Comments on: New Supreme Court Opinion Discusses Virtual Child Pornography Law; Linden Lab’s 2007 Ban Clarified http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/ Legal Issues That Impact Virtual Worlds Tue, 13 May 2014 04:03:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Newman http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-44684 Newman Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:49:44 +0000 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-44684 I sentence all law makers to 6 months in second life so they can grasp just how lame it is. They should just worry about protecting actual kids in the real world. It's mind-blowing how much law makers suck at the internets. Get with the program people, it's out of beta and it's not slowing down. props for trying I guess, I'm all for protecting the children. I do hope this law does not outlaw scientific illustration, like explaining "Why are my arms hairy?", and "muh, boob's are growing, wtf mom" type questions, and base models used for making awesome movies like toy story. Those kids were digitally nude at one point it's how digital models are made. I sentence all law makers to 6 months in second life so they can grasp just how lame it is. They should just worry about protecting actual kids in the real world. It’s mind-blowing how much law makers suck at the internets. Get with the program people, it’s out of beta and it’s not slowing down. props for trying I guess, I’m all for protecting the children.

I do hope this law does not outlaw scientific illustration, like explaining “Why are my arms hairy?”, and “muh, boob’s are growing, wtf mom” type questions, and base models used for making awesome movies like toy story. Those kids were digitally nude at one point it’s how digital models are made.

]]> By: Douglas http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-34013 Douglas Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:50:13 +0000 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-34013 It seems this law had permanent fixed images in mind, rather than ephemeral, impermanent in-world encounters. Would an in-world sexual encounter between 2 avatars constitute a "visual depiction" if no permanent image is created? And, for purposes of determining whether it is obscene, what would be considered the work as a whole? Would it be from the moment the avatars began the animation in question until they stopped, or would it be from the time they each logged on and then logged off for for the session that included the encounter, or is it the whole of their online existence? And what would the applicable community be? It seems this law had permanent fixed images in mind, rather than ephemeral, impermanent in-world encounters. Would an in-world sexual encounter between 2 avatars constitute a “visual depiction” if no permanent image is created? And, for purposes of determining whether it is obscene, what would be considered the work as a whole? Would it be from the moment the avatars began the animation in question until they stopped, or would it be from the time they each logged on and then logged off for for the session that included the encounter, or is it the whole of their online existence? And what would the applicable community be?

]]> By: Looking for copyright-related news « Media in Second Life http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-18428 Looking for copyright-related news « Media in Second Life Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:53:41 +0000 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-18428 [...] the ban, children avatars are no longer allowed in SL nor it is to interact with any of them, known within [...] [...] the ban, children avatars are no longer allowed in SL nor it is to interact with any of them, known within [...]

]]> By: Tomorrow Museum » Archive » Synthetic Performances: Sylvere Lotringer, Second Life, and the Politics of Perversions http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-17220 Tomorrow Museum » Archive » Synthetic Performances: Sylvere Lotringer, Second Life, and the Politics of Perversions Wed, 28 May 2008 02:52:12 +0000 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-17220 [...] could potentially be policed, as graphic images are prohibited under “obscenity” laws. (Virtual Bind explains the subtitles of this [...] [...] could potentially be policed, as graphic images are prohibited under “obscenity” laws. (Virtual Bind explains the subtitles of this [...]

]]> By: Patent Baristas » Blawg Review #161 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-17191 Patent Baristas » Blawg Review #161 Mon, 26 May 2008 19:26:07 +0000 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-17191 [...] We also have to look at how free is free. Ben Duranske at Virtually Blind discusses the new Supreme Court Opinion on Virtual Child Pornography Law. [...] [...] We also have to look at how free is free. Ben Duranske at Virtually Blind discusses the new Supreme Court Opinion on Virtual Child Pornography Law. [...]

]]> By: Jessica Holyoke http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-17152 Jessica Holyoke Sat, 24 May 2008 21:48:41 +0000 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-17152 I double checked the wording of the statute and here's why I think it will be eventually struck down, or at least altered. Intent to distribute does not modify knowingly produces. The obscenity laws, and one of the reasons why obscenity is allowed as a crime in a country with a First Amendment, only prosecute distribution, not creation. With no children involved with the production, I think the parts of this law that relates to production without distribution will fall. I double checked the wording of the statute and here’s why I think it will be eventually struck down, or at least altered.

Intent to distribute does not modify knowingly produces. The obscenity laws, and one of the reasons why obscenity is allowed as a crime in a country with a First Amendment, only prosecute distribution, not creation. With no children involved with the production, I think the parts of this law that relates to production without distribution will fall.

]]> By: Benjamin Duranske http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-17129 Benjamin Duranske Fri, 23 May 2008 18:57:52 +0000 http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/#comment-17129 Thanks to reader <a href="http://www.aglawyer.com/" rel="nofollow">Suzanne Edwards</a> for the heads-up on the Supreme Court decision. Thanks to reader Suzanne Edwards for the heads-up on the Supreme Court decision.

]]>