Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 266 days.

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

the Miller Test, so-named for the court case Miller v. California. Yes, California, the very same state LL is located in.

(1) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and

(3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Good gawd. If that is the defined law, by the Supreme Court?... that is pretty darn vague. "Average person"? "Contemporary community standards" "prurient interest"?

I don't argue, at all, with the way you define it, as you did under this example. But I can see how it can be interpretted in about a billion different ways.

"patently offensive... sexual conduct" defined by state law (wonder what that is in CA)

"lacks serious..."

All of those words are so weasley! It is back to "I'll know it when I see it."

So to those folks who are arguing, "LL's hands are tied (is that a patently offensive sexual conduct?) and so cannot change"... I don't see that here. At all. Sadly, I also don't see where "all nipples are created equally" is necessarily covered, either. Since LL is located in the very liberal Bay Area, one could guess and make a good argument for, tasteful representations of nipples are ok on a serious artistic basis. There are plenty of Greek/Roman statues in Bay Area public museums with naked female breasts, for example. Full frontals for male nudes, gaping female crotch shots, no. But bare chests on both male and female, in art? Yes. Photography is art. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

But in SL....   maybe they do?

I've been skirting around this issue for a minute, but I'm going to bring it right to the forefront for @Kristin Linden and the governance people.  In the photography threads, pictures that inclu

My Father was born in 1920 and served in the Navy from 1936 to 1947 (yes, he lied about his age to enlist) and spent most of that time in the South Pacific. His first introduction to Polynesian cultur

Posted Images

14 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

Because the rules of the land do affect what LL can allow on its forums. And yes if too much female nudity became normalized then parents or others could be offended and complain or give bad pr to sl, something it doesnt need anymore than it does already get in many communities outside of sl already.

Just because there is a lot of prono companies in CA does not mean that everything is accepted or allowed there in public or on public venues or forums.

Porno companies host adult pictures on the internet including those of female nipples without any age test requirements from California, the law has nothing to do with this.

On reputation with parents, that boat sailed a long time ago. Nipples on the forum is not even close to being anything that could damage SL's reputation.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

Not in public in most cities in most states where children may be present. And that is all that matters being an adult or giving consent doesnt change the laws.

In Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins Colorado, women may stroll the streets (any street) topless and can sunbathe topless in any public park.  There was even a topless parade in downtown Denver last year.

Late last year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals stuck down a topless ban, which now allows for toplessness in Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Utah.

 

This is from April 2015, so might be a bit out of date.  The states in red do not allow any female toplessness.  The orange states apparently have 'ambiguous' laws, so who know what is or isn't legal there.  All of the green states allow some sort of toplessness.

image.png.586830ca3f1f8217db46b309a4d3b422.png

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Orwar said:

It's difficult, if not impossible, to appease the entire globe.

Yes.

I'd prefer us not to have to be pictured wearing a burka, for example.

And don't you have to be 18+ to be in SL?

Who is allowed in the Forum?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

Since LL is located in the very liberal Bay Area, one could guess and make a good argument for, tasteful representations of nipples are ok on a serious artistic basis

SF hosts the Folsom Street Fair where pretty much anything goes, and no one gets hauled off to the pokey for it. The idea of a bare breast being offensive would be laughable to them. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Seicher Rae said:

I'd prefer us not to have to be pictured wearing a burka, for example.

   Let's compromise - you have to wear a burka, but you may have cutouts for the nipples. 

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Beth Macbain said:

That's not shaming, sunshine. Fisting is a yes on my list as well. Animal cruelty is not, nor is that a kink. 

I really wish you would take a few minutes to read the actual laws. They are defined by community standards. We can look at this from 3 communities - California, the US, and the larger SL community as a whole. Using the Miller Test, a photograph of a consenting adult woman's bare breast is not obscene for any of those three populations on the whole. Since I apparently used far too many words, here is the Miller Test.

(1) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and

(3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

consent does not make everything ok or allowed all the time hunny bun. there are some things that cannot be consented to regardless. and the Miller Test does not apply to everything or everywhere.

Just because one person may not find it obscene does not mean others might not. So LL has to go with what ever keeps the general public happy the most. Which means censorship of certain things regardless if liked or not. LL cannot cater to everyone to make everyone happy about what they want or like in SL nor are they going to try to either. 

NO one group or person here is any more important or special than anyone else that their views will have a big impact on what LL allows.

So you can keep crying its unfair all you want hunny bun its not going to change it any time soon. Nor do they have to change it suit your wants about if women cant then men cant either just because you think its unfair. Life is not always fair. Time to realize this and grow up.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

Yes.

I'd prefer us not to have to be pictured wearing a burka, for example.

And don't you have to be 18+ to be in SL?

Who is allowed in the Forum?

 

The general idea is you have to be 18 to be in sl but not everyone is and same goes for the forums. The forums are not blocked from minors from seeing them or joining them. So they do try and keep the forums pg for the most part and not g or m rated.

Edited by Drakonadrgora Darkfold
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

consent does not make everything ok or allowed all the time hunny bun. there are some things that cannot be consented to regardless. and the Miller Test does not apply to everything or everywhere.

Just because one person may not find it obscene does not mean others might not. So LL has to go with what ever keeps the general public happy the most. Which means censorship of certain things regardless if liked or not. LL cannot cater to everyone to make everyone happy about what they want or like in SL nor are they going to try to either. 

NO one group or person here is any more important or special than anyone else that their views will have a big impact on what LL allows.

So you can keep crying its unfair all you want hunny bun its not going to change it any time soon. Nor do they have to change it suit your wants about if women cant then men cant either just because you think its unfair. Life is not always fair. Time to realize this and grow up.

Bolding is mine. 

That tells me much.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

In Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins Colorado, women may stroll the streets (any street) topless and can sunbathe topless in any public park.  There was even a topless parade in downtown Denver last year.

Late last year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals stuck down a topless ban, which now allows for toplessness in Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Utah.

 

This is from April 2015, so might be a bit out of date.  The states in red do not allow any female toplessness.  The orange states apparently have 'ambiguous' laws, so who know what is or isn't legal there.  All of the green states allow some sort of toplessness.

image.png.586830ca3f1f8217db46b309a4d3b422.png

 

maybe in some public areas but not in all private areas or companies which can set their own rules of what is accepted or not.

LL though a progressive company by most means with as much as they do allow, does not have to allow everything that everyone wants just because they think its unfair if they dont.

Edited by Drakonadrgora Darkfold
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Bolding is mine. 

That tells me much.

It really doesnt, maybe i just decided to use that to be snarky like she likes to be towards me. I can give what I get just as well as anyone else here.

If you think that means im a man or anything else, you really have no clue. there are a lot of women that use that term too.

Edited by Drakonadrgora Darkfold
Link to post
Share on other sites

This for example is on view at the Oakland Museum of California:

http://collections.museumca.org/?q=collection-item/a6619616

i can't see anything about age restrictions on viewing it.

I don't see why the forum for a virtual world notorious for its adult content should be held up to a more restrictive standard. The very idea it should be is absurd.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

This for example is on view at the Oakland Museum of California:

http://collections.museumca.org/?q=collection-item/a6619616

i can't see anything about age restrictions on viewing it.

I don't see why the forum for a virtual world notorious for its adult content should be held up to a more restrictive standard. The very idea it should be is absurd.

 

It doesnt really matter what you or anyone else in this thread thinks or likes or doesnt about it. LL does not have to change or cater its way of business to keep everyone happy. That is a failing business practice. They have to stand their ground on some things even if some think its trivial and should be changed.

As long as any state or country has laws against nudity in public they have to adhere to it or be possibly sued and yes it can happen. And short of taking LL to court because you feel their view of what is nudity or not is unfair they dont have to change their rules ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

maybe in some public areas but not in all private areas or companies which can set their own rules of what is accepted or not.

 

I never said anything about private areas or companies.  My post was in direct response to the following:

1 hour ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:
On 5/14/2020 at 11:04 PM, LittleMe Jewell said:

There are plenty of places in the US that are much more enlightened and women can now sunbathe topless and even walk around topless.

Not in public in most cities in most states where children may be present. And that is all that matters being an adult or giving consent doesnt change the laws.

 

You changed the direction of your argument there, but that does not negate what you said previously and my response to it.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

So you can keep crying its unfair all you want hunny bun its not going to change it any time soon.

So, which troglodyte elected you god? Who are you to state categorically that it's not going to change soon?

2 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

So LL has to go with what ever keeps the general public happy the most.

Well, I'm assuming the quoted law is "the law of the land" that you keep going on about. And that involves a general consensus. "General consensus" doesn't mean Drakonadrgora's personal opinion, unless you're in the community (which as I'm reading it, is the Bay Area) and your opinion is considered mainstream there. 

6 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

NO one group or person here is any more important or special than anyone else that their views will have a big impact on what LL allows.

Exactly. And you seem to be unwilling/unable to distinguish that that also includes your pet views if they do not go along with community norms as defined by the laws. I didn't see an exception made for your viewpoints alone in the legal citation. 

You are doing a classic fallacious argument: Because you state it, it must be so. :::buzzer noise::: 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

It really doesnt, maybe i just decided to use that to be snarky like she likes to be towards me. I can give what I get just as well as anyone else here.

If you think that means im a man or anything else, you really have no clue. there are a lot of women that use that term too.

I never said you were a man.  Per your inworld profile, I assumed you are female.  And yes, some women use that term to.  And almost always it is used in a condescending put-down manner.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

The general idea is you have to be 18 to be in sl but not everyone is and same goes for the forums. The forums are not blocked from minors from seeing them or joining them. So they do try and keep the forums pg for the most part and not g or m rated.

"the general idea" is not a specific answer. If you are saying that the rules are 18+ but some 16 yr old's sign in by lying, then that's a different question and a different legal issue. That the internet is open to minors is a different question. That also doesn't mean that LL can't change the rules for entry, and honestly, from what I've seen WRITTEN, they should.

I have to click a thing that states I'm an adult if I want to view things on specific alcohol company sites. If you have to be 18+ to have an avatar, and you have to have an avatar to post...

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Does "nip inequality" mean L is differently sized / positioned than R?

That was funny, hunny bun.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Seicher Rae said:

"the general idea" is not a specific answer. If you are saying that the rules are 18+ but some 16 yr old's sign in by lying, then that's a different question and a different legal issue. That the internet is open to minors is a different question. That also doesn't mean that LL can't change the rules for entry, and honestly, from what I've seen WRITTEN, they should.

I have to click a thing that states I'm an adult if I want to view things on specific alcohol company sites. If you have to be 18+ to have an avatar, and you have to have an avatar to post...

 

people do lie all the time to join services like this. so because of that LL does have to be careful on what they allow to be seen. the forums are not blocked from public view without an account. you can be logged out and still see what is being posted here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

Just because one person may not find it obscene does not mean others might not.

You know, I laid was going to lay out my argument for you again, but you just keep moving the goalposts so it's pointless. You want to be right, regardless of facts, so when presented with the facts, you try to redirect. Enjoy your SL. 

1__iB6FdpSUulV6D9CXktJsQ.gif.a7ba25c87369588c9354d11af9afe2ac.gif

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Beth Macbain said:

You know, I laid was going to lay out my argument for you again, but you just keep moving the goalposts so it's pointless. You want to be right, regardless of facts, so when presented with the facts, you try to redirect. Enjoy your SL. 

1__iB6FdpSUulV6D9CXktJsQ.gif.a7ba25c87369588c9354d11af9afe2ac.gif

nah, just you dont know me very well. plus you think that LL has to care if "YOU" are happy or not over anyone else. They dont, your not special or important to them and never was. No one here really is. the only thing they really care about is money at the end of the day. Not if a few forumites are unhappy.

You are not entitled to have the forums work how "YOU" want them to work because otherwise its not fair.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

people do lie all the time to join services like this. so because of that LL does have to be careful on what they allow to be seen. the forums are not blocked from public view without an account. you can be logged out and still see what is being posted here.

LL is not legally responsible for people accessing their services against their TOS. So your argument about that is irrelevant.

The written content that is available to be seen without some kind of gateway is not G rated. Neither are the photos that are allowed with teensy strings to cover the shameful lady parts nor lewd positions. So again, your argument is moot.

Edited by Seicher Rae
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

Did I break that down enough for you, Ayela? 

Yes.

No really, thank you. This is the first time (I might have missed it elsewhere) that someone has broken down the legal arguments in detail, and in a way that demolishes my previous assumption. I am being genuine when I say that my view has changed here - and please remember that I've said from the very start that I'd like you to be right, but didn't (previously) think you were.

I would just like to clarify two things though:

2 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

And here's where you went right to the edge and jumped overboard. LL is very clear that age-play of any sort is not allowed. Bare breasts of a 16 year old girl is not just inappropriate, it's against the law. Why you are conflating child p0rnography with consenting adult women's breasts is beyond me. I have not one single time advocated in any way, shape, or form for LL to allow child p0rnography anywhere. Anywhere. And quite frankly, I'm incredibly disgusted and insulted that you went there with this. 

Your argument is that the female nipple/breasts are not considered sexual, both legally and culturally. It's a point you've made repeatedly. If that were true, then this hypothetical example could not be considered child p0rn. How could it? Why would a non-sexualised photo of non-sexual body parts be considered p0rn?

The answer, of course, is that the breasts of any woman or girl are sexual. Your own words make that clear. Which is why it's quite illegal, and immoral, without question, to be showing them in this context. And I must stress - I never suggested that you intentionally called for LL to allow this sort of thing on their platforms. Please don't think that, I would never accuse you of anything so low.

I brought it up to try and point out what I thought was a flaw in your logic... but of course, I was blind to a flaw in my own. Namely, the vast and essential difference between whether or not the female breast is considered sexual, and whether it's considered obscenely so. Being of consenting age is absolutely and unquestionably a deciding factor in that - and I can't believe I didn't see that earlier. My mistake.

2 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

No, they shouldn't be there. Yes, they should be reported. If LL isn't going to police that, but does police these forums for the stray female nipple, then the enforcement needs to be changed. 

Full agreement on the infuriatingly inconsistent application of the rules by LL. No question about that. Arguably they should instead look at writing better rules... as the rules as written would involve the purge of more residents than could be justified.

I feel like this is one of the moments where I need to point out that it's literally my job to disconnect my own opinions and emotions from a situation when looking at the legal and technical arguments involved. And trust me when I say that it requires a hell of a lot more control than anything we've discussed here. I have opinions - strong ones - about the appropriateness (or lack of) of a large number of the examples you've listed. Those opinions align very closely with what you've posted here. And my argument was always that I wanted you to be right, but didn't think you were. My legal argument is now in tatters, and that swings the balance back towards agreeing with you here.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Seicher Rae said:

LL is not legal responsible for people accessing their services against their TOS. So your argument about that is irrelevant.

The written content that is available to be seen without some kind of gateway is not G rated. Neither are the photos that are allowed with teensy strings to cover the shameful lady parts nor lewd positions. So again, your argument is moot.

actually they are, if someone who was underage got hurt because of something that happened here LL can be held accountable for it. just like if you went to any other club or place and something happened to you and you got hurt you could sue that club for it happening on their grounds or because of them.

They are more G rated than having no covering at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

It doesnt really matter what you or anyone else in this thread thinks or likes or doesnt about it. LL does not have to change or cater its way of business to keep everyone happy. That is a failing business practice. They have to stand their ground on some things even if some think its trivial and should be changed.

As long as any state or country has laws against nudity in public they have to adhere to it or be possibly sued and yes it can happen. And short of taking LL to court because you feel their view of what is nudity or not is unfair they dont have to change their rules ever.

Of course Linden Lab doesn't need to change their rules, they are currently in compliance with the law and they would be if they allowed nipples on the forum.

No one is talking about taking them to court over it. First amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression don't require companies to permit that in their space.

What is being said is that given there is no law requiring them to be so restrictive, they should change the policy. Arguments like:

1. it will have benefits of less rules to enforce.

2. it would meet with a general expectation of what is likely to be permitted.

3. there is a gender equality issue.

4. The sexualisation of the female body is very old fashioned and harmful.

The argument you have been making that it will somehow be contentious or bring the company into disrepute, might be reasonable, if this wasn't the forum for a virtual reality with adult content. It might be plausible if we weren't talking about artistic representations of the kind that can be seen in public galleries without age restrictions or on webpages hosted in the same jurisdiction without even being asked if you are over 18 or not.

 

Edited by Aethelwine
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 266 days.

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...