Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2630 days.

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

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone, I'm very new to SL, but I had an expereince that left me feeling very concerned.  

I went to an adult location, I'm totally fine with adult content.  The Sim had a "gay museum" so I thought I'd take a look, since I'm a lesbian I was hoping to find something intersting.  Turns out it was just gay as in guy on guy, but whatever.  

What freaked me out was that the museum was filled with real life photographs.  But some of the boys in these photographs looked really, really young.  I'd put them at around 14 or 15 years old.  

I've met a twinky man or two in my day, but these boys didn't just look twinky, they looked like kids.  

I got so freaked out that I immediatly left the Sim.  

I guess now I just don't really know what to do?  Is this something that I should contact the people in charge about?  And if I should, how would I go about that? Is there a way for the people in charge to monitor if child porn gets put in a sim?  I mean, there are so many sims and SL is user based creations... It got me to thinking that if someone wanted to they could easily slip some kiddie porn in there.  I don't want any part of that!  

The reason I'm writing this is because I really don't know what to do.  I don't even know if they were actually teens, they just looked so incredibly young.  I wish there was something stating that they were all over 18 years old to put my mind at ease.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

As always there is the question: was it porn or just nude photos? Was it porn or art? Where I come from it's perfectly legal to portray naked persons of any age and to publicly display those images with their (or their parents if under 18) permission. Since you said yourself it was a museum, not a sex shop, I can see nothing wrong with those pictures ... as long as they aren't doing "it". Because only that would qualify them as porn.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Orca Flotta wrote:

As always there is the question: was it porn or just nude photos? Was it porn or art? Where I come from it's perfectly legal to portray naked persons of any age and to publicly display those images with their (or their parents if under 18) permission. Since you said yourself it was a museum, not a sex shop, I can see nothing wrong with those pictures ... as long as they aren't doing "it". Because only that would qualify them as porn.

 

Regardless of whether those photographs are "porn," in many places they would still be illegal if they are of minors and still would constitute a violation of the TOS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Orca Flotta wrote:

Where I come from it's perfectly legal to portray naked persons of any age and to publicly display those images with their (or their parents if under 18) permission. Since you said yourself it was a museum, not a sex shop, I can see nothing wrong with those pictures ... as long as they aren't doing "it". Because only that would qualify them as porn.

 

But LLs is in the USA, where there are no exceptions for any photo of a person under the age of 18.

Got Baby pictures? Welcome to San Quentin.

Visit a nude beach and a minor is there and unclothed? Welcome to San Quentin.

Photographed yourself on your cellphone while under 18? Welcome to San Quentin.

Saw it on the interwebz by accident, even by force (an involuntary popup)? Welcome to San Quentin.

You're the Linden employee investigating the AR? Welcome to San Quentin.

Looked at 'photos of Alice' (the girl from Alice in Wonderland) in the Library of Congress? Welcome to San Quentin.

Accidentally saw it on the interwebz, and reported it? Welcome to San Quentin.

You're the cop investigating the existence of the image and you see the evidence? Welcome to San Quentin.

You're on the jury trying that cop? Welcome to San Quentin.

You're the judge admitting that evidence into the case? Welcome to San Quentin.

 

 

Its just a flat out absolute crime with no 'intent' or mental elements at all.

Normally crimes in the USA that have no mens-rea element are misdemeanors involving fines. But this one is a rock solid felony with a lifetime scarlet letter.

Now at trial judges are ignoring a lot of this and applying reasonability standards... but at statute - there is no mens rea element and even being the person who reports the crime is a violation of the statute if you happened to see the evidence for even an intant.

 

In other words... OP is guilty of a felony in the USA.

 

Now you try being the politican that "Willie Hortons" that crime... Or the judge in a district where judges are elected that uses "reasonable" standards.

- Yeah, end of career. Because THE CHILDREN!

Statutes should not be written by people lacking a basic education after an era of paranoia and rampant Fox News broadcasting - but they are...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Orca Flotta wrote:

Hm, this San Quentin you're talkin' about seems to be a very nice place. Lots of innocent people there. :smileyhappy:

I think they'd all agree with you. ;)

 

On a side note, I don't know if it is still common usage, but when I was younger,  girls under the age of consent were referred to as San Quentin Quail.  To quote from a song:

"The Judge says the limit on San Quentin Quail is none" - Carl Knight

 

eta:gah, horrible grammar!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:


Orca Flotta wrote:

Where I come from it's perfectly legal to portray naked persons of any age and to publicly display those images with their (or their parents if under 18) permission. Since you said yourself it was a museum, not a sex shop, I can see nothing wrong with those pictures ... as long as they aren't doing "it". Because only that would qualify them as porn.

 

But LLs is in the USA, where there are no exceptions for any photo of a person under the age of 18.

Got Baby pictures? Welcome to San Quentin.

Visit a nude beach and a minor is there and unclothed?
 Welcome to San Quentin.

Photographed yourself on your cellphone while under 18?
 Welcome to San Quentin.

Saw it on the interwebz by accident, even by force (an involuntary popup)?
 Welcome to San Quentin.

You're the Linden employee investigating the AR?
 Welcome to San Quentin.

Looked at 'photos of Alice' (the girl from Alice in Wonderland) in the Library of Congress?
 Welcome to San Quentin.

Accidentally saw it on the interwebz, and reported it?
 Welcome to San Quentin.

You're the cop investigating the existence of the image and you see the evidence?
 Welcome to San Quentin.

You're on the jury trying that cop?
 Welcome to San Quentin.

You're the judge admitting that evidence into the case?
 Welcome to San Quentin.

 

 

Its just a flat out absolute crime with no 'intent' or mental elements at all.

Normally crimes in the USA that have no mens-rea element are misdemeanors involving fines. But this one is a rock solid felony with a lifetime scarlet letter.

Now at trial judges are ignoring a lot of this and applying reasonability standards... but at statute - there is no mens rea element and even being the person who reports the crime is a violation of the statute if you happened to see the evidence for even an intant.

 

In other words... OP is guilty of a felony in the USA.

 

Now you try being the politican that "Willie Hortons" that crime... Or the judge in a district where judges are elected that uses "reasonable" standards.

- Yeah, end of career. Because THE CHILDREN!

Statutes should not be written by people lacking a basic education after an era of paranoia and rampant Fox News broadcasting - but they are...

 

Pussycat, you've just posted a bunch of nonsense..  Come on, try to stick to facts, and not hyperbole.

 

Try posting facts, and not prejudices.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Orca Flotta wrote:

Hm, this San Quentin you're talkin' about seems to be a very nice place. Lots of innocent people there. :smileyhappy:

US criminal justice system is justice, but it certainly is criminal.

"Tough on crime" paranoia has created a lot of very bad laws - which gives DAs authority to go after pretty much anyone not from a race or class the media will notice or lawyers can be paid for.

 And yes, there is NO mens rea element to 'child porn' statutes in a number if not most places. No need for intent or awareness - just technical guilt or not guilt.

 


LailaLeth wrote:

You either have no idea what you're talking about, or you're very bitter for being a pedophile.  Not sure, but what you just posted was a bunch of rubbish and not factual at all.  

One reason flawed or draconian laws don't get fixed is foolish people who claim that anyone who disgarees with them must be somehow guilty of them...

We're seeing that a lot these days in comments about privacy, NSA overreach, Snowden, etc...

- Same kind of paranoid thinking, different subject area of 'justice'.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, and anyone trying to get laws about child porn (or indeed anything related to child abuse) or racial discrimination more sensible commits political suicide.

His/her opponents in the next election cycle will blast the voters with messages about how candidate XXX is "not tough on child abuse" and "wants to give sexual predators a free ride", ending with "vote for me, it's FOR THE CHILDREN".

As a result 7 year old kids end up on the "sex offenders' registry" for going behind a tree to pee when they can't hold it any longer, or for kissing each other in the school yard.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:



LailaLeth wrote:

You either have no idea what you're talking about, or you're very bitter for being a pedophile.  Not sure, but what you just posted was a bunch of rubbish and not factual at all.  

One reason flawed or draconian laws don't get fixed is foolish people who claim that anyone who disgarees with them must be somehow guilty of them...

We're seeing that a lot these days in comments about privacy, NSA overreach, Snowden, etc...

- Same kind of paranoid thinking, different subject area of 'justice'.

One reason flawed or draconian laws don't get fixed is foolish people who claim that anyone who votes Libertarian is evil.

- Same kind of paranoid thinking. Start voting Libertarian, and positive change will happen.  *smiles*

Link to post
Share on other sites


honerken wrote:

Who wants to bet that these pictures were men that looked young? I can't count the number of times that people though I was 14 when I'm in my 20s.

I'm not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, if the age of the models isn't known (which means knowing their identity), then their age becomes a factual question for the jury to decide based on the evidence before it (the pictures, in other words).   So if the model looks 14 in the photograph, it's very likely that's what a jury will decide he is.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:


honerken wrote:

Who wants to bet that these pictures were men that looked young? I can't count the number of times that people though I was 14 when I'm in my 20s.

I'm not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, if the age of the models isn't known (which means knowing their identity), then their age becomes a factual question for the jury to decide based on the evidence before it (the pictures, in other words).   So if the model looks 14 in the photograph, it's very likely that's what a jury will decide he is.

Interesting.  I'm not sure how it would work here if we were talking about mere possession of an image.  Innocent until proven guilty seems to get thrown out in these cases.  But there was the R Kelly Pornography Case where he was found not guilty because the Prosecutors never proved the identity (and hence age) of the girl in the videos.

On the other hand though, (legal) pornographers and those who distribute the materials are required by law, the 2257 Regulations, to maintain strict records proving legal age (18) of all the models, actors, etc.  A Prosecutor might consider whoever is displaying those pictures a 'distributor' and conceivably try to prosecute under the 2257 Regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those 2257 regulations don't cut a lot of ice here in the UK.

Unless the defendant wants to obtain copies of these purported records proving legal age and put the in as evidence, all we're left with is a statement on the distributor's website that these records exist.  That can be put before the jury, certainly, but they'll probably not put much weight on it without seeing copies of the records themselves.

In practice, in the UK, if the age of the models is unknown, we tend not to prosecute unless the police and prosecutors agree they don't look much over 14 or 15, if that.   It's still up to the jury, of course, but since the jury have to be sure the models are under 18, we try to avoid bringing cases where they're likely to be unsure.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

Those 2257 regulations don't cut a lot of ice here in the UK.

Unless the defendant wants to obtain copies of these purported records proving legal age and put the in as evidence, all we're left with is a statement on the distributor's website that these records exist.  That can be put before the jury, certainly, but they'll probably not put much weight on it without seeing copies of the records themselves.

In practice, in the UK, if the age of the models is unknown, we tend not to prosecute unless the police and prosecutors agree they don't look much over 14 or 15, if that.   It's still up to the jury, of course, but since the jury have to be sure the models are under 18, we try to avoid bringing cases where they're likely to be unsure.

It's certainly not the kind of legal mess I would want to find myself entangled in.

But if I were to find myself in Court over something like this I'd certainly want those records and I bet a lot of pornographers would gladly supply them to help an accused person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2630 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
×
×
  • Create New...