We log all your private messages, and we will use them against you, in real life.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

) trolls - when being gratuitously mean and nasty - are just mean and nasty people but can, as recent news attests, really hurt people.]

 

---

Did you see that in the most recent high profile widely publicised case of supposed internet "bullying" in the UK, which allegedly led to the suicide of the "victim", it was the "victim" herself who instigated and posted 98% of the trolling posts?

I guess she, like most attempted suicides, just wanted attention.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

) trolls - when being gratuitously mean and nasty - are just mean and nasty people but can, as recent news attests, really hurt people.]

 

---

Did you see that in the most recent high profile widely publicised case of supposed internet "bullying" in the UK, which allegedly led to the suicide of the "victim", it was the "victim" herself who instigated and posted 98% of the trolling posts?

I guess she, like most attempted suicides, just wanted attention.

---

Sadly, in Hannah's case, it was not just an attempt.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Malanya wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

Age Play is a form of roleplaying in which an individual acts or treats another as if they were a different age

.

The practice can be regressive, in which the goal is to re-experience childhood, or sexual, recreating a sexual relationship with people of the pretend or true ages.

Generally this can involve someone pretending to be younger than they actually are, but can also involve assuming an older role

. Age play can also involve incestual roleplay.

Youth oriented ageplay does NOT attempt to simulate pedophilia, but rather is intended to highlight emotional associations held with different ages.

Sexual ageplay itself does not involve the sexual attraction to biologically underage people. Rather, when a consenting adult takes on the roleplaying mindset of a young person,

it is motivated by re-experiencing emotional states and social interactions of one's youth, which also happen to be pleasurable in a sexual context to the participants.

Pedophilia is the act of having sex with or desiring to have sex with children. Two totally different things.

If my partner in SL dresses like a school girl and calls me "daddy" is that breaking the age play policy? I hope not.

---

I highlighted your words that really stuck out. If you read what I bolded then read your last statement, yeah, if your partner in SL is calling you *Daddy* and dresses like a scool girl, I think it's walking a thin line.

I know about D/s relationsships so please don't imply that calling you Daddy has something to do with that.

I would think that anyone calling their partner Daddy has some real issues and I am certainly surprised, just by knowing what I do of you from your posting history that you defend that.

I haven't posted in awhile but this post I felt I had to reply to.

---

I'm not implying that .. i am stating that. So you are saying that a Daddy Dom/ Babygirl relationship isn't relevant? or that there is no such thing?

its all about the visuals in SL. If two adult avs are in a Daddy Dom/ babygirl or Mommy Domme/Babyboy relationship, where is the law breaking?

---

I'm not very knowledgeable about what goes on in straight D/s relationships, though I can't help but think it's not that different than in gay ones where there is the Daddy/Son dynamic. This differs from the Master/Slave dynamic such that it implies a different level and/or type of control.  Sometimes the daddy is older than the son, sometimes they're not... it's really about taking on the rolls and usually (but not always) has nothing to do with any incestuous connotations.

I think the issue with this sort of thing happening in SL has more to do with some people's difficulty telling the difference between an adult avatar rollplaying the dynamic of a child and an actual child avatar.  That's where the line may start appearing to be thin, especially if one avatar looks younger or smaller than the other and the person observing this is paranoid about sexual ageplay, which many people are.

...Dres

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

) trolls - when being gratuitously mean and nasty - are just mean and nasty people but can, as recent news attests, really hurt people.]

 

---

Did you see that in the most recent high profile widely publicised case of supposed internet "bullying" in the UK, which allegedly led to the suicide of the "victim", it was the "victim" herself who instigated and posted 98% of the trolling posts?

I guess she, like most attempted suicides, just wanted attention.

---

No, I didn't see that.   

I did, however, see reports on the lines that

---

A source at the firm based in Riga, Latvia, said: ‘With the Hannah case, the company have looked at every identity – the [computer] IP addresses are trackable. She posted the anonymous things herself.'

---

I'm sorry, but I don't really regard simple denials by a company of wrongdoing or culpability as any sort of proof, even when they actually put up a named spokesperson to issue them.     I would rather await the outcome of a proper independent investigation rather than rely on the company having some anonymous stooge say, "ask.fm has looked into the matter and finds its conduct can't be criticised in any way, and particularly not in any way that might get it sued".   

(I'm a horrid old cynic, I know).

[SpiritSparrow Skydancer]

---

khonsuu wrote:

So Linden Labs not only logs all your private correspondance in-world,  they also reserve the right to chase you down in the real world, and use those logs against your real person in your real life.  How do I know this?  Because they say it explicitly in the Privacy Policy and the Terms Of Service,  both of which can be found in the black bar at the bottom of the page you are viewing right now. 

 

The relevant sections you may have overlooked,

 

http://lindenlab.com/privacy

Section 1.

_Types of Information We Collect_ Information sent either one-to-one or within a limited group using our message, chat, post or similar functionality, where we are permitted by law to collect this information.

 

 

Translation:

"We log everything you type into Second Life. Even 1-to-1 private messages. We are watching all the time."

 

 

http://lindenlab.com/tos

6.3.(viii)

 

You understand and agree that we may report any and all such incidents -- and any and all of your corresponding personal information -- to any authorities we deem appropriate, whether or not it in and of itself violates the law of your (or any) jurisdiction.

 

 

Translation:

"In addition to banning your account, we will chase you down in real life and make sure you suffer there too. Remember all those private chat logs we stored from earlier? Yeah, we will use those against you."

 

Is this a threat?  Why yes. I do beleive it is a threat.  I wholey respect and completley appreciate Linden's decision to remove someone permanently from their service. By all means, use whatever corporate decisions you deem necessary to ban a person grid-wide and lock out their entire account on the website. Such  actions do not bother me an iota.  That behavior wouldn't move a hair on my head.  I'd forget about it 20 minutes later.  However, to chase someone down in real life? No. I think that's different. I think that crosses a line. 

Your thoughts?

---

 I'm sorry what part of nothing is private on the internet don't you understand??

[PeterCanessa Oh]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

...

Did you see that in the most recent high profile widely publicised case of supposed internet "bullying" in the UK, ..

.

---

Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't seen it myself.  To be honest I only half listened to the whole story, regarding most of it as journalists and politicians jumping on the drama-queen bandwagon, desperate to find something to be outraged about without having to do any working or thinking.  Since they, and their audiences, don't understand all this internet stuff but terrible things are being done it provides a nice, handy 'other' for them to blame for everything, file a 5s "terribly concerned" sound-bite and then move on to the next outrageous  subject.

Trolls want drama, journalists want to write about drama, politicians want to (be seen to) respond to drama - all working on the same side.  Hmmm - correction to my list of 'criminals'; journalists and politicians to the head of the queue.

[khonsuu]

NEWS FLASH --  Sexual age play in a pixel world with pixel characters is a not a crime in the real world.   Several people who have submitted to this thread are equivocating it with mail fraud and money laundering.  Many of you should already be aware that the age play sections were actually referred to as Community Standards for more than 2 years in the TOS.  Then some of you have started to play this off as an  "obligation" to report a cyber crime.  I suggest you re-read the relevant section. The word "obligated" appears no where in either document. The word "obligation" does not appear in either document.

However the phrase "we deem appropriate" appears.  "We deem appropriate" is not in any way related to an obligation.  Deeming appropriateness is certainly not being obliged to do something! 

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

pixelated sexual play with a pixel child is against US federal law and is considered a sex crime.

[khonsuu]

A couple of these replies are quite shocking.  

 

"If you don't like it, unplug" 

 

and the other one: 

 

"If this really bothers you, delete your account."

 

These are two people who are in complete agreement with my assessment of this TOS and privacy rights sections as being  THREATS.  As far as I can tell, they agree that this is a THREAT to come after you IN REAL LIFE.   Neither person is disagreeing with the factual claims I made. Instead they seem to be re-iterating and re-freshing the threat itself.

 

So there is confusion,  I am presenting a principled point here.  To communicate this point, I will repeat and emphasize several things I've already said. There is a huge yawning gulf between (1.) banning someone from an internet service,  versus this other thing where you (2.)  collect all their personal data into a pile and come chasing after them in real life to get a pound of flesh.  There is a line there. And that is my principled reasoning.  I don't see anyone else seemingly noticing or reflecting on this particular point.

Again, if  Linden Labs wants to work closely with their partners at the Conservative Christian Coalition, and then "clean up" their service in a way they "deem appropriate" -- I perfectly respect and honor and understand that decision.  If they find a reason to ban me grid-wide and block my IP off all their services and websites, I perfectly respect and understand that.  And if they want to spy on me everywhere on the grid, fine.  That's their corporate decision.  I might feel frustrated or let down for a few minutes, but generally not a hair on my arm would be moved.

But to chase me down in real life, and to come after my real life. That's different.  That's not right.  That is not something I will not take sitting down. I don't agree with it. I don't appreciate the threat.  I don't consider it something I can learn to get over.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

khonsuu wrote:

NEWS FLASH --  Sexual age play in a pixel world with pixel characters is a not a crime in the real world.   Several people who have submitted to this thread are equivocating it with mail fraud and money laundering.  Many of you should already be aware that the age play sections were actually referred to as

Community Standards

for more than 2 years in the TOS.  Then some of you have started to play this off as an  "obligation" to report a cyber crime.  I suggest you re-read the relevant section. The word "obligated" appears no where in either document. The word "obligation" does not appear in either document.

However the phrase

"we deem appropriate"

appears. 

"We deem appropriate"

is not in any way related to an obligation.  Deeming appropriateness is certainly not being obliged to do something! 

 

---

it depends on if it is found to be obscene or not that determines if it is legal age play or not in the U.S...

that is if you are talking about child avatars..

ETA: Oops forgot .there has to be a minor involved as well hehehehe

i don't think there is just for two adults doing that..

but some countries that LL deals with..they look at it as the same..nomatter if they are adults or not..

 

 

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

pixelated sexual play with a pixel child is against US federal law and is considered a sex crime.

---

Sorry Drake, but that is not necessarily true.

I'm not going to copy the whole wiki on this, but there is a good overview in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States

I am surprised that Germany is not mentioned on that page but also see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornography_laws_by_country#Germany

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

khonsuu wrote:

NEWS FLASH --  Sexual age play in a pixel world with pixel characters is a not a crime in the real world.   Several people who have submitted to this thread are equivocating it with mail fraud and money laundering.  Many of you should already be aware that the age play sections were actually referred to as

Community Standards

for more than 2 years in the TOS.  Then some of you have started to play this off as an  "obligation" to report a cyber crime.  I suggest you re-read the relevant section. The word "obligated" appears no where in either document. The word "obligation" does not appear in either document.

However the phrase

"we deem appropriate"

appears. 

"We deem appropriate"

is not in any way related to an obligation.  Deeming appropriateness is certainly not being obliged to do something! 

 

---

it depends on if it is found to be obscene or not that determines if it is legal age play or not in the U.S...

that is if you are talking about child avatars..

ETA: Oops forgot .there has to be a minor involved as well hehehehe

i don't think there is just for two adults doing that..

but some countries that LL deals with..they look at it as the same..nomatter if they are adults or not..

 

 

 

---

Back when this thread was started it reminded me of a concept that I had not thought about in ages and had started looking at, "Accessory After The Fact."

Somewhere along the line I had gotten the idea (had been taught perhaps) that if you had knowledge of a felony and failed to report it that you could be charged as an accessory after the fact.

Personally, I really do not know enough to talk about it.  Here are two links for a brief overview.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3

http://voices.yahoo.com/what-makes-person-accessory-after-fact-4869966.html

Additional reading told me that different states had different specifics.

I do think it would be a given that IF Linden Lab knew a felony was being committed and took no steps (i.e., banning the account/person involved), that they could be considered an accessory after the fact.  One thing I am certain of is that Linden Lab is going to act in their best interests in these matters.  But still I just don't know or understand enough here about the laws.

One thing I am sure of, if I somehow came to know someone I knew had committed a felony, I am sure as heck going to be talking to a Lawyer.

[khonsuu]

I'm beginning to see some slight disagreements between what is on the front portion of the TOS versus what is contained in the wiki pages.  I'm referring to the Official Policies wiki, linked below.  The pink warning stamp seems to refer actual minor children being participants.

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Policies

 

 

 

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

From the 2003 PROTECT Act.

 

Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, **bleep**-genital, or oral-**bleep**, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

 

---

khonsuu wrote:

I'm beginning to see some slight disagreements between what is on the front portion of the TOS versus what is contained in the wiki pages.  I'm referring to the Official Policies wiki, linked below.  The pink warning stamp seems to refer actual minor children being participants.

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Policies

 

 

 

 

---

 

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.

 

i dont see how that is vague or referring to RL children...

 

ETA.. stop IMing me and sending friend requests to argue..

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

khonsuu wrote:

A couple of these replies are quite shocking.  

 

"If you don't like it, unplug" 

 and the other one: 

 

"If this really bothers you, delete your account."

These are two people who are in complete agreement with my assessment of this TOS and privacy rights sections as being  THREATS.  As far as I can tell, they agree that this is a THREAT to come after you IN REAL LIFE.   Neither person is disagreeing with the factual claims I made. Instead they seem to be re-iterating and re-freshing the threat itself.

---

As "the other one" (am I in fact "the other one"?), I'll thank you not to speak for me when you say that I'm "in complete agreement with [your] assessment of this TOS and privacy rights sections as being  THREATS."

I said nothing of the sort. All I said was that if you're not comfortable ticking off the box saying that you accept the TOS, then don't; delete your account instead. YOUR choice.

On the other hand, having read quite a few Terms of Service and Privacy Policies across the net, maybe it WOULD be better for you to just unplug yourself.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

khonsuu wrote:

NEWS FLASH --  Sexual age play in a pixel world with pixel characters is a not a crime in the real world.   Several people who have submitted to this thread are equivocating it with mail fraud and money laundering.  Many of you should already be aware that the age play sections were actually referred to as

Community Standards

for more than 2 years in the TOS.  Then some of you have started to play this off as an  "obligation" to report a cyber crime.  I suggest you re-read the relevant section. The word "obligated" appears no where in either document. The word "obligation" does not appear in either document.

However the phrase

"we deem appropriate"

appears. 

"We deem appropriate"

is not in any way related to an obligation.  Deeming appropriateness is certainly not being obliged to do something! 

 

---

it depends on if it is found to be obscene or not that determines if it is legal age play or not in the U.S...

that is if you are talking about child avatars..

ETA: Oops forgot .there has to be a minor involved as well hehehehe

i don't think there is just for two adults doing that..

but some countries that LL deals with..they look at it as the same..nomatter if they are adults or not..

 

 

 

---

Back when this thread was started it reminded me of a concept that I had not thought about in ages and had started looking at, "Accessory After The Fact."

Somewhere along the line I had gotten the idea (had been taught perhaps) that if you had knowledge of a felony and failed to report it that you could be charged as an accessory after the fact.

Personally, I really do not know enough to talk about it.  Here are two links for a brief overview.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3

http://voices.yahoo.com/what-makes-person-accessory-after-fact-4869966.html

Additional reading told me that different states had different specifics.

I do think it would be a given that IF Linden Lab knew a felony was being committed and took no steps (i.e., banning the account/person involved), that they could be considered an accessory after the fact.  One thing I am certain of is that Linden Lab is going to act in their best interests in these matters.  But still I just don't know or understand enough here about the laws.

One thing I am sure of, if I somehow came to know someone I knew had committed a felony, I am sure as heck going to be talking to a Lawyer.

---

well ya that is true..not just with felonies..

 

this is why someone could get into trouble if they had knowledge of a minor on the adult grid but did nothing about it ..then somehow that came back on them..

i remember that from all the teen merger fear threads hehehe

[Perrie Juran]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

From the 2003

PROTECT Act

.

 

Sec. 1466A.

Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–

(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

(B) is obscene; or

(2)(A)

depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in

graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse,

or sexual intercourse

, including genital-genital, oral-genital, **bleep**-genital, or oral-**bleep**, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

---

My bad, you are correct.  I hadn't read clearly what you originally wrote.  I was thinking too much about the topic in general.  A person would be hard pressed to prove that it had any 'artistic value,' a part of the 'test' whether the depiction was wrong or not.