Germans Pursuing Kiddie Porn In Second Life 408
Several readers sent in links to the BBC, which has picked up news of a German investigation into child pornography in Second Life. A German TV station captured images of two avatars, an apparent adult and an apparent child, involved in sexual activity. The station also said they had infiltrated a ring trading real-world child porn in SL. SL creator Linden Labs is cooperating fully with the investigation, they write on their official blog: "Our investigations revealed the users behind these avatars to be a 54-year-old man and a 27-year-old woman. Both were immediately banned from Second Life." The German prosecutor's office hasn't responded to Linden's offer of help in identifying the real-world traders.
Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? (Score:4, Insightful)
Counterstrike? (Score:2, Insightful)
This may be controversial, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question ultimately becomes: Can fantasy involving only digital, or make-believe characters, be illegal?
If the answer is yes, I find that to be extremely disturbing in an Orwellian sense. While I find the concept of finding children sexually appealing to be personally abhorrent, I'm not sure the law extends (or should extend) into virtual roleplaying between consenting adults.
My two cents.
Morality Plays (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they arrest people in Germany for the love scenes in Shakespeare's _Romeo and Juliet_ between two underage kids, but played by adults?
Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? (Score:4, Insightful)
The police need to get out of our sex lives. Linden labs isn't fooling anyone, Secondlife is for virtual sex...
Beyond logic (Score:4, Insightful)
We have 27 year old and 54 year old adults faking sex with avatars, one of which looked like a child. There's no child porn here. Even if they shot movies of their "act" and distributed it around, this is not child porn. There's no abused child. People apparently have forgotten why child porn is bad in the first place.
You can come up with all made-up reasons "but it can motivate people watching it to abuse children".. Right, if anything you see motivates you to replicate it, we have to bad 90% of the potentially violent or sexual content out there.
Just like talking about target shootout at work isn't terrorism, animation of avatars by adult people isn't child abuse.
Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm as horrified as anyone by real child abuse and pornography, but virtual one? Age-play? That's just dumb. If anything, it might be possible to identify whether the people acting out their fantasies have either engaged in real child abuse or have been victims of it. But to criminalize virtual role-playing is indeed a complete thought crime.
Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? (Score:5, Insightful)
The entirety of the problem lies in the fact that RL child pornography was being displayed and/or sold to other people via Second Life. When this occurs it is a crime. The fact it is happening in SL doesnt mean it is any different from someone selling them on a web page.
Honestly? I'm not suprised it is happening in SL. Considering it is a place where you go to fulfill your fantasies in a virtual life (IE. house, car, good looking outfits, seems some sickos added kiddie porn to that list).
Re:Thought crimes? (Score:5, Insightful)
While certainly a valid point, I think this is hardly definitive. Like the gun-control debate, comparing crime statistics across nations is notoriously prone to confirmation bias. There are too many legal, cultural, economic, and social differences to really compare results in one nation with results in another. I do know, for example, that many people feel sexism is rife in Japan and that women are objectified to a much greater degree than in the US. Compared with other studies about porn, this would strengthen the old idea that porn leads to desensitization and objectification of women. The actual incidence of violent sexual crime, however, could very well not show an easily observable statistical change.
This is precisely how the connection between smoking and cancer was combated for so many years. The incidence of cancer is so low that it's easy to construct studies which reflect no statistical increase. It's similar to the lag in acceptance of global warming.
What we do know, however, is that pornography's impact on those who view it is considered so detrimental that you can't get randomized, control-group studies approved and that those studies which were randomized and controlled (and led to the conclusion that it was too detrimental to ethically get people to watch porn) found statistically significant connections between exposure to porn and a lower support of women's rights, a declining importance of marriage, and laxer attitude towards rape punishment.
Re:Counterstrike? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Counterstrike? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This may be controversial, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree w/ that law, and in the US virtual kiddie pr0n is lawful (I believe it was upheld under a first amendment argument).
Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? (Score:1, Insightful)
Making a polygonal mesh resemble a naked young child is not a real crime. No children were exploited, and hence no harm was done. That *should not* be illegal, though Linden is perfectly within its rights to set a terms of use policy against that (or against wearing blue shirts or speaking spanish, for that matter) since they own the servers.
The study (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not really surprising that there is a correlation between people who think it is fun to attempt to chock the interviewer by admitting their use of pornography, and people that who think it is fun to attempt to chock the interviewer by condoning rape. Nor that there is a correlation between people who find they need to lie about their use of pornography to appear more moral than they are, and people who find they need to get tough on rape for similar reasons. Even if all the answers were truthful (unlikely given the subject), it would be surprising if people who had little trouble with rape would see pornography as wrong.
The study mostly seems like a pseudo-rational crutch for people who oppose pornography for other reasons.
Re:Beyond logic (Score:4, Insightful)
you seem to forget that pedophiles are mentally disordered people. They get affected by what they see in different ways than you and me. You might compare that to an alcoholic seeing someone drinking at a bar vs. a non-alcoholic watching it.
Additionally, they are not sued for abusing children. They shared material showing child abusing. This also includes animated child abuse. US law isn't quite different at this point, or why would you think that nude games are rated only for adults? No real sex here too.
You're a nice example of what I'm talking about. Guess what: serial killers are also mentally disordered people.
What's with all the criminal murder investigation serials? We should be up to the neck full of serial killers by now.
You're trying to justify this non-sense by inventing reasons that don't exist.
They shared material showing child abusing.
The "child" was a 27 year old woman that clicked "OK" to participate in 3D figure animation in a virtual world. Where's the abused child? What if the "apparent child" was just an adult that looked like a child.. Oh wait, it WAS!
Let's ban midgets from having sex then. Especially if they look like "apparent children".
This also includes animated child abuse.
Think about it: if I doodle myself cutting a doodle representing you, in pieces, did I just commit an illegal depiction of a murder in cold blood? Do I have to be sent to jail or banned from somewhere because of it?
Which are depictions of "virtual" child porn are a sudden exception to all this? Do you even realize why?
We're just used to violence, we could watch hours and hours of movies with incredibly detailed and cruel murders, but most people are grossed out by child porn. So the natural reaction is to ban every possible depiction, because people are grossed out. Well, let me tell you: gross things aren't illegal, when noone is harmed, and there's no victim. They're just gross, that's all.
Maybe they should have disclaimers so kids don't see them, and should bear warnings, but they simply not illegal.
Another thing is, currently we're replicating Macartism in a way that demonstrates people don't learn from history at all. Are you afraid that if you support someone's freedom to *draw* child porn, someone could consider you're a pedophile?
Isn't this a big part of why people react so violently against all this. If we don't, we're "one of them" right?
Let me tell you: no, you're not. The gap between thinking or drawing a crime, and committing the crime is huge, don't let the current situation fool you that they're the same.
Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
To some extent, this is like people advertising that they're pedophiles. It makes it that much easier to figure out if they really are pedophiles, and to deal with them for what they've done in real life. Making this stuff illegal just makes it harder to track these people.
Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, do you buy that argument? Thats the same argument they use for war on drugs, war on terror..
Re:The study (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do you draw the line on moral standards?
The first prison sentences were on par with murder sentences for first time offenders. I'd say murder is worse than rape. Having the sentences the same would certainly encourage murdering someone to avoid being convicted of rape.
A LOT of men are getting out of rape charges lately after spending long terms in prison. We made rape such a horrible crime that women got carte blanche for a while to accuse men of it. Hopefully the lacrosse travesty will shift the burden of proof back to the level of other crimes.
I think the "no means no" saying that being asked to stop 10 seconds short of climax and not stopping being equated to be the same as a person who attacks a stranger is foolish too. Obviously rape is a very complex crime because of the issues consent- knowing the person vs a stranger, relative age of the victim/perp, etc.
I do agree with you that it looks like porn apparently corrupts the default attitude that rape is bad into something worse. I disagree that violence in entertainment isn't a problem tho-- we see increasing numbers of child attackers (even attacking their own parents.)
Re:The study (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? (Score:3, Insightful)
Janet Jackson had , what was it, a thousand complaints? big whoop. The fact that it was the most re-watched piece of video in TiVos history indicats that Americans would LIKE to see more nipples.
I sure would, and I thin it would go a long way to removing this breast fixation we have.
A breast fixation I share...mmm breasts. But quite frankly I would like my chioldren to grow up without that baggage.
Re:This may be controversial, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is very sad. Pedophiles are the great boogeymen of our age, but when it comes down to it, pedophilia is just another kink, albeit one that cannot be indulged in for real. The rise of virtual child pornography should be great news: pedophiles can finally indulge their lusts without involving children. A lot of people are aroused by strange things, including things they would never want to indulge in in reality (rape fantasies, bondage, castration, strangulation, etc). My *guess* is that most people interested in child pornography are unlikely to be interested in molesting children.
The sad thing is that no one will get elected to higher office by expressing sympathy for pedophiles, while anti-pedophilia is used as a smokescreen for all sorts of restrictive legislation, so it's unlikely that Canada's legislation will ever be fixed (except maybe via the courts, who have a greater history of (properly) supporting the rights of the detested).
Potential counterarguments:
1. I understand and support the desire to keep such kinks private, because a) it is repulsive to most people, b) it may be terrible for people who were abused as children, and c) because making it publicly acceptable might attract more people to it. That includes public displays on Second Life, though punishment might better be meted by the people who own the servers, rather than by a government.
2. There is the belief that participating in lusts like this can inflame desire rather than satisfy it. I'm not sure I believe that (it probably depends on the person), and I'd like to see scientific research on the subject.
3. And, of course, anyone who actually does involve real children in their kinks should be punished, rehabilitated (as needed), and prevented from doing so again.
(Disclaimer: I am not sexually attracted to children or teenagers; my own kinks, I would prefer to keep to myself.)
Re:Thought crimes? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a bigger one: the U.S. And probably most of Europe.
The Internet has made porn available fairly freely and discreetly where it wasn't available before. Name your perversion: a quick google search will turn up lots of hits. And any Geek Squad member or other computer repair person knows that a great number of people, who never would have read anything more extreme than Playboy before, have porn collections and pretty bizarre stuff.
Have we suddenly reduced sentences on rape since the birth of Netscape and broadband? Hardly. The original poster refers to a survey made during Ed Meese's crusade against porn. Funny that in the last 23 years apparently nothing has come out that supports it. But I guess the Mormons (like him/her) still try to hype it.
Crying wolf (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it is predicated on the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that thought crimes are an Orwellian horror.
I'm alternately amused and horrified by how easily people are willing to throw others in jail without due process and clamp down on free speech that they disagree with.
Re:The study (Score:1, Insightful)
Also, they seem to assume this only applies to porn and rape. What if similar studies showed the same things in other areas, such as, violence in various degrees? If this does turn out to be the case, then a possible conclusion to draw is that people will naturally become dulled to various things, and this study is totally pointless at saying porn causes "callousness towards women and women's issues.". Also, by the same logic used in this study, one would expect the same to hold true for guys, that porn that depicts the guys as the lessers would causes a callousness towards men. (this is also why i asked what kind of porn, was there a 50/50 split in the videos depiction of the various sexes? Where girls mostly shown as the lesser?)
Re:Confused. (Score:2, Insightful)
Back in the day, men took wives who were, what, 14-16? Where was the OMGKIDDIEPORN crowd then?
Besides that, have you walked around an American mall lately? It makes me sick at times. 12-16 year olds sluttin' it up. I see a girl walking along, and she's in some pretty hot clothes, and then I get within range to determine that she's way too young, and I start to gag. It's amazing how overtly sexual these young girls are. And they know it, too.
The fact that clothes like that are made in sizes for children of that age should be illegal, too, shouldn't it? After all, a mall is a pedophile's ideal hunting ground - look at all that underage skin the girls so willingly show.
This means restricting certain behaviors, preferably by way of cultural norms, but if necessary, by legislation.
Be careful. Some people think you should legislate certain behaviors, like violent video games. That's a pretty slippery slope you're on there.
Re:Thought crimes? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about we stop trying to criminalize thought and let the police focus their limited resources on actual crimes?
Re:Confused. (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the day, men took wives who were, what, 14-16? Where was the OMGKIDDIEPORN crowd then?
Re:The study (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally- I think that porn does corrupt people's attitudes towards rape (as I agreed above I think). And any thing you show as positive is going to corrupt people towards that point of view (smoking
---
Cross referencing to my other post tho-- Morality is a continuum. To a lot of people historically we are satanically going to hell immoral. We do things every day that people used to be burned, stoned, etc. for. How good or bad rape is has been changing a lot over the last 100 years. It got really bad for a while there. Lately, it's been overused and it's not as bad. I think its going to continue swinging and we will start seeing false accusing women put in jail before it's over.
Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, while I agree with the vast majority of your points, I feel the need to point out that there is a VERY large difference between attraction to "not-quite-18/barely 18" and pedophilia. Biologically speaking, as soon as someone enters puberty, attraction starts. Society teaches us that we are not to start having sex at this point due to biological/sociological complications, but it is still going against our nature. Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent, which is not in our nature, at least in a sexual sense. (Please note, when I say "not natural," I mean it's not built into humanity as a whole, or on a large scale." Fetishes are in an individual's nature, but not programmed into any one group)
Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a precedent in porn midgets in school girl uniforms. On a similar note, an exasperated judge in our metro a couple years ago dismissed a case and read the prosecution the riot act, "No, he does _not_ have to prove that the girls in his porn _were_ adults. YOU have to prove they were _not_."
I trace "thought crime porn" to the late Andrea Dworkin -- of the fat and ugly lesbian manhating branch of feminism. One of our metro cities called her in some years ago to try to pass a law stating that if a person reacts to it as porn, it's porn. In other words, if somebody said he was provoked to become a rapist by the uncontrollable lust the Victoria Secret web site generated in him, then the Victoria Secret web site is porn.
Such people should pick up a book on the philosophy of art. The "intentional fallacy" has been perhaps the most discussed concept in the field for decades. Nobody can be held responsible for the reaction something provokes in someone else and to think the link can be proved demonstrates some "interesting" faith in metaphysics.