SL and child AV paranoia

[GariGlitter]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

OMG! Child AVs next to me!

ACK!!!! Got-to-run!!!!!!!!!

Even the child AVs have something to fear. Note the ball of fuzz at left. It has claws, I bet.

And its shorter!!!!

 

Ps: Two of these are what CHild AVs look like, for the clueless. Note how its not just about being short.

 

---

So . . . where exactly is that location?

[Pussycat Catnap]

Its the Bay City 'reelighting' event. I think the SLURL's in my FEED.

 

 

[GariGlitter]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its the Bay City 'reelighting' event. I think the SLURL's in my FEED.

 

 

---

Do you happen to know the names of the kids and whether they like sweeties?

[Pussycat Catnap]

...

One of them's a regular forum poster.

I'm sure she'll be along at some point.

[Argus Collingwood]

---

GariGlitter wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its the Bay City 'reelighting' event. I think the SLURL's in my FEED.

 

 

---

Do you happen to know the names of the kids and whether they like sweeties?

---

/me smacks the man in silver spandex;-)

[GariGlitter]

---

Argus Collingwood wrote:

---

GariGlitter wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its the Bay City 'reelighting' event. I think the SLURL's in my FEED.

 

 

---

Do you happen to know the names of the kids and whether they like sweeties?

---

/me smacks the man in silver spandex;-)

---

Hey Argus, aren't I in the right thread?

[Argus Collingwood]

---

GariGlitter wrote:

---

Argus Collingwood wrote:

---

GariGlitter wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its the Bay City 'reelighting' event. I think the SLURL's in my FEED.

 

 

---

Do you happen to know the names of the kids and whether they like sweeties?

---

/me smacks the man in silver spandex;-)

---

Hey Argus, aren't I in the right thread?

---

Depends on what threads you are wearing and what song is up next.:smileywink:

[Solar Legion]

Oh look, someone else who needs to get a clue and reevaluate their utterly over the top reactions.

Here's one for you: I am barely over five feet tall in real life and - without my beard and mustache - do not look a day over 18 (I am nearly 30 by the by). I set about trying to make an avatar once which merged the fantasy of Second Life with reality .... and quickly gave up on it just as I gave up on remaining clean shaven in real life. If I am being asked for Identification in real life any time I go out to purchase my pipe tobacco OR pick up a nice bottle of Kaluah .... What the heck do you think would happen here in Second Life?

I frankly find your attitude insulting and concerning ... It is the attitude of those who lobby against violence in video games .... All because someone might seek out the real thing (utter hogwash). 

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Solar Legion wrote:

Oh look, someone else who needs to get a clue and reevaluate their utterly over the top reactions.

Here's one for you: I am barely over five feet tall in real life and - without my beard and mustache - do not look a day over 18 (I am nearly 30 by the by). I set about trying to make an avatar once which merged the fantasy of Second Life with reality .... and quickly gave up on it just as I gave up on remaining clean shaven in real life. If I am being asked for Identification in real life any time I go out to purchase my pipe tobacco OR pick up a nice bottle of Kaluah .... What the

heck

do you think would happen here in Second Life?

I frankly find your attitude insulting and concerning ... It is the attitude of those who lobby against violence in video games .... All because someone might seek out the real thing (utter hogwash). 

---

Oh, I just love posts from people who insult you in order to get across their point that they find you insulting...

Aside from telling me you think I don't have a clue, have sinned by over-reacting and am insulting, I have no idea whatsoever what the point of your post was. Knowing that you have a beard in real-life doesn't much add to this discussion, nor is it a counterpoint to my views. If you want to discuss my thoughts, it might be useful if you addressed them.

(Just on the off-chance you were demanding to have an 18 year old looking avatar, then I have good news for you. You may. If, by any chance you want to look younger - you may - but you have to steer clear of adult activity as per the ToS (not as per my clueless, over-reactive, insulting points of view. The reason being, as I believe is obvious for anyone, it is not possible to demand proof of age inside SL like in RL.)

 

 

[Solar Legion]

Hard time following what was said?

Not my problem. Retake reading comp and get a handle on logic and thought analysis.

Seeing as you are unlikely to do such, I'll be blunt: Any "insult" you take from my post is your own invention. My point is clear as day as well: PLENTY of people in real life look far younger than they really are, circumstance depending. Basing anything on appearance is quite foolish.

Further, the attitude you convey in this thread is the exact same sort those opposed to violence in video games and on television convey each and every time they decry it.

You - nor anyone else - has any right to dictate the apearance of others in any manner. You have no right to dictate what others engage in, in a virtual environment.

I may find a lot of things morally reprehensible: I do not seek to ban or otherwise make illegal, such things where not a single, real individual is harmed at all.

Those that do are the problem. End of story. I'm not here to "debate" with the likes of you either. That you responded in the manner you have is all the indication I need that you're not capable of any sort of thought untied to emotion.

Second Life is filled with avatars, not real people. Your reactions prior were over the top and fit right in with the Internation Red Cross demanding that video games featuring war scenarios follow humanitarian laws and penalize players for commiting "war crimes".

Have a fun time feeling sorry for the pixels on the screen. 

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Solar Legion wrote:

You - nor anyone else - has

any

right to dictate the apearance of others in

any

manner. You have

no

right to dictate what others engage in, in a

virtual

environment.

---

A moment's thought would tell you that assertion is mistaken.  

LL most certainly have the right to regulate avatars' appearance in various ways (e.g. general rules about what is and isn't permitted in lands with various maturity ratings) and no one, as far as I know, has suggested SL club owners don't have the right to ask people to remove themselves because their avatar is, in the -- quite possibly mistaken -- view of the owner somehow inappropriate to the venue.    

People frequently suggest, and with good cause, that the right is sometimes used injudiciously, but it's unquestionable I have the right to ban you from my sim just because I don't like the look of your avatar.   And certainly if I find your conduct objectionable, I can tell you to go and thus conduct yourself elsewhere.

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Solar Legion wrote:

Hard time following what was said?

Not my problem. Retake reading comp and get a handle on logic and thought analysis.

Seeing as you are unlikely to do such, I'll be blunt: Any "insult" you take from my post is your own invention. My point is clear as day as well: PLENTY of people in real life

look

far younger than they really are, circumstance depending. Basing

anything

on appearance is quite foolish.

Further, the attitude you convey in this thread is the exact same sort those opposed to violence in video games and on television convey each and every time they decry it.

You - nor anyone else - has

any

right to dictate the apearance of others in

any

manner. You have

no

right to dictate what others engage in, in a

virtual

environment.

I may find a

lot

of things morally reprehensible: I do

not

seek to ban or otherwise make illegal, such things where not a single, real individual is harmed

at all.

Those that do are the problem. End of story. I'm not here to "debate" with the likes of you either. That you responded in the manner you have is all the indication I need that you're not capable of any sort of thought untied to emotion.

Second Life is filled with

avatars

, not real people. Your reactions prior were over the top and fit right in with the Internation Red Cross demanding that video games featuring war scenarios follow humanitarian laws and penalize players for commiting "war crimes".

Have a fun time feeling sorry for the pixels on the screen. 

---

I find it astounding that you don't feel the urge to change your signature into something less self-damning. Your last reply to me could not be more crass and rude. And frankly, not worth the effort of addressing.

 

ETA Oh, I can't resist. You basically hanged yourself. The fact is that real human beings ARE harmed. If YOU can step away from YOUR evident emotional involvement in defending the freedom of child avatars to go where they please and do what they wish, you might care to consider that any space, be it real or cyber, where tolerance to child pornography is real or perceived, actual flesh and blood pedophiles might be tempted to congregate in order to share pedo-pornographic materials, produced using real, flesh and blood children. We do count the protection of real children as something worth placing above our "rights" as video game players, don't we?

If you cannot formulate a civil response, don't bother replying at all, as next time I really won't waste 3 minutes of my life answering you, although I admit to being curious to see if YOUR reading comprehension skills and YOUR capacities of logic analysis are able to deal with the concepts outlined.

 

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Solar Legion wrote:

You - nor anyone else - has

any

right to dictate the apearance of others in

any

manner. You have

no

right to dictate what others engage in, in a

virtual

environment.

---

A moment's thought would tell you that assertion is mistaken.  

LL most certainly have the right to regulate avatars' appearance in various ways (e.g. general rules about what is and isn't permitted in lands with various maturity ratings) and no one, as far as I know, has suggested SL club owners don't have the right to ask people to remove themselves because their avatar is, in the -- quite possibly mistaken -- view of the owner somehow inappropriate to the venue.    

People frequently suggest, and with good cause, that the right is sometimes used injudiciously, but it's unquestionable I have the right to ban you from my sim just because I don't like the look of your avatar.   And certainly if I find your conduct objectionable, I can tell you to go and thus conduct yourself elsewhere.

---

What you said. Add to that actual legislation regarding child and pseudo-child pornography (in the case of adult operators using child avatars in adult sims, near or participating in "adult" activity).

[Marigold Devin]

+1 resident agrees

 

*****

To Solar, it's not a case of "feeling sorry for the pixels on the screen"; the picture is often rather more bigger than just what is visible.

Regarding ...

"You - nor anyone else - has any right to dictate the apearance of others in any manner. You have no right to dictate what others engage in, in a virtual environment."

If a printed publication was found to contain images of pixel minors engaging in sexual situations with adults, that publication would be closed down instantly, and probably a police investigation take place into those responsible for publishing such images.

Second Life may well be a virtual environment, but those pixel people you see on the screen are all worked by real people, and LL have to err on the side of caution.  I'm with Carole, and so many others, who would not hesitate to inform LL if something looked unacceptable/obscene to us.  Then the ball is in LL's court, so to speak, and we are not aiding and abeting possible pedophiles.

 

 

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Marigold Devin wrote:

If a printed publication was found to contain images of pixel minors engaging in sexual situations with adults, that publication would be closed down instantly, and probably a police investigation take place into those responsible for publishing such images.

Second Life may well be a virtual environment, but those pixel people you see on the screen are all worked by real people, and LL have to err on the side of caution.

---

It would cause a scandal and an investigation. But its actually not illegal.

If it were, plays like Romeo and Juliet would be illegal...

 There's a -BIG- difference between morality and law. 

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Marigold Devin wrote:

If a printed publication was found to contain images of pixel minors engaging in sexual situations with adults, that publication would be closed down instantly, and probably a police investigation take place into those responsible for publishing such images.

Second Life may well be a virtual environment, but those pixel people you see on the screen are all worked by real people, and LL have to err on the side of caution.

---

It would cause a scandal and an investigation. But its actually not illegal.

If it were, plays like Romeo and Juliet would be illegal...

 There's a -BIG- difference between morality and law. 

---

The difference is between moralities and laws in different parts of the world. Whilst it's perfectly legal for children to be married off to adult men in some parts of the world, in other parts it's not. Virtual images of minors involved in virtual, cartoon nookie might not be illegal everywhere but they're illegal to possess in some parts of the globe. SL spans the globe and LL has simply introduced its own "laws" (ToS) to address this matter in a precautionary manner. If people in country X got locked up for having played SL, it wouldn't be great publicity, I assume.

The historical context of Romeo and Juliet - a period in which people of their tender age did marry and have children - allows us to suspend our 21st century Western morality for the duration of the play, and acknowledging the fact that they consumate their union is no more offensive to anybody's morality than it would be to read "In 14th century Italy, girls were often married by the age of 14 - 15". However, as you know, there is no scene of intercourse in the play, which is the pivotal issue - it's representations of sex between minors, not acknowledgement that in certain periods in history and in certain geographical areas that such things exist, which are the point here.

LL ToS states such things are not permitted - within SL, that is the law, whether some posters like it or not.

[Marigold Devin]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

 

It would cause a scandal and an investigation. But its actually not illegal.

If it were, plays like Romeo and Juliet would be illegal...

 There's a -BIG- difference between morality and law. 

---

Bigger picture, Pussycat. Romeo and Juliet is a stand-alone play.

Investigations can lead to undercovering what the pixel people are about.  LL can't afford to be complacent, hence the ToS, although I believe they could and should be doing more, because sexual ageplay is still going on.

Hence - just going back to the title of the thread - SL and child av paranoia.

A little paranoia is healthy. Complacency kills. And all that.

[Pussycat Catnap]

Careful about confusing my legal point by responding with moral arguments.

US free speach stops only in 2 places: where it is not speach from a criminal harm to someone, and obscenity. As yet, imagry which involves no real person has not been found to be de-facto obscenity. Romeo and Juliet is just one of a vast array of examples of literature, cinema, art, and imagry that would be illegal were it to change.

A very common commercial in the US for decades was the coppertone suntan lotion commercial, where a child's bikini bottoms are being pulled back by a dog to reveal the tan line.

US law gets more complicated in other areas - likely half the families in the US have baby pictures that are "Illegal" - but no rational prosecutor would go after it. Likewise, current laws might very well have managed to criminalize breast-feeding, if read literally... - its political suicide to point out gaping logic flaws in the laws, or change them.

- Yet so far judges, who are not generally elected, have been willing to 'stop the madness' at the door of fiction, as a stop-gap against the laws being applied every and ever more broadly in ways that would eventually wrap up things like the Coppertone example and mothers feeding their children...

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Marigold Devin wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote: 

It would cause a scandal and an investigation. But its actually not illegal.

---

Bigger picture, Pussycat.

A little paranoia is healthy. Complacency kills. And all that.

---

A little yes. But too much no.

Ageplay is a ToS violation, but its not actually illegal. That's an uncomfortable point... Until an investigation uncovers something involving real-life victims, its just scandal.

There really isn't any ageplay left in SL. The the odd rare griefer pretending to it to get a reaction, and the even rarer idiot that logs into SL looking for it. Probably less than a handful of people a year, across the entire grid.

The bigger picture is that 'witch-hunts' grab up more people not involved in doing anything and usually miss anyone actually up to something. Don't acuse, unless you have no uncertainty.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I don't know anything about the law in America but I know a bit about English law relating to this sort of thing.

As to the Coppertone advert, it's nothing like what our law deems a "prohibited image" of a child.   The test for actual photographs is a lot less rigorous; there the question is, are the jury sure it's "indecent" in the everyday sense of the word.   And since many jurors, not to mention judges, lawyers and police officers, will have the sort of baby pictures of their children to which you allude, they're hardly likely to consider them "indecent."

Part of the standard directions judges over here give to juries is that they should not leave their common sense outside the courtroom door; on the contrary, the collective common sense and judgement of 12 ordinary men and women is a vital part of our legal system.   And that's not the judge flattering the jury.

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Marigold Devin wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote: 

It would cause a scandal and an investigation. But its actually not illegal.

---

Bigger picture, Pussycat.

A little paranoia is healthy. Complacency kills. And all that.

---

A little yes. But too much no.

Ageplay is a ToS violation, but its not actually illegal. That's an uncomfortable point... Until an investigation uncovers something involving real-life victims, its just scandal.

There really isn't any ageplay left in SL. The the odd rare griefer pretending to it to get a reaction, and the even rarer idiot that logs into SL looking for it. Probably less than a handful of people a year, across the entire grid.

The bigger picture is that 'witch-hunts' grab up more people not involved in doing anything and usually miss anyone actually up to something. Don't acuse, unless you have no uncertainty.

 

---

It seems that LL don't share your point of view. The following statement from their ToS seems to indicate they are aware that in certain parts of the world, therefore for some users, images generated by age-play are illegal (like, I believe, in my country, for example).

(iv) Post, display or transmit any material, object or text that encourages, represents, or facilitates sexual "age play," i.e., using child-like avatars in a sexualized manner. You may review our full Age Play Policy here;

Incidents under sections (iii) and (iv) above are grounds for immediate termination. 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.

Jurisdiction varies from nation to nation - LL is apparently aware of that - and in some places, the images generated by pixel age-play constitute an offence, even if that's not true for your particular area of the world.

I have to say that I found your statement about there being no age-play left in SL and that "practitioners" amount to no more than a handful in the entire grid, rather surprising. The number of little girlie avatars I personally see in adult sims would lead me to believe that you are most definitely mistaken. Of course, in order to quantify the phenomenon, you'd need to be in a position to have total access to all sims, private homes and spaces and, most importantly, access to the chatlogs of all SL users.

When you talk confidently about this "handful", do you mean you personally overheard five couples indulging in age-play in local chat? What people do around the grid, in the privacy of their IMs and private spaces, is unknown to you and me surely? Might I suggest that no SL user can possibly be privy to precise statistics regarding this phenomenon.

I'm also a little bewildered by your statement, "Until an investigation uncovers something involving real-life victims, its just scandal". I certainly don't agree that it should be deemed necessary to wait until a real-life child has had its life ruined by abuse before considering the phenomenon worthy of considering a serious issue. If that attitude were the norm in crime prevention, no measures would ever be taken until victims were generated, by which time, the damage would have been done. I'd also add that none of us, and this time LL itself is included in the "none", can ever know if an official investigation isn't actually underway within SL by a law enforcement body somewhere in the world.

I was earlier accused of being incapable of reasoning because unable to see through emotional blinkers. Believe me, I'm well aware that pixels cannot be injured and that most (probably all) age-players are fully adult. It's not the potential damage caused to pixels or adult operators which is the crux of this matter. What remains the risk and, I assume, the main reason for banning age-play, is that such permissiveness would encourage real-life pedophiles to use the space to supply and obtain real-life pedo-porn material. Surely a just a little of Marigold's "healthy paranoia" (although I prefer to think of it in terms of sense of responsibility), if it helps prevent such a thing happening, truly is a good thing? Or are we all so emotionally involved in SL that the wellbeing of flesh and blood kids has to take a back-seat?

Because it's not possible to know what other people are saying in IM, I'm not suggesting being trigger-happy over ARing - most of the time none of us will ever know if sexual age-play is being or is about to be acted out. I just think it's important not to dismiss the whole thing as annoying gossip. My point of view is that only LL is in a position to check on what's really going on and they should feel "pressurised" by users into maintaining vigilance. In all the many discussions held about this topic in the forums, I personally have never seen them intervene to clear up doubts as to what consititutes age-play and to explain to people why it can't be allowed. 

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I'm in two minds about this, Carole.

Where actual photographic images of a child are involved, there's a clear victim.   And this is one of the reasons, quite rightly, the law takes such a dim view of people downloading images of sexual assaults on children -- because it clearly encourages such assaults to take place, so people can produce the images and sell them.

With non-photographic images, though (of the sort that might be produced in SL and prosecuted in the UK under Section 62 of the Coroners and Criminal Justice Act rather than The Protection of Children Act or the Criminal Justice Act 1988, that doesn't apply.

There's one argument that such images tend to legitimate photographic images that involve the abuse of actual children, but to my mind, though, by far the strongest argument is that the production and use of eroticised images of children provokes such disgust in most right-thinking people the law should ban it, regardless of what harm it may or may not do.    The harm, that is, is done to the public at large.  

It's a dangerous line of argument, I accept, which is one reason why the bar for prosecution is so much higher for non-photographic images than it is for actual photographs (which need simply to be "indecent") -- this absurd filter won't even let me quote the relevant Act of Parliament without bleeping stuff out, so people will have to look at the tests here.        But I think it's the strongest, since it's based on the undeniable fact that most people are genuinely shocked and outraged by such extreme imagery rather than on some hypothetical harm that might be caused.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Marigold Devin wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote: 

It would cause a scandal and an investigation. But its actually not illegal.

---

Bigger picture, Pussycat.

A little paranoia is healthy. Complacency kills. And all that.

---

A little yes. But too much no.

Ageplay is a ToS violation, but its not actually illegal. That's an uncomfortable point... Until an investigation uncovers something involving real-life victims, its just scandal.

There really isn't any ageplay left in SL. The the odd rare griefer pretending to it to get a reaction, and the even rarer idiot that logs into SL looking for it. Probably less than a handful of people a year, across the entire grid.

The bigger picture is that 'witch-hunts' grab up more people not involved in doing anything and usually miss anyone actually up to something. Don't acuse, unless you have no uncertainty.

 

---

It seems that LL don't share your point of view. The following statement from their ToS seems to indicate they are aware that in certain parts of the world, therefore for some users, images generated by age-play are illegal (like, I believe, in my country, for example).

(iv) Post, display or transmit any material, object or text that encourages, represents, or facilitates sexual "age play," i.e., using child-like avatars in a sexualized manner. You may review our full

Age Play Policy here

;

Incidents under sections (iii) and (iv) above are grounds for immediate termination. 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.

Jurisdiction varies from nation to nation - LL is apparently aware of that - and in some places, the images generated by pixel age-play constitute an offence, even if that's not true for your particular area of the world.

I have to say that I found your statement about there being no age-play left in SL and that "practitioners" amount to no more than a handful in the entire grid, rather surprising. The number of little girlie avatars I personally see in adult sims would lead me to believe that you are most definitely mistaken. Of course, in order to quantify the phenomenon, you'd need to be in a position to have total access to all sims, private homes and spaces and, most importantly, access to the chatlogs of all SL users.

When you talk confidently about this "handful", do you mean you personally overheard five couples indulging in age-play in local chat? What people do around the grid, in the privacy of their IMs and private spaces, is unknown to you and me surely? Might I suggest that no SL user can possibly be privy to precise statistics regarding this phenomenon.

I'm also a little bewildered by your statement, "Until an investigation uncovers something involving real-life victims, its just scandal". I certainly don't agree that it should be deemed necessary to wait until a real-life child has had its life ruined by abuse before considering the phenomenon worthy of considering a serious issue. If that attitude were the norm in crime prevention, no measures would ever be taken until victims were generated, by which time, the damage would have been done. I'd also add that none of us, and this time LL itself is included in the "none", can ever know if an official investigation isn't actually underway within SL by a law enforcement body somewhere in the world.

I was earlier accused of being incapable of reasoning because unable to see through emotional blinkers. Believe me, I'm well aware that pixels cannot be injured and that most (probably all) age-players are fully adult. It's not the potential damage caused to pixels or adult operators which is the crux of this matter. What remains the risk and, I assume, the main reason for banning age-play, is that such permissiveness would encourage real-life pedophiles to use the space to supply and obtain real-life pedo-porn material. Surely a just a little of Marigold's "healthy paranoia" (although I prefer to think of it in terms of sense of responsibility), if it helps prevent such a thing happening, truly is a good thing? Or are we all so emotionally involved in SL that the wellbeing of flesh and blood kids has to take a back-seat?

Because it's not possible to know what other people are saying in IM, I'm not suggesting being trigger-happy over ARing - most of the time none of us will ever know if sexual age-play is being or is about to be acted out. I just think it's important not to dismiss the whole thing as annoying gossip. My point of view is that only LL is in a position to check on what's really going on and they should feel "pressurised" by users into maintaining vigilance. In all the many discussions held about this topic in the forums, I personally have never seen them intervene to clear up doubts as to what consititutes age-play and to explain to people why it can't be allowed. 

 

---

oh it's still here for sure..

i had just a few months ago kicked a man and little girl out of my home..i AR'd them both then kicked and muted them..right on my old bed too Yuck!!

i had to rebuild the whole place and get a new bed let alone move my place up higher and turned off anyone able to make land marks at my home..how they found my place i have no idea..i was like 3.5k in the air and now moved to 4k..

that is really the first time i ever actually saw something like that in action in sl..

i'll admit i go to a lot of the ghetto and alley sims..mainly because they remind me of chicago when i was younger..i'll get on a roof and just look at the builds or get into IM's with people and just talk..

out of all that time going to those places..i've never seen what i did in my own sl bedroom..

it wrecked me for the whole day..i just started deleting everything soon as i got them out of there..

i don't think it is as wide spread as it may have been at one time.. but this is SL..if there is a fetish or fantasy in someoes head..there is another out there willing to give it a try or help someone to the next level..

it's here ..just not as open i'm sure as it once was ..

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

According to US law 18 USC 1466A

In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003 by then president George W. Bush. The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. And mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the internet, or transported across state lines. There is also an affirmative defense made for possession of no more than two images with "reasonable steps to destroy" the images or reporting and turning over the images to law enforcement.

I direct your attention to the bold text.. Since SL is accessed via the internet any sexual interaction between an adult and child av is indeed against the law. Since SL users must abide by LL rules and LL must abide by US laws any age-play is illegal. 

 i do agree that the witch hunts are much much worse. 

@OP I have been asked to leave "adult" clubs since i am only 6-3. well toned and tattooed but for some reason they thought i was  a child av. i didnt rant about it, i moved on and found better places to hang.