Abusive content/group/sims in Second Life

[AshaShanti]

Bree Giffen thanks - I never expected this sort of response - obviously I was not aware of rules that everyone else knew much better since the others spend more time on this forum. 
I must have triggered the people - which was not my intention - I appreciate all those that answered me calmly. Clearly mentioning this topic was a nono - whoever got hurt in the process - I apologise. 

[LittleMe Jewell]

23 minutes ago, AshaShanti said:

I must have triggered the people - which was not my intention - I appreciate all those that answered me calmly. Clearly mentioning this topic was a nono - whoever got hurt in the process - I apologise. 

The topic is not necessarily a nono, but we do often get people that never post in the forums coming and creating a thread to simply say that they find something morally objectionable in SL and often they want said content removed and disallowed.  You have to remember that for the most part there are no morals in SL and the only evil repulsive thing that is truly not allowed is 'a.g.e.p.l.a.y'.

Part of the problem also was that you made a few statements in your opening post that sounded like absolutes, when in fact they are simply your opinion and/or observations.  If you'd said something along the lines of "I find this repulsive/concerning/whatever - why do people do this in SL? - what are you thoughts?', it might have received different responses (maybe, anyway, no guarantees here).   

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by LittleMe Jewell

[KanryDrago]

The problem people have I suspect with your statement is the old thin end of the wedge thinking. You don't agree with whatever it was and think it should be banned. Once that happens then someone else comes along and finds something else they think should be banned and the precedent is now set. Just about any kink you can think of will have a band of morally outraged campaigners up in arms.

The acts they are rping are consensual, they are adults, no one is really being hurt.Repeated studies have found no causal links between violence in video games and real life violence. Banning it here will not stop those people having those fantasies it will just remove a safe outlet to live them out.

[AshaShanti]

Just to clarify - I have posted this in a hurry - I was a bit shocked - granted - I did not mean that only my opinion is right - even if it sounded so - which is true.

Hope this helps to clear things for everyone else as well that has been pondering these things  - all the above makes sense Kanry, and LittleMe - and I do believe that SL is a safe outlet for all sorts of things that is not acceptable in RL.

Please note - I am from Hungary and some of the things might not be as clear as can be due to English not being my home language. 

Edited November 15, 2017 by AshaShanti

[Madelaine McMasters]

Welcome to the forums, Asha!

By now you've learned we can be a rowdy bunch. You've taken it all like a trooper and I hope you stick around, though I can certainly understand if you don't. Although Alwin is grumpy, sideline IMs are often not well received. I generally use them to offer support, not to advance any point I'm trying to make.

It's not unusual for us to disagree about the lines drawn by the SL ToS, Community Standards, Content Guidelines, and Community Participation Guidelines, nor to do that with unexpected vigor. We've had some pretty animated discussions about depictions of violence (particularly against women) over the years and the most popular opinion continues to be that if it ain't real, it ain't real.

I've been watching the debate over violence in video games since I was a kid. While it has seemed to me that the US has grown more violent over those decades, the statistics are less clear. And so I find myself unable to take a firm side in the argument over whether pretending to do something makes you more or less likely to actually do it. In my own case, pretending to be an evil lesbian domme saves me from the terrible embarrassment of discovering that I'm actually crappy at it in RL. Discovering I was crappy at it in SL was survivable.

My gut feeling and the statistics do seem to correlate in showing that online anonymous social networking has coarsened our discourse. I've been witnessing that for 30 years and probably sometimes contribute to it. I'm sure you've had similar experiences.

I'm in general agreement that LL won't do anything about gore/dolcett and so it's probably best for you to gently express your disapproval for the ideology when appropriate, but not to press harder. You'll get blowback from those of us who participate in any number of behaviors frowned upon by the general public and worry that we'll be the next to go during any "moral" housecleaning.

I do hope you stick around. Though your first step into our world was perhaps a stumble, you show promise.

;-).

Edited November 16, 2017 by Madelaine McMasters

[Innula Zenovka]

11 hours ago, AshaShanti said:

I have been in SL for 10 years running various creative projects and communities, and in RL I have been running a non profit for 10 years as well - I am aware how a project can influence the minds and hearts of people and all those that decide to create a sim, project, group of any sort should be aware of their responsibilities and the influence they have on the minds of their members. 

I'd never heard of "dolcett" until I started exploring SL, and I find it impossible to take seriously -- having found some of the original comic books online, I'm convinced it was originally intended as sick humour, similar to "dead baby" jokes.   I struggle with the idea that anyone might be corrupted into eroticised cannibalism  via SL. 

Having said that, I do understand your concerns.   However, I think LL's problem is that if they start banning one sort of role-play, they'll be forever dealing with demands from different groups that other forms of RP be banned, too.   "You banned such-and-such --we want you to ban this, too, or do you think it's OK to .... ?"   

That's a conversation I certainly wouldn't want to have if I were in LL's position, and I certainly see the wisdom, from their point of view, of declining to police content unless it's a question of the criminal law of various countries where they have a large market (so, for example,  role-play involving the sexual abuse of children, or the glorification of Nazis).    

I hope you stick around, too.   

[Pamela Galli]

43 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

However, I think LL's problem is that if they start banning one sort of role-play, they'll be forever dealing with demands from different groups that other forms of RP be banned, too.   "You banned such-and-such --we want you to ban this, too, or do you think it's OK to .... ?"   

 

This.

[Pamela Galli]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Alwin is grumpy,

No he’s not.

if you squint, he can look cuddly. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

35 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

No he’s not.

if you squint, he can look cuddly. 

I'll guess Alwin would prefer to be grumpy around me rather than cuddly.

And that's just fine.

I can handle grumpy.

[Klytyna]

3 hours ago, AshaShanti said:

I must have triggered the people

We're not 'triggered, that particularly repellent excuse used by the voodoo pseudo science hobby psychologist crew...

We just don't like Self Appointed Morality Fascists Against Freedom...

Mid 1990's, Britain...

The police here mounted an operation codenamed "Spanner" against a group of gay men into the more extreme end of consensual BDSM...

The Doms were found guilty of Assault and Actual Bodily Harm, some of them got 9 years in prison.

The Subs were convicted of Aiding & Abetting Assault and ABH on themselves, some of them got 4 1/2 years in prison.

Law in Britain being largely precedent based, this set a precedent...

If you and a partner engage in spanking, and somebody's butt is still a bit red the next day, you are both guilty of Assault and Aiding & Abetting Assault... Jailable offences.

A well known body piercer was arrested, and his portfolio folder with photos of work on satisfied customers confiscated as evidence of "multiple counts of ABH", they demanded he identify the customers in the photos so THEY could be charged with Abetting ABH by paying for the piercings they'd had done, the piercer told the cops to shove off.

Now... You get any piercing because "it looks pretty" and you are legal, get one because "it feels good" and you face jail time.

Shortly after the Spanner Trials, police in Yorkshire raided a gay mans birthday party, and arrested 38 people for "intent to have illegal sex", as evidence of said "crime" they confiscated 38 pairs of leather trousers, since apparently unless you are a female fashion model or a Hells Angel, wearing leather pants is 'proof' that you intend to have kinky sex, from the men before locking them in the half dozen or so cells in the station. 

Lawyers had the men released within hours, trouserless, the cops kept those.

...

All this, because somebody who thinks the way YOU seem to, decided to order a hidiusly expensive surveillance operation and court case, against a small group ofpeople engaged in consensual adult activity behind closed doors, simply because...

"I'm a concerned citizen and I was shocked to discover that people do non-illegal things like this for fun, and I say something has to be done to stop it at once..."

We're not triggered, we're just opposing YOUR brand of clueless self important fascism.
 

[Tari Landar]

I am opposed to threads that do not give proper disclaimers in advance

 

I probably shouldn't admit that I have been laughing while reading this thread, and that I surely needed said laugh(s)

 

I'm pretty sure that makes me some kind of monster

 

Carry on folks

[Skell Dagger]

And, in case anyone thinks that Klytyna is pulling their leg over Operation Spanner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner

Quote

The resulting House of Lords case (R v Brown, colloquially known as "the Spanner case") ruled that consent was not a valid legal defence for wounding and actual bodily harm in the UK, except as a foreseeable incident of a lawful activity in which the person injured was participating, e.g. surgery.

The convictions are controversial due to issues of whether a government or one's self is justified to control one's own body in private situations where the only harm is to consenting adults.

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Skell Dagger

[Callum Meriman]

7 hours ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

Doesn't it fall under child pornography legislation?

Not in America, pixel kiddy-porn isn't illegal there, it's protected under free speech.

The justification given was the laws in Germany. And that's where it really blew up with Robin Linden having the dead fish look on Report Mainz, and the very soon after following over-reactions like banning child avatars from SL5B.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

50 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Law in Britain being largely precedent based, this set a precedent...

If you and a partner engage in spanking, and somebody's butt is still a bit red the next day, you are both guilty of Assault and Aiding & Abetting Assault... Jailable offences.

A well known body piercer was arrested, and his portfolio folder with photos of work on satisfied customers confiscated as evidence of "multiple counts of ABH", they demanded he identify the customers in the photos so THEY could be charged with Abetting ABH by paying for the piercings they'd had done, the piercer told the cops to shove off.

Now... You get any piercing because "it looks pretty" and you are legal, get one because "it feels good" and you face jail time.

I don't know if you've ever wondered why, if what you say is, in fact, the case, there are so many body-piercing salons operating perfectly openly and without any apparent interference by the police, in just every town and city in the UK.   In fact, in England and Wales (but not Scotland) body piecing is even less regulated than is tattooing, in that there's no lower legal age limit.

The law on consent to various forms of injury is, I agree, in a mess, not least because R v Brown (the "Spanner" case).   Things have, though, certainly moved on since then, most notably in R v Wilson (1996) where the Court of Appeal overturned a conviction for ABH.   Mr Wilson had been convicted -- wrongly, said the Court of Appeal -- after he had, at her request, branded his initials in his wife's buttocks.  The only accessible account of the judgment I can find online is towards the end of this article.    It concludes, 

Quote

Does public policy or the public interest demand that the appellant's activity should be visited by the sanctions of the criminal law? The majority in Brown clearly took the view that such considerations were relevant. If that is so, then we are firmly of the opinion that it is not in the public interest that activities such as the appellant's in this appeal should amount to criminal behaviour. Consensual activity between husband and wife, in the privacy of the matrimonial home, is not, in our judgment, a proper matter for criminal investigation, let alone criminal prosecution. Accordingly we take the view that the judge failed to have full regard to the facts of this case and misdirected himself in saying that Donovan and Brown constrained him to rule that consent was no defence.

In this field, in our judgment, the law should develop upon a case by case basis rather than upon general propositions to which, in the changing times in which we live, exceptions may arise from time to time not expressly covered by authority.

We shall allow the appeal and quash the conviction. We conclude this judgment by commenting that we share the judge's disquiet that the prosecuting authority thought fit to bring these proceedings. In our view they serve no useful purpose at considerable public expense. We gave the appellant leave to appeal against his sentence. Had it been necessary for us to consider sentence we would have granted the appellant an absolute discharge.

As I understand it, that's the attitude the CPS now take to consensual mild SM games -- if it amounts to no more than ABH, and it's clearly consensual, then it's not in the public interest to prosecute.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Innula Zenovka

[Klytyna]

21 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I don't know if you've ever wondered why, if what you say is, in fact, the case, there are so many body-piercing salons operating perfectly openly and without any apparent interference by the police, in just every town and city in the UK.   In fact, in England and Wales (but not Scotland) body piecing is even less regulated than is tattooing, in that there's no lower legal age limit.

The piercer in question was "Mr. Sebastian", a well known body artist in the LGBT scene, he was arrested and harassed by the police, following the whole Spanner debacle.

It's not what they managed to do to him thats worrying, it's what they TRIED to do to him, and WHY.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Oversby

Quote:  "In 1987, Alan Oversby was one of 16 men charged as a part of Operation Spanner, a series of raids that resulted in the arrest of men who were all engaged in consensual homosexual BDSM activities.[1]

Alan, like the other men, was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm for performing a genital piercing on a client. He was also charged with using anaesthetic without a licence and for sending obscene material through the post (photographs of piercings).

As the judge was not willing to take the consensuality of the participants into account, Alan pleaded guilty along with the other 15 men. He received a sentence of 15 months, which was suspended for two years."

It's also worth remembering that Spanner and it's repercussions started in Manchester, then under the authority of God's Personal Friend and Law Enforcer, 

Quote: "Anderton became known as "God's Copper" due to his views.[13] He saw the police as a means of providing moral enforcement against "social nonconformists, malingerers, idlers, parasites, spongers, frauds, cheats and unrepentant criminals", and was a vocal opponent of gay rights, feminism, pornography and those who "openly hanker[ed] after total debauchery and lewdness".[14] He attracted controversy due to a 1987 BBC Radio 4 interview, where he claimed to be used by God to speak out on moral issues." 

This was the man who created an internal culture in the GMP, that even to this day, still sees them 'win' awards for being Britains rudest and most offensive police force, when dealing with "civilians".

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Klytyna

[Innula Zenovka]

9 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

The piercer in question was "Mr. Sebastian", a well known body artist in the LGBT scene, he was arrested and harassed by the police, following the whole Spanner debacle.

It's not what they managed to do to him thats worrying, it's what they TRIED to do to him, and WHY.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Oversby

Quote:  "In 1987, Alan Oversby was one of 16 men charged as a part of Operation Spanner, a series of raids that resulted in the arrest of men who were all engaged in consensual homosexual BDSM activities.[1]

Alan, like the other men, was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm for performing a genital piercing on a client. He was also charged with using anaesthetic without a licence and for sending obscene material through the post (photographs of piercings).

As the judge was not willing to take the consensuality of the participants into account, Alan pleaded guilty along with the other 15 men. He received a sentence of 15 months, which was suspended for two years."

 

Yes, but I'm talking about things as they are now, not as they were 30 years ago.   

As I said, since R v Wilson and the Court of Appeal's strong criticism of the CPS for bringing the case in the first place (i.e for the last 20 years), the CPS, as far as I know, have taken the view that if it's clearly consensual and it doesn't amount to more than ABH, then it's not in the public interest to prosecute.

[Klytyna]

2 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Yes, but I'm talking about things as they are now, not as they were 30 years ago. 

As I said, since R v Wilson and the Court of Appeal's strong criticism of the CPS for bringing the case in the first place (i.e for the last 20 years), the CPS, as far as I know, have taken the view that if it's clearly consensual and it doesn't amount to more than ABH, then it's not in the public interest to prosecute.

Ahhhh... So we should TOLERATE these self appointed Morality Crusaders, as long as it's probable that 20 odd years down the line somebody who isn't a middle class suburban fascist, will set things aright, by suggesting the bigot laws shouldn't be enforced vigorously...

Well thats alright then isn't it...

A couple of hundred years ago, they passed a law called the "Disorderly Houses Act", based on the assumption that the only way 'common people' could afford to have fun, was if they were STEALING from their Landed Gentry masters...

The law basically made it an offence to run a pace of public entertainment where people payed money for live music, booze and fun...

The law is no longer vigorously enforced, but it's still used, when police want to shut a night club or bar...

Plain clothes coppers walk into a bar... See two men snogging in a corner...  "Ewww homos! Disorderly House Act! Bar closed, licence suspended pending a hearing" ...

Just because somebody with a brain suggests that activities that don't "amount to more than ABH" are not worth prosecuting any more, doesn't change the fact that THEY CAN IF THEY WANT TO.

There is far too much of this "discretionary law" around, you are a criminal, but you are not in jail because the cops can't be bothered busting your ass today, but tomorrow, if they are bored? Or next week when a new superior takes over and calls for a crackdown...
 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

13 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

Everything takes place in the mind. Whether it's an actual act in RL, an imagination in RL, or a simulation in SL, it's in the RL person's mind, and that is disturbing. It could be argued that simulating it relieves the RL impulse and prevents it from happening in RL. It could also be argued that simulating it could fuel the impulse, leading to doing it in RL. The people simulating such acts may be doing it just for a laugh, or they may truly want to actually do such things. There are many realities concerning it.

On the whole, I agree with the OP that such things ought not to be allowed in SL, whether or not it's just for a laugh. They are evil.

So, Anthony Hopkins secretly wanted to eat people when he was "roleplaying" IE acting as Hannibal Lecter?  What about the vampire sims where people are used a blood bags? Where do we draw the line? How far does LL have to police SL and control our Second Lives? They have posted what is and is not allowed. End of discussion. 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

1 hour ago, Callum Meriman said:

Not in America, pixel kiddy-porn isn't illegal there, it's protected under free speech.

Not actually true anymore.. The PROTECT Act does indeed list digital versions of child porn as being illegal. 

Section 1466A prohibits images of minors that are “obscene,” regardless of whether the children are real and regardless of what form of media, whether it be drawings, paintings,  sculptures, etcetera, and punishes those who violate the statute as if they had been convicted of a child pornography crime.65 Correspondingly, 18 U.S.C. §1462 prohibits the
transportation of such materials as described in §1466A.

1466A (“Any person who . . . 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 *****, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, *****-genital, or oral-*****, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value . . . shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)

Here is where you will find the info.. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A

Personally, I am glad they are cracking down on this. 

[Innula Zenovka]

1 hour ago, Klytyna said:

Ahhhh... So we should TOLERATE these self appointed Morality Crusaders, as long as it's probable that 20 odd years down the line somebody who isn't a middle class suburban fascist, will set things aright, by suggesting the bigot laws shouldn't be enforced vigorously...

Well thats alright then isn't it...

A couple of hundred years ago, they passed a law called the "Disorderly Houses Act", based on the assumption that the only way 'common people' could afford to have fun, was if they were STEALING from their Landed Gentry masters...

The law basically made it an offence to run a pace of public entertainment where people payed money for live music, booze and fun...

The law is no longer vigorously enforced, but it's still used, when police want to shut a night club or bar...

Plain clothes coppers walk into a bar... See two men snogging in a corner...  "Ewww homos! Disorderly House Act! Bar closed, licence suspended pending a hearing" ...

Just because somebody with a brain suggests that activities that don't "amount to more than ABH" are not worth prosecuting any more, doesn't change the fact that THEY CAN IF THEY WANT TO.

There is far too much of this "discretionary law" around, you are a criminal, but you are not in jail because the cops can't be bothered busting your ass today, but tomorrow, if they are bored? Or next week when a new superior takes over and calls for a crackdown...
 

I thought the last provision left of the Disorderly Houses Act 1751 was repealed in 2008, but maybe you mean  something different.   Keeping a disorderly house is still a common law offence but the only times I've heard of successful prosecutions involving "disorderly houses" it's involved brothel-keeping.    I've never heard of it being used in circumstances such as you describe -- given the Court of Appeal's reaction in R v Court I can't imagine the case would get very far.

You are, I think, mistaken in your understanding of how all this works.   To  return to the question of consensual SM, if the CPS for some reason tried to prosecute in a case where the injuries amounted to no more than ABH, then the defence would make a submission to the effect that, following R v Wilson, there was no case to answer, and it's hard to see how the court could disagree.    It's not a matter of "discretionary law."   Judges don't have discretion about whether they apply Court of Appeal rulings.  The only way the case could go anywhere would be if the prosecution said there was something to differentiate it from R v Wilson.    

 

[AshaShanti]

.

Edited November 16, 2017 by AshaShanti

[Anna Nova]

23 hours ago, AshaShanti said:

Well how about this : 

"So don't go there.  Better still, go away." just scroll up to see it. 

Anyways mine is but one out of the billions of voices. Still I am sad that people glorify hanging, beheading, cooking, and killing people in the most horrific ways - even if it is within a game - given especially today's world. This is merely my opinion like it or not. 

That is all I had to say about this. I could have just kept quiet - but decided I would have to make this point - and got my answers. Thanks all.

 

I apologise for telling you to go away.  You are entitled to your opinion.

For the record: although SL is not RL, this forum is.  So I was wrong to insult you here.

[Klytyna]

10 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

You are, I think, mistaken in your understanding of how all this works.

Innula, YOU are the one mistaken about a great many things...

You confuse "records I can find on the web regarding successful prosecutions and CPS suggested protocol" with what actually happens out in the real world to real people.

The police regularly used the Disorderly House Act to harass people, the examp-le of two gay men snogging in a club, wasn't fictional, that happened to a club in Putney, back in 94, the venue was closed pending restoration of its licence, which not only closed the gay night, but also closed all the other nights that various promoters had booked in that venue, including a small Fetish club.

"Discretionary Laws" where the police are told they don't HAVE to enforce them because the cost isn't worth the benefits to the "Public Interest", are a bloody nightmare.

Case: Woman standing outside a bar, waiting for her boyfriend to show up, he is 15 min's late, two police officers decide to use some of that "Discretionary Law", and walk over, they arrest her for "soliciting for prostitution", despite the fact its bloody obvious shes not a hooker.

As supporting "evidence" of her crime, a search of her handbag revealed she had THREE condoms... Never mind that the bloody things just happen to be sold in 3's...

She was stuffed into a van, taken to a police station, deprived of personal articles she might use to hang her self with (belts etc. ) and kept in the cells for some hours, then released without being charged or prosecuted.

...

Discretionary Laws... Only an idiot would think they serve the "Public Interest" but instead of repealing them you just tell the cops not to bother submitting actual prosecutions, what the cops use the laws for other than that isn't deemed important.

You keep going on about the Wilson Case... And keep ignoring the Brown case.

FACT... in the HETRO ABH cases, the 'victims' were never arrested let alone charged, but in the NON-HETRO case they arrestedf and charged the 'victims' with aiding  & abetting.

10-11 years ago, the Brown case was mentioned and used as justification of the new "extreme porn" laws, as a reason to make it illegal to make or possess pictures of supposedly "legal consensual activity", because the Brown ruling makes Kinky Sex ABH illegal, even if the CPS suggests not prosecuting for it, after the Wilson case.

So the appeals courts... Haha oh yes loads of fun.

Wilson got away with it because he and his 'victim' were hetro married people, and consensual marital activities didn't concern the courts, however one of the comments in the rejected appeals in the Spanner case was that the participants were not entitled to claim that special "decent married folk" right to do what they liked in their bedroom...

Quote: "Lord Templeman stated:

It is not clear to me that the activities of the appellants were exercises of rights in respect of private and family life. "

10 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

The only way the case could go anywhere would be if the prosecution said there was something to differentiate it from R v Wilson.

Apparently, the Law Lords, have, it's called "Being part of a cultural minority".

 

[Innula Zenovka]

@Klytyna 

You said, 

Quote

A couple of hundred years ago, they passed a law called the "Disorderly Houses Act", based on the assumption that the only way 'common people' could afford to have fun, was if they were STEALING from their Landed Gentry masters...

The law basically made it an offence to run a pace of public entertainment where people payed money for live music, booze and fun...

The law is no longer vigorously enforced, but it's still used, when police want to shut a night club or bar...

I pointed out that the last surviving clause of the Disorderly Houses Act 1751 was repealed in 2008.   So no matter how it was used in 1994, 23 years ago, it's no longer on the statute book to be thus used.

Similarly, you say that I "keep going on about the Wilson Case... And keep ignoring the Brown case".   That's because R v Wilson was decided after R v Brown and, as you yourself pointed out, "Law in Britain being largely precedent based, this set a precedent...".    You started by saying that body piercing is illegal in the UK, despite the fact that there are body piercing salons operating openly in virtually every town in the country, and said this was because of R v Brown.   I was simply pointing out that this was not the case, primarily because of R v Wilson. 

The issue in R v Brown was whether consent is a defence to a charge of ABH.   The Law Lords, as then they were, said it isn't, or not in all circumstances, and it didn't apply in  the circumstances in R v Brown.   This was later upheld by the European Court of Human Rights.   R v Wilson is important because it says that, R v Brown notwithstanding, consent is still a defence in certain circumstances, and consensual body modification in the form of branding is one of them.   

That's why, R v Brown notwithstanding,  getting a piercing, or giving someone one (so long as that person consents) isn't unlawful, contrary to whatever you may have been told.

Furthermore, to broaden the discussion into the legal status of consensual BDSM,  as a result of R v Wilson and Lord Justice Russell's observation that the court shared "the judge's disquiet that the prosecuting authority thought fit to bring these proceedings. In our view they serve no useful purpose at considerable public expense. We gave the appellant leave to appeal against his sentence. Had it been necessary for us to consider sentence we would have granted the appellant an absolute discharge", prosecutors have, as far as I know,  taken the view that the judgement means that mild consensual BDSM, between consenting adults of whatever gender, sexual orientation and marital status, is not unlawful so long as it takes place in private and doesn't result in serious injury.   

So your warning that "If you and a partner engage in spanking, and somebody's butt is still a bit red the next day, you are both guilty of Assault and Aiding & Abetting Assault... Jailable offences" seems to me inaccurate.   Can you point me to an occasion when such a prosecution involving two people acting consensually in private has taken place in the last 20 years in the mainland UK?    

If the circumstances of R v Brown arose again, then quite possibly there would be a prosecution.    It would then be very interesting to see what happened in the Supreme Court, since attitudes have changed greatly over the last 30 years (a generation, literally).   That's the way law has to work, unless you're saying that Parliament should intervene.    That, I think, would probably simply confuse matters, since the statute would still have to say when consent was a defence and when it wasn't, and you'd always have circumstances arising that parliament had never considered.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here.   All I'm concerned to do is try to correct what seem to me a couple of factual mistakes you've made in an area about which I happen to know something.  

 

[AshaShanti]

Well in the meantime I have had some discussions on this topic - including those managing the sim, and various other groups of people. Since I am not into anything relating to bdsm - I had no clue this existed and is called snuff or dulcet.

My problem at this point is not anymore with this kink - but with those that think it is ok to call someone a fascist on this forum and all sorts of other terms that have nothing to do with me - and with those that are clapping along and adding fun smileys to these posts, and those that say - I am here for the drama - and with the moderators that look on. 

Please refrain from calling each other these sort of names - or at least I would ask a moderator to say a few words on this. 

Everyone else I talked to about this topic in SL in world had no problems and never called me names in fact noone has ever called me names in general.

To those that was trying to keep a balance and sent info - thanks - I now know what is going on with this kink or at least have some ideas. 

I also appreciate those that apologised.

Edited November 16, 2017 by AshaShanti