How about slavery? Slavery is, as far as I am aware, pretty much illegal everywhere. So perhaps it is time to turn our attention to images of slavery. After all, laws against slavery stretch back hundreds of years in most jurisdictions. Wherever one goes in virtual environments one can find avatars which appear to be slaves of one sort or another. There are even sims completely dedicated to the depiction of slave owning societies (and what sexual perversions they get up to is unfortunately not left to the imagination). Now it can be argued that this slavery is “voluntary”, or “just role playing” but if these arguments fail in the case of depiction of an under-age avatar (which is not even a human, never-mind a child) engaging in simulated-sex (which is not even sex), then such trifling objections to slavery should not be permitted to overturn the stomach wrenching images coming from simulated slavery in virtual life either. Even the argument that the men and women abasing themselves by adopting the role of slaves could choose not to; or derive some benefit from it, must fail in the light of the revulsion all civilized people should feel at the idea of slavery for fun. After all, the UK and Germany banned slavery long before they established modern ideas of arbitrarily defined late sexual maturity (children in Spain and Holland are legally competent to engage in sex at 12, while some US states wait till fourteen, although the US Federal Government wants 18, but in the UK the ages were 16 for girls or 18 for boys until very recently) – and even longer before laws against images or pictures (which are not real) of youthful sexuality (which is real) were drafted. While the US was a late starter in banning slavery, it was an even later starter in “age-of-consent” laws and its virulent war on images is even more recent. Or we wouldn’t have the ridiculous situation where you can legally phuck – but may not take photographs, or where you can buy printed books containing images similar to those that have seen parents locked up after a Walmart clerk noticed pictures of their child in the tub. Indeed, if these rules were rigorously applied across all media we probably wouldn’t have much of the works of Renaissance painters either, Michaelangelo included.

And now the residents of virtual worlds, untrained in any aspect of this complicated psycho-sexual-social and legal minefield, with varying norms and standards throughout a world where the US and Zimbabwe share the honor of refusing to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Children, appoint themselves as arbiters of sexual practice, while ignoring the sordid spectacle of slavery sumptuously spattered across their screens.

For shame!

[...] Hmm, European liberal attitudes toward sex – how odd to read this immediately after Raph’s post today: http://www.raphkoster.com/2007/05/09/second-life-child-abuse-claim/ [...]

About this argument, I doubt kids play Second Life. It’s not exactly that approachable.

I don’t know if there are cases where pedophiles use Second Life to trade child porn (which would be illegal), but I doubt kids are involved directly there.

And on one MAJOR italian newspaper now I’ve even read debating the real psychological consequences of a virtual rape. WHAT THE FUCK?!

See above; apparently “Animated images are not covered by the Act as they did not involve the exploitation of an actual child in their creation.” AKAIK SL avatars don’t qualify as pseudo-photographs under the Child Protection Act or the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act unless someone uploaded a real picture and used it in creating a skin for an avatar. Is that possible in SL?

On the subject of UK law, the CJPOA 1994 introduced the concept of ‘pseudo-photographs’ of children. Pseudo-photographs are technically photographs, but they are created by computer software manipulating one or more pre-existing pictures. For example, a child’s face can be superimposed on an adult body, or to another child’s body, with the characteristics of the body altered to create pornographic computer generated images without the involvement of a real child. It is now an offence “for a person to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of a child; (or) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs” under section 1 of the 1978 Protection of Children Act.

Further European legislation has been enacted which does not stipulate portions of real children and i believe that an SL avatar would be covered by this legislation, and as such, would be prosecutable in the UK or any other member of the EU.

This, no matter how sick and disgusting, is a free speech/freedom of thought issue. But sex tourism to 3′rd world countries or trips to the inner city are Child endangerment issues. I rather all European and US agencies focus on child exploitation and human trafficking, then some pervert getting a thrill off of pixels.

ALSO- Maybe countries that have huge sex tourism industries where children are victimized should have trade and travel sanctions against them? Oh wait I forgot, we are just interested in protecting pixels not children.

Virtual hypocrisy!

A bit of googling and I came up with this…

The Child Protection Act
In 1988 the law was strengthened further by the Criminal Justice Act, which made the possession of indecentimages of children illegal. In 1994, in response to advances in computer technology, the law was further
strengthened by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which made illegal the creation, distribution and possession of ‘pseudo-photographs’ of children. A ‘pseudo-photograph’ must involve an image of an
actual child that has been doctored, such as a photograph depicting a child’s head on an adult’s body. Animated images are not covered by the Act as they did not involve the exploitation of an actual child in
their creation. However, the BBFC may still take issue with such images under the terms of the Video Recordings Act if it is felt that harm might arise from their distribution (eg by assisting paedophiles
in ‘grooming’ children or by stimulating a sexual interest in children).

Video Recordings Act
The act was amended in the Video Recordings Act 1993 but underwent no significant changes. It was amended again in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to deal with the growing issue of “video violence”.
In addition, the amendment extended the definition of a video recording to any device capable of storing electronic data, which invariably includes works available on DVD as well as CD and CD-ROM, although the amendment exempts video games. The labelling regulations were amended in 1985.

Looks like the worst case is a labelling violation…