Flower Caerndow Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 8 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said: Only if it depicts real children. I already posted a link that states it is not against the law however, I did say I thought it was going to be soon. Right now it's classified under free speech. Since you did not read the articles in the links I posted I will copy and paste it for you: If you are a fan of Japanese manga cartoons, you know some of it is of a highly sexual or erotic nature. Still, it’s just a cartoon, right? Not necessarily — at least, not in the eyes of the law. US Federal law has a specific section of its obscenity laws to address this. Section 1466A deals with “Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.” It specifies that: “Drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct are deemed obscene.” You could face between five and 20 years in prison for a first-time offense if found guilty of producing, possessing, sharing or receiving such material. You may think you are safe because the images in your comics are not of children. However, federal prosecutors may try to argue they are. They may try to convince a judge that the big eyes and certain other features standard when drawing females in manga cartoons appear to be depicting minors. Whether this is sufficient to suggest you are guilty of child pornography charges is a different matter altogether. US citizens have gone to prison because of Japanese cartoons. In 2012 one serious anime collector chose to plea bargain and took a six-month sentence rather than risk years in jail. The authorities prosecuted him over physical comics, but they have charged others over the cartoon images on their laptops. The other article mentions - “Obscene” is the essential word in the federal statute. Obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment free expression rights, according to Supreme Court decisions 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyJoanne Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 17 minutes ago, Indy Melody said: Early in this thread, someone mentioned they had a child avatar created by someone that is no longer active in SL. People have also been concerned about LL removing such items from their inventory. What if LL created a child avatar that meets their new requirements and then when they remove a non-conforming child avatar from users inventory, they replace it with their own LL created child conforming avatar? Part of the problem would be the clothes, accessories, etc that they've bought which fit the 'obsolete' body. I use the Slink Hourglass, for example. It cost me (whatever it cost) and I'm quite sure that I've spent several times that much on clothing which only fits the Hourglass. Theoretically I could try to get that clothing to work on another body using alphas and all that ... but the results would not, I'm sure, be felicitous. The other problem is that the base avatar, the system avatar, lacks the ability that the TOS appears to be demanding. Until that is clarified the last 239 pages have been marking time until we actually KNOW what LL are going to require. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: I don't see how the TOS could contain definitions that only apply in some countries. I wasn't saying anything about the TOS. Someone way up on *no clue what page* said it was illegal in the sense you could go to jail or be arrested. It's not in the US. FOR NOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 Just now, Flower Caerndow said: If you are a fan of Japanese manga cartoons, you know some of it is of a highly sexual or erotic nature. Still, it’s just a cartoon, right? Not necessarily — at least, not in the eyes of the law. Others have already applied that at least in some definitions, it only applies for "realistic depictions". Do you find Japanese manga depictions "realistic"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErwinVonVlotho Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 Just now, Love Zhaoying said: I don't see how the TOS could contain definitions that only apply in some countries. It doesn't need to. It just needs to take all reasonable steps to make sure SL can't be used to generate images that, in many EU countries, are classed as child porn. This whole thing is about making sure that, if a tabloid does get its hands on images of virtual a**play, LL can point to obstacles it put in the way. That makes daddy's girl the bad guy, and LL the victim. The company is trying to reduce the risk of a public relations disaster, and that's why it doesn't give a tiny turd about any objections to the new TOS. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErwinVonVlotho Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 1 minute ago, AnthonyJoanne said: The other problem is that the base avatar, the system avatar, lacks the ability that the TOS appears to be demanding. The base avatar doesn't need to have that ability. The base avatar is not a child. If anyone wants to pretend to be a child in SL it's entirely up to them to find a TOS-compliant avatar. LL is not obliged to help them do that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flower Caerndow Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 1 minute ago, ErwinVonVlotho said: The company is trying to reduce the risk of a public relations disaster, and that's why it doesn't give a tiny turd about any objections to the new TOS. Or maybe when they consulted a lawyer about that blog post someone clued them on on federal laws about depictions of child pornography 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 (edited) 3 minutes ago, ErwinVonVlotho said: in many EU countries, ..focusing on just the EU OR the US OR any other country doesn't work in my opinion, sorry. I disagree. I'll just stop replying. 🙂 Edited May 8 by Love Zhaoying 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 5 minutes ago, ErwinVonVlotho said: I don't see any way they can make or save money by ejecting customers who spend money on the platform. What they might do is decide that the money made from child avatars doesn't compensate for the risk of screenshots of a misbehaving child avatar triggering a tabloid feeding frenzy. Obviously, attempts to oppose or circumvent reasonable restrictions on what child avatars can do make that more likely to happen. I don't really wish to rehash how I see all of it but suffice it to say that we are expendable even if we number in the thousands because at 50K concurrency SL reaches a limit before going over to being a laggy mess that causes people to start logging out. So they have more residents then they can realistically handle on a busy day. If they think one group is more prone to buy land then another, wouldn't it make sense to prioritize one over the other up to including shooing some out that perhaps don't spend a lot of money? I'm not saying that's the case but it could be a factor. Bottom line is we are expendable from the idea that SL has a plateau and limit of concurrent avatars so that too many affects the efficiency of the grid and so they can easily boot and ban some without it being much of a problem to their bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Melody Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 (edited) Another random thought I just had is maybe LL is making these changes to better be able to meet requirements for the soon to be available mobile ap. I've seen where children under the age of six that can operate mommy's cell phone better than I can. Edited May 8 by Indy Melody 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said: If they think one group is more prone to buy land then another, wouldn't it make sense to prioritize one over the other up to including shooing some out that perhaps don't spend a lot of money? I'm not saying that's the case but it could be a factor. What gives you the idea that people that have Child avi's don't spend a lot of money? Trust me, the way some of these kids are decked out with their clothes and animations and gestures...they spend a lot of money. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 1 minute ago, Indy Melody said: Another random thought I just had is maybe LL is making these changes to better be able to meet requirements for the soon to be available mobile ap. I've seen where children under the age of six that can operate mommy's cell phone better than I can. I totally agree. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 1 minute ago, Indy Melody said: Another random thought I just had is maybe LL is making these changes to better be able to meet requirements for the soon to be available mobile ap. I've seen where children under the age of six that can operate mommy's cell phone better than I can. Very true. The fruit company could have that in their TOS and LL is scrambling to conform to it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyJoanne Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 3 minutes ago, ErwinVonVlotho said: The base avatar doesn't need to have that ability. The base avatar is not a child. If anyone wants to pretend to be a child in SL it's entirely up to them to find a TOS-compliant avatar. LL is not obliged to help them do that. The base avatar can be whatever the user makes it. With tools available in-world you can make an avatar which is 4.5 feet tall. That is easily small enough to be a child. I just did it in less than 2 minutes without using deformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 1 minute ago, Kathlen Onyx said: Trust me, the way some of these kids are decked out with their clothes and animations and gestures...they spend a lot of money. They certainly SAY they do in this thread, and I believe them. It would be far too unnecessarily dramatic to make up that someone spent "hundreds" or "thousands" of dollars on their child avatar, if it was not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErwinVonVlotho Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 1 minute ago, AnthonyJoanne said: The base avatar can be whatever the user makes it. With tools available in-world you can make an avatar which is 4.5 feet tall. That is easily small enough to be a child. I just did it in less than 2 minutes without using deformation. Yes - but, as delivered, it's still an adult. If someone wants to make it into a child it's up to them to make it comply with TOS. It is not up to Linden Labs to do it for them. When naked kid shots appear in the Daily Mail LL can just respond with a picture of the avi as an adult and say "This is what we gave them. It isn't our fault they deliberately modified it in violation of the rules we made them read when they signed up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 3 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said: What gives you the idea that people that have Child avi's don't spend a lot of money? Trust me, the way some of these kids are decked out with their clothes and animations and gestures...they spend a lot of money. Basic economics. 1 Type X spending 10,000 is spending less than 99 Type Y's spending 5000 each. If a situation arises where you have to CHOOSE which type to keep, do you choose Type X, or Type Y. "Bye Type X it was nice having you but you pose a threat to the platform from Outraged Media Attacks Bad PR! We continue to support our loyal Type Y customers." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 Idea: Maybe the TOS changes will mean that any genitalia created specifically for child avatars will get outright deleted from everyone's inventory. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 11 minutes ago, ErwinVonVlotho said: The base avatar doesn't need to have that ability. The base avatar is not a child. If anyone wants to pretend to be a child in SL it's entirely up to them to find a TOS-compliant avatar. LL is not obliged to help them do that. Also SL doesn't advertise anywhere that I've seen that Roleplaying a child is a thing. Why would they create an avatar to promote it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: They certainly SAY they do in this thread, and I believe them. It would be far too unnecessarily dramatic to make up that someone spent "hundreds" or "thousands" of dollars on their child avatar, if it was not true. It's easy to pend money in SL if you're female and don't wear an ancient system avi. I've spent over $100 in ONE store, that's just ONE of many stores. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 13 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: ..focusing on just the EU OR the US OR any other country doesn't work in my opinion, sorry. I disagree. I'll just stop replying. 🙂 a*eplay does seem to be illegal even in the US though and they are highly sensitive about that here in SL. That goes more into the textual then graphic though so it would be interesting to hear what the US laws say about textual p*rnograhy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErwinVonVlotho Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 1 minute ago, Kathlen Onyx said: Also SL doesn't advertise anywhere that I've seen that Roleplaying a child is a thing. Why would they create an avatar to promote it? Exactly. While LL clearly don't want to ban child avatars, the existence of child avatars has no advantages for them and one glaring disadvantage. It's a net negative for the platform. They have no reason to actively encourage, or even enable, people to make child avis. It's very much in their interests to make child avi users entirely responsible for creating their avi and making sure it's compliant. That way nobody can accuse LL of having helped them do whatever they end up splashed all over the tabloids for. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 (edited) 14 minutes ago, ErwinVonVlotho said: When naked kid shots appear in the Daily Mail LL can just respond with a picture of the avi as an adult and say "This is what we gave them. It isn't our fault they deliberately modified it in violation of the rules we made them read when they signed up." Which is basically EXACTLY what EA/Maxis did when some puritan moron minority fool tried suing them for "distributing pron to 12 yr olds" by moddiing his Sims 2 Sims, and demanding a million dollars in "compensation" for the mental anguish he suffered for seeing what he'd made. Edited May 8 by Zalificent Corvinus 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErwinVonVlotho Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said: a*eplay does seem to be illegal even in the US though and they are highly sensitive about that here in SL. That goes more into the textual then graphic though so it would be interesting to hear what the US laws say about textual p*rnograhy. Aaargh. It doesn't matter what US laws say about textual pornography, because textual pornography doesn't lend itself to lurid newspaper articles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 5 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said: Also SL doesn't advertise anywhere that I've seen that Roleplaying a child is a thing. Why would they create an avatar to promote it? Playing devil's advocate, possibilities include: 1) Because competitors do, 2) Mobile users will want/need it, 3) Look! A new avatar! In reality, I think LL is a little smarter than that. Just a little. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts