or helped to produce,  and which we invite you to find obscene"?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Innula Zenovka wrote:

Thanks.  I can see that participating in something in SL might well be caught by  "produces," though I still think the evidential difficulties are pretty large.      Unless the prosecuting authorities are themselves in SL, filming it from a distance, how can they say to the jury, "this is the material we say the defendant produced, or helped to produce,  and which we invite you to find obscene"?  

You might be right about the difficulty of proving production (although US juries have shown a very low tolerance for anything remotely suggesting of sexual abuse of minors) but I believe the main thing relative to the OP is that Linden Lab considers ageplay subject to the statute and thus is hardly likely to tolerate it even for a heartbeat when it is brought to their attention.

The chances of LL looking the other way or choosing not to enforce are in my opinion zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

Thanks.   Did the people who were prosecuted know they were talking to other adults, though, or did they believe they were talking to minors?  T

That wasn't clear in the article in the local paper but my impression was he knew they were adults.  If he thought they were minors I am sure that would have been mentioned.  However, it wouldn't have made any difference either way,  The law says even consenting adults playing children for sexual reasons is illegal. Even If he thought they were adults he had no absolute way of knowing for sure.  What really takes the cake though is that he was a preacher and the head of a pretty large church here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is from the old KB which still gets updated and does have the legit LL seal at the top..this is from feb 2012..because trying to search the new one is like pulling your own teeth to try to find anything..

 

 

Introduction

This article addresses questions regarding Linden Lab's policy regarding sexual "ageplay" (depictions of, or engagement in, sexualized conduct with avatars that resemble children). This practice is disallowed by the Community Standards due to complaints from Residents and international laws, so it's important to understand the definitions.

 

Policy

Under our Community Standards policy, real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children or minors are not allowed within Second Life. When detected, individuals and groups promoting or providing such content and activities will be subject to sanctions, which may include termination of accounts, closure of groups, removal of content, and loss of land or access to land.

There are three key aspects involved in these materials or acts that are in breach of the Community Standards:

  • Participation by Residents in lewd or sexual acts in which one or more of the avatars appears to represent minors (or the depiction of such acts in images, video, textures, or text) is a violation of the Community Standards.
  • Promoting or catering to such behavior or representations violates our Community Standards. For instance, the placement of avatars appearing to represent minors in proximity to "sex beds" or other sexualized graphics, objects, or scripts would violate our Community Standards, as would the placement of sexualized "pose balls" or other content in areas depicting playgrounds or children's spaces.
  • The graphic depiction of children in a sexual or lewd manner violates our Community Standards.

Linden Lab reserves the right to immediately terminate the accounts of Residents who violate these standards.

32px-KBwarning.png Warning: Any images, chat, or other conduct that leads us to believe actual minor children are involved will lead to swift action, including reporting to the appropriate authorities.

Discussion

In some cases there may be an element of subjectivity as to whether an avatar (or other image) appears to be a minor. Objective factors which will be used to decide, including whether an avatar has childlike facial features, is child-sized, has clothing or accessories generally associated with children, and whether, based on the circumstances, an avatar is speaking or acting like a child ("My Mommy says...").

32px-KBnote.png Note: Merely having a childlike avatar does not violate this policy. It is not our intent to banish childlike avatars in and of themselves.

If you are in doubt as to whether an activity may be interpreted as ageplay, we request you err on the side of caution and desist. Please note that some countries' laws may impose penalties for graphics, drawings, or anime that resemble child pornography, even where no children have been involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

Thanks.  I can see that participating in something in SL might well be caught by  "produces," though I still think the evidential difficulties are pretty large.      Unless the prosecuting authorities are themselves in SL, filming it from a distance, how can they say to the jury, "this is the material we say the defendant produced, or helped to produce,  and which we invite you to find obscene"?  

prosecutor would just need the logs. if the logs show that the defendant(s) was on a adult poseball and the scripts was activated then expert witness can show from the logs what the depiction was

they dont need a actual film or a photo

the expert wtness can argue that bc digital film or photo is a set of instructions that assembled with algorithms. JPG for example. then it follow that the logs are a set of instructions. the viewer is the algorithms. can reproduce the depiction exactly. same way a JPG or video can be reproduced exactly

+

the conviction comes by: server distributes. viewer receives. this the path the prosecutor takes in similar cases i read about so far. is easier to prove and secure conviction this way

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dillon Levenque wrote:

Oh, I got that. I was just adding the emphasis that since it's actually against the law in LL's home country there is no chance at all they can afford to permit it. The legal implications both civil and criminal would dictate that. Morality need not even enter into the discussion from that perspective.

 

just say that

morality legal defined  in this law as "obscene" dont actual apply to SL

bc "obsence" apply to depiction of an actual minor. clause (a) (1)

+

SL avatar is covered in the next clause:(a) (2)

"depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor" .. "that lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


16 wrote:


Innula Zenovka wrote:

Thanks.  I can see that participating in something in SL might well be caught by  "produces," though I still think the evidential difficulties are pretty large.      Unless the prosecuting authorities are themselves in SL, filming it from a distance, how can they say to the jury, "this is the material we say the defendant produced, or helped to produce,  and which we invite you to find obscene"?  

prosecutor would just need the logs. if the logs show that the defendant(s) was on a adult poseball and the scripts was activated then expert witness can show from the logs what the depiction was

they dont need a actual film or a photo

the expert wtness can argue that bc digital film or photo is a set of instructions that assembled with algorithms. JPG for example. then it follow that the logs are a set of instructions. the viewer is the algorithms. can reproduce the depiction exactly. same way a JPG or video can be reproduced exactly

+

the conviction comes by: server distributes. viewer receives. this the path the prosecutor takes in similar cases i read about so far. is easier to prove and secure conviction this way

 

 

 

I can see that the logs could provide evidence of what took place, but I'm still not at all sure how the police know to interrogate the logs in the first instance.   Do you say someone has actually been convicted of something on the basis of a reconstruction, based on LL's logs,  of what he did in SL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

 

I can see that the logs could provide evidence of what took place, but I'm still not at all sure how the police know to interrogate the logs in the first instance.   Do you say someone has actually been convicted of something on the basis of a reconstruction, based on LL's logs,  of what he did in SL?

the SL thing was in answer to your question. how would the prosecutor proof the depiction in a way that a jury would accept. a proof even in absence of any independently taken images of the actual event at the time

prosecutor would also have to show that the logs were true as well

+

Dwight Whorley was the precedent setter. he get convicted in 2005 of using a computer to receive illegal anime

the computer logs show that he did receive them

since then pretty much every other case include the receiving charge along with whichever others. like posession and that

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


16 wrote:


Dillon Levenque wrote:

Oh, I got that. I was just adding the emphasis that since it's actually against the law in LL's home country there is no chance at all they can afford to permit it. The legal implications both civil and criminal would dictate that. Morality need not even enter into the discussion from that perspective.

 

just say that

morality legal defined  in this law as "obscene" dont actual apply to SL

bc "obsence" apply to depiction of an actual minor. clause (a) (1)

+

SL avatar is covered in the next clause:(a) (2)

"depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor" .. "that l
acks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"

"Intent" is something that comes into play here.

Cases have been dismissed where the only thing found was a random image in someone's browser cache and there was no other viable supporting evidence of illegal behaviour.

How many of us have accidentally seen things we would have rather not seen when browsing the Web?

 

edit:shpelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


16 wrote:


Dillon Levenque wrote:

Oh, I got that. I was just adding the emphasis that since it's actually against the law in LL's home country there is no chance at all they can afford to permit it. The legal implications both civil and criminal would dictate that. Morality need not even enter into the discussion from that perspective.

 

just say that

morality legal defined  in this law as "obscene" dont actual apply to SL

bc "obsence" apply to depiction of an actual minor. clause (a) (1)

+

SL avatar is covered in the next clause:(a) (2)

"depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor" .. "that l
acks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"

"Intent" is something that comes into play here.

Cases have been dismissed where the only thing found was a random image in someone's browser cache and there was no other viable supporting evidence of illegal behaviour.

How many of us have accidentally seen things we would have rather not seen when browsing the Web?

 

edit:shpelling

yes

if you click a random teleport or web link and end up see/in/near something like this then you technical receive. to get prosecuted successfully then sane judge/jury would expect there to be evidence of multiple random clickings to access such things

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just add here. about obscene

my understanding is that by US law pornography of any kind is not obscene all by itself. and is why the obscene defintion is only apply to a depiction of a actual minor

what is obscene by law is not the image itself. what is shown as being done to or in proximity to the minor in the depiction is obscene

for images that appear to be a minor, that may or may not be an actual minor, then the law is quite specific about the content of the images

is fine points of law this. is why the US Supreme Court strike down the first law and uphold the second law

like i mention before earlier. the law based on public safety now. like children are members of public, they have constitutional right to pursue their lives and happiness etc. is constitutional contrary and unsafe for them to be portrayed in this way

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

 

Now what if they HAD been acting things out in real life?

 

No, not with an actual child, but one or more of the ADULTS in an all-adult group PRETENDING to be a child.

 

So you're saying that your state's government has given itself the right to tell two consenting adults what they can and can not do in the privacy of their own bedroom?

 

And if some dude's wife puts a collar and leash on him and yells, "Bark like a DOG!", does his domintarix wife go to jail for beastiality?

 

Scary enough when the goverment controls citizens' lives to the extent that they can't act out their bizare fantasies in the privacy of their home.  Scarier still when they're not even in the same room, it's just via internet chat, and the goverment litterally locks people up for this.

 

Would you mind divulging what state this is?

 

Disclaimer:  Yeah, I'm sure someone out there is gonna accuse me of defending child-molestors.  Again, we're not talking about actual abuse involving a child.  We're talking about adults in the privacy of their home.  I'm rather straight-laced, and want to puke when I see two gay dudes holding hands IN PUBLIC...gross...but in the privacy of their home, where I don't have to know what yucky things they are doing to each other, I'm imensely more upset about government intrusion into private matters like sexual activity than I am about people actually doing such disgusting things.  A REAL kid involved?  Yeah, I'm calling the cops.  Some dude who wants to dress up like a baby and have his boyfriend change his crappy diaper before...ugh...as long as it's in their home?  The government's got no business throwing those two freaks in jail, and I'd defend their right to engage in whatever perverted CONSENSUAL sick things are being done by two or more ADULTS.  To paraphrase Ben Franklin's words on free speech, and expand them to the concept of government intrusion into privacy issues, I don't have to condone a given conduct to defend another's right to do said behavior in the privacy of thier home.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3229 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...