Innula Zenovka

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,873 Excellent

About Innula Zenovka

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Abusive content/group/sims in Second Life

    Crime statistics are notoriously difficult to interpret, particularly with crimes like sexual assault, which are notoriously under-reported, especially if the the victims are children. However, I see that there is reason to believe that, between 2009--2013, 63,000 children a year were victims of some sort of sexual abuse in the USA, so that's about 172 daily. Since a great deal of sexual abuse occurs within the family, or is committed by someone who has a close connection with the victim, I would imagine that most children who are victims of rape or other sexual abuse are victimised multiple times a year. That's certainly the picture I've formed in the UK, though I saw only cases where there was sufficient evidence to prosecute.
  2. Abusive content/group/sims in Second Life

    I've just looked at the 2016 crime figures for the USA: There were apparently 17,250 murders and 95,730 rapes reported to law enforcement in 2016 (though the number of unreported rapes was doubtless far higher). So that's about 47 murders a day plus 262 rapes a day = 309 rapes and murders daily.
  3. Abusive content/group/sims in Second Life

    The ban was, as I recall, introduced after a German news programme broadcast an item about groups of paedophiles using SL to network and exchange images of children being sexually abused. That's obviously publicity LL can do without, so that might well explain their reaction. Since there is no similar problem with groups of cannibals, rapists and murderers meeting online to exchange images of their crimes, that might explain LL's more lenient attitude towards them. There's also, I think, an important distinction between people who gain sexual gratification from images of children being abused as opposed to people who enjoy watching images of other types of sexualised violence. Material to appeal to most fantasies, no matter how depraved, is generally produced by actors and directors simulating scenes of rape, torture and whatever. No one is harmed and no laws are broken when it is made. Images of child abuse, on the other hand, cannot be produced without abusing and raping children. Since there is, unfortunately, so huge and lucrative a market for such images, the argument goes, it's important that we never allow the idea that using such images for entertainment ever to be normalised, and that's why even non-photographic images of children being sexually abused are banned in several jurisdictions. A big part of the problem with the people who use images of child sexual abuse is that they don't really see there's anything wrong in simply looking at images, and don't let themselves understand that theirs is not a victimless crime because they provide the market for a large international industry based on the abuse and suffering of children to produce imagery for their enjoyment. Such considerations don't generally apply to extreme pornography. It's produced using actors who simulate being raped or killed.
  4. As far as I remember, the moving__end event fires when you stop moving the object using the build tools. The wiki suggests it does, too. Worth a try. If it does work, then you will need -- if I correctly understand what you're doing -- to set a flag when the object starts moving under normal circumstances (when you touch it to start it moving, or however you trigger the movement by script) so the script knows, in the moving_end event, if the motion that has just ceased was caused by the script or by an external agency like the owner dragging it around.
  5. Abusive content/group/sims in Second Life

    @Klytyna You said, 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.
  6. Abusive content/group/sims in Second Life

    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.
  7. Abusive content/group/sims in Second Life

    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.
  8. Abusive content/group/sims in Second Life

    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, 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.
  9. Abusive content/group/sims in Second Life

    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.
  10. Looking for a clear desciption.

    Wait until Animesh gets rolled out on the main grid! I foresee all manner of flopping, wobbling and wiggling.
  11. Looking for a clear desciption.

    If she showed up on one of the adult regions in which I'm involved in managing, I'm pretty sure our staff would end up asking her to change her avatar or leave. That's a judgment call, obviously, and I'd almost certainly ask for a second opinion and check her groups, too, but she looked to me young enough to cause us (especially the owner of the estate) problems if someone AR-d us for allowing her to stay. Plus she'd almost certainly scare our regular patrons. The picture has gone now, though, so there's nothing to argue about.
  12. Looking for a clear desciption.

    On my understanding of the rules on Adult Content the female av would be contravening the the rules about no matter where she was, since the sex toy is attached to her. Personally, I think the staff on the region were remiss in not asking her to change or leave, but it's not my region, so I don't make the rules or have to answer to LL for what goes on there. Anyway, you say you've now reported the matter to LL, so it's up to them what happens next. You've done all you can, so now you can put the matter behind you and spend your time in places you find more congenial.
  13. Looking for a clear desciption.

    Yes, but many countries (including my own) have all sorts of restrictions on anything that may be construed as promoting the use of alcohol by minors. Rather than try to comply with them all, LL may well feel it's simplest to take this very restrictive approach as an alternative to asking people to confirm their age before accessing the Marketplace..
  14. Looking for a clear desciption.

    Oh, I see. So apparently a simple image of the wine bottle and glasses is G, but an image showing people drinking wine from the glasses (or text describing them so doing) would be M. How odd. At least, though, you were able to clarify the appropriate rating for your bars, so something's come of this thread.
  15. Looking for a clear desciption.

    That's clearly not enforced in all cases (see above), but even so, it doesn't explain why your bars have to be listed as "Adult" rather than as "Mature," which the Marketplace Listing Policies clearly say they should be: Have you not asked them why your bars need to be Adult rather than simply Mature? I would.