Slashdot Mirror


Germans Pursuing Kiddie Porn In Second Life

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.

408 comments

  1. Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Dunbal · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Welcome to the era of thought crime

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by JoelMartinez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what part of "trading real-world child porn in SL" is a thought crime?

    2. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if I dress my 28 year old five up as a school girl, can we get sent to jail for that now, too? I mean, maybe we were pretending too hard, ya know?

    3. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe Parent was referring to the other part, numbnuts?

    4. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by BrookHarty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thoughtcrime indeed, 2 adults rollplaying is legal, rollplaying online isn't, its still 2 consenting adults.

      The police need to get out of our sex lives. Linden labs isn't fooling anyone, Secondlife is for virtual sex...

    5. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The part that referred to "trading in virtual child pornography is punishable by up to three years"?

      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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Tuoqui · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have no problem with anything two consenting adults (or their SL avatars) do with each other. That is covered by the whole 'government should stay out of our bedrooms' thing.

      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).

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    7. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by JoelMartinez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      fair enough ... I'll admit I didn't read the article. Just wanted to make sure the distinction was made that the trading of real-life kiddie porn shouldn't be defended. The virtual stuff ... well, I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, it's "thoughtcrimey" ... on the other, I'll go ahead and draw a line in the sand to assert that it's sick. I'll stop just short of passing judgment and suggesting a resolution to the issue.

    8. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Coan_teen · · Score: 3, Informative

      The way I understand it, the two users were not banned from SL for their avatar hanky panky but for being involved in the exchanges that others have pointed out - things that have a real correlation to real child exploitation. As for the question of whether or not expressing these urges helps control them: I don't believe there's much statistical data, but it seems logical that having a virtual outlet might be an option for some (probably not all) pedophiles. Others might find this stimulating in such a way that it encourages them to act out the fantasy. Who knows? There haven't been many studies done. Still, this incident occurred in a public enough online space that the investigators were able to capture it. If they were able to find and see it, others would be as well. It may be a virtual act between consenting adults, but SL is full of underage people. If people want to engage in graphic virtual sex, they need to do so in a forum that is adults-only, for the same reason that real consenting adult sex is not legal in public.

      --
      A Sherman can give you a very nice...edge.
    9. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Trading digital images of real naked children is a real crime. You have to exploit children to make such pictures, so trading (and making) them *should* be illegal, investigated, and prosecuted.

      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.

    10. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by computational+super · · Score: 1
      There haven't been many studies done.

      And if there were, each one would contradict the last one (based on the prejudice of the researcher) and everybody would ignore the results of the studies and base their opinions on their own hysterical over-emotional prejudices (as always).

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    11. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The virtual stuff ... well, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

      Personally I oppose short people who might be mistaken for children having sex with anyone. In Second Life or Real Life.

    12. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Anyone surprised it began in Germany? Actually, yes.

      Germany is far more liberal when it comes to sex than the US, for example. Exposed nipples aren't exactly early afternoon TV, but you can see them easily enough in the evening and if a few shots were sent during the afternoon, very few people would complain.

      Also, "think of the chiiildren" is a less often used argument over here. It happens, but it's not standard.

      I would have expected the US to be on the forefront here. After all, they do jail kids for playing "doctor" with each other (famous case from 3-4 years back involving an 11 year old and his 9 year old sister).
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by JoelMartinez · · Score: 2, Funny

      because it's slashdot and I can :-P

    14. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Maradine · · Score: 1

      Where's '+1 Flamebait' when you need it?

      --

      trustedworlds.net - gaming, security, and the gunk that lives in between

    15. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear there is a new feature in the Sims coming out that automatically dispatches the police when you try and virtually molest your dog. Remember children: cyber-bestiality is not a joke.

    16. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by BrookHarty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole argument, Virtual pedophilia leads Real world pedophilia is fodder for moral legislation.

      Seriously, do you buy that argument? Thats the same argument they use for war on drugs, war on terror..

    17. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Rasgueado · · Score: 1

      Although this specific incident happened in Germany, (Someone correct me if I'm wrong) but I am quite certain that sexually explicit computer images of children are also illegal in Canada, this includes 3d models or even drawings. So, it's not just a German thing.

    18. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would like to state that, in the US very few people wuold complain abut nipples at all.
      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.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by ajs · · Score: 2, Informative
      Here's what the article says, for those who didn't RTFA:

      Mr Schader was asked to pay to attend meetings where virtual and real child pornography was being shown.

      Members of this group also offered to put him in touch with traders of real child pornography.

      The investigation also uncovered so called "age play" groups that revolve around the abuse of virtual children. So, it looks like there were three issues:
      1. Distribution of virtual child porn (images within the game of cartoon characters having underage sex)
      2. Distribution of real, online child porn (images within and outside of the game being traded within the game, of real children)
      3. "age play" (people dressing up as children within the game and having sex).

      That last one is nonsense, and the first is shaky but maybe defensible as a crime (only because you have no way of even trying to confirm the age of the participants in the first case). I can't imagine any court in the developed world saying that that's any more illegal than an adult putting on a sailor moon costume before jumping in the sack with another adult. As long as the people involved are aware that the other people involved are not REALLY children, there's no harm being done. Harmless kink is harmless kink.
    20. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by TheMadcapZ · · Score: 1

      28 year old, five up? Lets see here, carry the one, 32. Oh crap, your most certainly going to jail for sure. Watch out fer your cornhole.

    21. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No mi camisas azules!

    22. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Indefinite,+Ephemera · · Score: 1

      People in the UK may also be interested in this: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-d epiction-sex-abuse

      'This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals to make its possession an offence.'

      By a timely coincidence, here's part of the announcement for a forthcoming academic conference:

      'Recent decades have seen philosophers devote considerable attention to depiction, that form of
      representation characteristic of figurative paintings, drawings and photographs. Despite this
      attention, there is as yet little agreement about what depiction involves. This conference aims to
      help remedy this situation by bringing together philosophers working in this area to discuss topics
      central to an adequate philosophical understanding of depiction...'

      I expect the government to get its law, but goodness knows what the language will be or how the courts will deal with it...

    23. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Learn to read?

      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.

      I think you don't know how to read. I also think your neighbor has a cold.

      Are these two things related at all? Does this mean YOU have a cold?

      Ditz. +5 Insightful yeah.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    24. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm fully backing short people who might be mistaken for children having sex with everyone. They're over 18? Fuck away, and hell, start a website and I'll check it out.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    25. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by lgw · · Score: 1

      The way I understand it, the two users were not banned from SL for their avatar hanky panky but for being involved in the exchanges that others have pointed out Incorrect. I know this is Slashdot and we can't be bothered to even read the summary, but before calling people child porn distributors you might want to look a bit more closely.

      These two were banned for their online hanky-panky. In related news, some people on SL were trading child porn (which is hardly a surprise, as people have been busted trading child porn on every form of digital distribution I've ever heard of).
      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    26. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "I'll go ahead and draw a line in the sand to assert that it's sick. I'll stop just short of passing judgment "

      Oops, too late. I think the former statement contradicts the later.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    27. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by JoelMartinez · · Score: 1

      you're right ... I should have just said, "I'll stop just short of suggesting a solution" ... but thanks for only quoting part of the sentence to further your own point.

    28. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The age of consent in Germany is 14.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    29. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      They are your own words. If you don't like them, blame yourself. Adding the rest of the quote wouldn't have made a difference to the fact that you still contradicted yourself. I just found it funny and ironic that you would say something is "sick" and in the very next sentence claim you aren't passing judgement.

      I mean, I'm not racist, I just hate everyone that isn't white.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    30. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Also, "think of the chiiildren" is a less often used argument over here.

      Yet it is anchored in the constitution as a limit to freedom of expression.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    31. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by JoelMartinez · · Score: 1

      fair enough, it was a poor choice of words which I corrected in the last comment.

    32. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people want to engage in graphic virtual sex, they need to do so in a forum that is adults-only, for the same reason that real consenting adult sex is not legal in public.

      Because there are a bunch of cowardly whack jobs who are scared of their own bodies and natural healthy urges?

    33. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Coan_teen · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. I know this is Slashdot and we can't be bothered to even read the summary, but before calling people child porn distributors you might want to look a bit more closely. These two were banned for their online hanky-panky. Mea culpa. Still, though, if it's against the user agreement for SL, the game administrators are still within their rights. I don't know enough about SL policies to say whether it is or not.
      --
      A Sherman can give you a very nice...edge.
    34. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      In Armageddon the staff allow players to have mud sex (because they don't like the idea of banning it). Now Armageddon is set in a harsh world where 13 year olds and older are considered adults (at least they're suppose to be). Now if two 40 year old players, one playing a 14 year old and another a 29 year old, were to engage in mud sex, would that be child pornography according to Germany?

    35. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by brkello · · Score: 1

      Cool! I want to rollplay. But what are the rules? Is this rolling around with some virtual girl in the grass? That would be pretty cool. Or is it some form of sport...tossing buttered rolls to one each other. That sounds kind of lame. Either way, let me know...I might sign up for SL if this is going on.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    36. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      I think the key here is to know, for yourself, where the line is drawn.

      As an anime fan, especially one who visits 4chan, I've seen a lot of artwork that is clearly of someone who'd be considered under the legal age of consent (well, at least in the USA. AoC laws may vary. Ask your doctor what porn is right for you, etc.). And... I don't like it. On the other hand, it's just a drawing. No children were harmed. No children were even involved. And odds are, the desires these people have would be still exist.

      It's my belief that people are born with innate attractions. Often considered "fetishes." Sometimes, sadly, these attractions are a little south of ethical. So I think, at the very least, fantasizing to fictional works is better than just suppressing it until you snap and do something awful. By all means, lock up people who molest children. But there is a fine, fine line between having the desire to do something and actually doing it. (Who HASN'T thought about robbing a bank when waiting in line? Of course it's a stupid and immoral idea, and we realize that, but who hasn't THOUGHT of it?)

      So, even if I don't LIKE it, I tolerate such material. I don't have to support it, share it, or look at it, but I'll let people have their fun. (And funnily enough, I've seen image macros of things like "Pedophiles for victim-free porn!" Obviously joking, but still...)

    37. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Chile AoC is 12.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    38. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      If people want to engage in graphic virtual sex, they need to do so in a forum that is adults-only, for the same reason that real consenting adult sex is not legal in public. I've never understood why it's fine for people in a 'public' online space to engage in graphic virtual shooting-someone-in-the-head but not to engage in graphic consensual virtual sex. If I had a choice of what I'd prefer to see in real-world public, I know it wouldn't be the homicide.
      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    39. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by QCompson · · Score: 1

      It may be a virtual act between consenting adults, but SL is full of underage people. If people want to engage in graphic virtual sex, they need to do so in a forum that is adults-only, for the same reason that real consenting adult sex is not legal in public.
      I believe you are supposed to be 18 to be in SL.
    40. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But there is a fine, fine line between having the desire to do something and actually doing it.

      Why not a gaping gulf? It may feel like a fine line in our minds, but at least some of us have sturdier systems of thought in our head.

      So, even if I don't LIKE it, I tolerate such material.

      Are you sure it's a simple like-dislike? Perhaps you're attracted, but resist or reject the attraction?

      The more I study art- not just the drawing of lines, but how psychological and physical features are composed to make a character that people like and such- the more I realize how the basic features of attraction to many female character types are near exactly identical to attraction to children.

      From another angle, look at our vocabulary-- "Chicks," "Babes," "Cuties," ...

      Then back to the drawings: Smooth, with full hair, breasts and clearly fertile; ... When you look at the sum of male sexual desire, you get a picture of someone young. The neon signs blink "GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS!", not "Women Women Women," and they're pink, not red. The porn sites read "barely 18." It's extremely common.

      There have been many studies done on "which picture do males find more attractive?" The result was finding that males are attracted to 13 year old females.

      I remember reading the comments attached; One woman said, "Men, I hope you're ashamed of yourselves!" What is interesting is that the social norm is that we are supposed to suppress this fact, and to even avoid (or even outright deny) thinking of it as a fact, because it is a shameful fact.

      Look at the way anime is drawn. Slick, shiny, flat shading, big eyes, glossy, curvy, and so on. It keys right into the sexual circuitry. To deny that we are attracted to these features, is just that: denial, either conscious or otherwise, but denial none-the-less. Reject it if you must, but I think it's better (safer, for you and others,) to know the truth about yourself, and then reject it, rather than to pretend like it's not there, and reject it. There's no question in my mind which of the two is more likely to lead to bad real-life behavior.

    41. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by tsdw · · Score: 1

      No they were banned due to Linden Lab's new policy on age-play. Linden Lab is a private company so they can ban whoever they want for whatever reason they want. http://blog.secondlife.com/

    42. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I'd be lying to deny any sort of attraction, but attraction is not a simple thing. It comes in many shapes and sizes.

      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)

    43. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by smchris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, "virtual porn" is the road to madness.

      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.

    44. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Most people would think an obsession with computers and technology is sick. Many people would think having a reasonably sized vocabulary is sick.

      The law shouldn't exist just because you find someone's behaviour distasteful, because there are plenty of people out there that will label you just the same. It should exist to protect people.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    45. Re:Anyone surprised it began in Germany? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      A better title for the article would have been "Germans crack down on short people", since the youngest person involved was 27, and the only meaningful visual basis for estimating age in SL is height. Short people have no right to have sex. Untermenschen, doncha know. Can't have them breeding and poluting the gene pool.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  2. Confused. by endianx · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is in the games category. Is Second Life a game? I must admit I don't know much about it, but I didn't think it was.

    1. Re:Confused. by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Eh, it gets lumped in with other MMOs/the sims, although it's closer to a graphical chat room IMHO. It's close enough to a game that it gets this category on Slashdot.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Confused. by theJerk242 · · Score: 0

      If you're doing something on a computer that can (most of the time) be done in real life (such as going to a party), it's either a game or a simulation.

      --
      Red Bull gave me wings and I flew into the ceiling fan.
    3. Re:Confused. by Belegothmog · · Score: 1

      It's not a game. It's touted as a three-D internet, or, maybe, Web 3.0 - a metaverse a la Neil Stephenson. It has games in it and people who rp.

    4. Re:Confused. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Even fictional kiddie porn has been declared illegal in many places. Yes, we have entered the era of thought crime. And you know they will soon read your thoughts. They will study the cat scans when they show pictures of children. A whole new technology that we have to learn how to spoof and render useless. I guess one way is to always have sex on your mind.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:Confused. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      So, if there's no actual child involved, how is it kiddie porn?

      according to TFA, both of them were also swapping actual CP images, along with others.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:Confused. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Which is IRC?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The forum where your login name shows up to the left instead of above your one-line post.

    8. Re:Confused. by Literaphile · · Score: 2

      In other words, it's a game with too much hype.

    9. Re:Confused. by Keyslapper · · Score: 0

      So, if there's no actual child involved, how is it kiddie porn?

      Good argument, but by that logic, drawn or painted images would be legal.

      I have 2 young children, so I'm fighting a bias here to stay open minded in the interest of personal freedom, but I'm having a tough time seeing it as acceptable, allowable, or legal.

      And I do agree that government (everywhere, not just the US) should learn to stay out of our sex lives. It's nobody's business what fantasies people have, and it's nobody's business who sleeps with who, but it is everyone's business when someone becomes a danger - especially to children. This means restricting certain behaviors, preferably by way of cultural norms, but if necessary, by legislation.

      I don't know what the correct solution here is, but I don't think ignoring this stuff is part of any kind of solution.

    10. Re:Confused. by kestasjk · · Score: 0

      Lawyer - Janet, I have a model of your avatar here. For the benefit of the jury will you point to the polygon that the defendant clicked on? Janet - *Meekly points* Courtroom - *Gasp! Shocked murmuring* Defendant - *Sinks face into hands, goes pale* Judge - "Order! Order!" *Bang Bang*

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    11. Re:Confused. by kestasjk · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Lawyer - Janet, I have a model of your avatar here. For the benefit of the jury will you point to the polygon that the defendant clicked on?

      Janet - *Meekly points*

      Courtroom - *Gasp! Shocked murmuring*

      Defendant - *Sinks face into hands, goes pale*

      Judge - "Order! Order!" *Bang Bang*

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    12. Re:Confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good argument, but by that logic, drawn or painted images would be legal.
      OMG crime!

      Oh, wait, no it isn't. These imaginary dead babies are perfectly legal, and in fact among the most celebrated works of human artistic achievement. Move along.
    13. Re:Confused. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's nobody's business what fantasies people have, and it's nobody's business who sleeps with who, but it is everyone's business when someone becomes a danger - especially to children.

      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.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    14. Re:Confused. by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 1

      I normally don't respond to AC's, but I need to point out that your screen name is on the right in irc...

      begin shameless mIRC promo here
      looking for DRM-free music? Come to mIRC #roio (irc.highway.net)for all your music needs. High-quality boots in lossless format, interesting forum, and NONE of the legal hassle. Tell them @Eugene sent you.
      end shameless mIRC promo here

      --
      the significance of a signature is insignificant
    15. Re:Confused. by Keyslapper · · Score: 1

      Be careful. Some people think you should legislate certain behaviors, like violent video games. That's a pretty slippery slope you're on there.

      Don't I know it. But didn't someone conclude in a recent study that violent games don't instigate violent behavior? Thing is, I think they were looking at more controlled games, not actual virtual worlds like SL. Who knows where the psychological line is with these things?

      As for the little girls "sluttin' it up" in the local mall, yeah, I notice that. Makes me sick too, but I don't blame the kids. It's really the parents and the media. More the parents, because they ultimately have the greatest degree of influence on their children - assuming they choose to exercise it in a reasonable manner. I've heard all the horror stories about the preacher's daughter going bonkers once she realizes she's old enough to do what she wants, and wanting to try everything dear old dad said was "evil" while she was growing up - pretty good recipe for someone in trouble.

      And like I said, I really don't know what the right solution is, I just know (well, I believe very strongly) that ignoring behavior that potentially endangers young children is probably asking for trouble, only it's the young children that wind up collecting it. Does refusing to ignore such behavoir mean making it illegal? Maybe not, but I can't think of any reasonable alternatives yet. Certainly not a black and white issue in this case.

    16. Re:Confused. by aevan · · Score: 1

      Right, but when you send a message it would come out in the chat area as

      <username> looking for DRM-free music? Come to mIRC #roio (irc.highway.net)for all your music needs

    17. Re:Confused. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who knows where the psychological line is with these things?

      I say that drawing a psychological line is the wrong approach. Punish real world transgressions, not thought-crimes.

      As for the little girls "sluttin' it up" in the local mall, yeah, I notice that. Makes me sick too, but I don't blame the kids. It's really the parents and the media. More the parents, because they ultimately have the greatest degree of influence on their children

      Yeah, but if the parents start saying "You can't wear that!", then little Jane is just going to wear acceptable clothing overtop of her skank clothes, and then once she's outside of daddy's watchful eye, she strips down to the near-nude. Punishing the behavior you don't find acceptable is not a good way to prevent that behavior.

      I've heard all the horror stories about the preacher's daughter going bonkers once she realizes she's old enough to do what she wants, and wanting to try everything dear old dad said was "evil" while she was growing up

      Exactly! In our world, that's what most parents think being a good parent is - ruling your child's life with an iron fist. This usually inspires resentment and rebellion.

      I know one girl whose mother will not let her do the things that she (the mom) wouldn't do. Things like going to an anime convention. All this does is make the daughter resent the mother; I'm pretty sure once she's old enough to move out, she'll be gone, and the mother will hardly ever hear a word from her daughter. That's the bed mom made, though; now she's gotta sleep in it.

      Does refusing to ignore such behavior mean making it illegal? Maybe not, but I can't think of any reasonable alternatives yet.

      Even if you make this sort of behavior illegal, it's not going to protect everyone. People will continue to be perverted. If you can't stop the problem entirely, then I see no point in punishing people for victimless crimes.

      Some people say drugs should be illegal because they lead to crimes (theft, etc), even though taking a drug harms only the user. But the crimes they commit are already illegal; they should be punished under those laws for crimes they did commit, and not because they might loot, rape, or pillage.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    18. Re:Confused. by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's nobody's business what fantasies people have, and it's nobody's business who sleeps with who, but it is everyone's business when someone becomes a danger - especially to children.

      Back in the day, men took wives who were, what, 14-16? Where was the OMGKIDDIEPORN crowd then? Back then, children were property of their father.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    19. Re:Confused. by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that law and society have combined two entirely different types of sexual attraction. Attraction to those 14-year-old teenie boppers is Ephebophilia, not pedophilia, and IMO the two should be entirely different levels of crime.

      An adolescent has fully developed physically, but is not considered emotionally ready for sex despite the fact that historically they would have been married off already. Youth as attractiveness is still ingrained in our culture - how many songs are there about "sweet sixteen." Yet legally an interest in a 14-year-old who is actively attempting to be seductive is as disgusting of a crime as actual pedophilia - the attraction to children younger than adolescence.

      I'm not saying that it's a good thing for young girls to be slutting it up. I'm just saying that the definition of illegal pedophilia extends far beyond what most people would consider a completely unhealthy fetish - tell me, from looking, what is so amazing different between a picture of a 15 year old girl and an 18 year old one? Especially since in many states the age of legal consent IS only 15 or 16.

    20. Re:Confused. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Back in the day, men took wives who were, what, 14-16? Where was the OMGKIDDIEPORN crowd then?
      Back in the day, people kept slaves. Have you considered that what was acceptable in the past isn't today?
    21. Re:Confused. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Have you considered that what was acceptable in the past isn't today?

      Yes. The question was, where were the morals back then? This leads to the question, when did the morals arise, and what caused them to suddenly be important? I mean, Christianity was still all the rage in that day, so you can't say it was religion.

      Something had to be responsible for society's shift in beliefs. The women's civil rights movement, maybe?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    22. Re:Confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe the kid will grow up and realize the parent actually cared enough to set limits.

      Shocking, but true!

      "If you can't stop the problem entirely, then I see no point in punishing people for victimless crimes."

      Not doing anything because you can't do it all is kinda stupid.

    23. Re:Confused. by Keyslapper · · Score: 1

      I say that drawing a psychological line is the wrong approach. Punish real world transgressions, not thought-crimes.

      Wouldn't it be better to prevent the real world crimes? Especially where children are the victims? Why does one person's right to travel a slippery slope override the right of any child to a reasonable degree of security?

      I still don't think you can justifiably punish "thought crimes" though. Wouldn't it be better to mandate treatment to reduce or eliminate the possibility that these people will actually act on their fantasies? Court mandated treatment with no criminal activity is the rub though. The way things stand, I'm guessing the worst that can happen is contempt of court for refusing treatment. Even that would probably raise a red flag to the ACLU. Perhaps having them watch over these kinds of processes (in the US, I mean) would be a good thing too. I'm sure you'd agree that anything near that model would have some risk of degrading any society into a real Orwellian dystopia.

      Punishing the behavior you don't find acceptable is not a good way to prevent that behavior.

      True. Until a true ability to reason the wisdom of certain behavior develops, resentment is the typical response. That doesn't mean you don't limit childrens behavior at all. It's far better to carefully tread that line and have the resentment fade when the child understands more. I know, I've been on that side of the equation, and my relationship with my father is far stronger as I approach 40 (and has been for some 20 years) than I ever expected it to be. I don't doubt he'd agree that it was well worth a little unreasoned resentment.

      Exactly! In our world, that's what most parents think being a good parent is - ruling your child's life with an iron fist. This usually inspires resentment and rebellion.

      No, I think that's being overcautious. If my father refused to let me do anything he wouldn't do, regardless of the relative safety or moral degree of the behavior, I'd have left his home on my 18th birthday (or sooner) rather than sometime after my 21st. There's a vast gray area between guiding your kid safely through their childhood and youth, and locking them in the dungeon.

      Even if you make this sort of behavior illegal, it's not going to protect everyone. People will continue to be perverted. If you can't stop the problem entirely, then I see no point in punishing people for victimless crimes.

      Isn't that just running away from the problem? Speeding is a victimless crime: are you suggesting that because people still fly down the highways and through neighborhoods and kill people, we should just stop handing out speeding tickets? Forgive my bluntness, but that's a very bad idea. Speeding is illegal because it puts people in danger, not because you shouldn't be able to drive how you want.

      The idea of thought crimes is a tricky one. So is the concept of a "victimless" crime. People have the power to make their own choices whether they know it or not, and whether they accept it or not. Nonetheless, the patterns of behavior people have followed in their past will have an affect on who they are now, and what choices they will consider in the future - and in fact, whether they will even consider before acting.

      That doesn't mean anyone who "dabbles" in this kind of behavior now will be attacking children in 2 months or even 2 years. I expect most will shortly realize they're uncomfortable (if not downright disgusted) with it. But if they aren't, and continue beyond the point of just "dabbling" then they are obviously jazzed by the behavior in some way, and will very likely become less affected by it as time goes on. Some of these people still won't necessarily move to the next level, but some will. Wouldn't it be better to try to help them avoid that? It certainly wouldn't be worse for them than leaving them alone, and would certainly benefit any children they may come into contact with. I know "Think of the children" is getting to be cliche', but it's not a bad plan. How many parents would say they don't want anyone's rights limited in any way just so their child can be safe?

    24. Re:Confused. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be better to prevent the real world crimes? Especially where children are the victims? Why does one person's right to travel a slippery slope override the right of any child to a reasonable degree of security?

      Ah, so this is where we come into a conflict over "a reasonable degree of security".

      The world is not a safe place. How, then, do you draw the line of "reasonable", if nothing you can do will ever ensure the safety of anyone, child or not?

      To me, punishing someone for being on a slippery slope is the same as saying they're guilty until proven innocent.

      I still don't think you can justifiably punish "thought crimes" though. Wouldn't it be better to mandate treatment to reduce or eliminate the possibility that these people will actually act on their fantasies?

      I will agree that "treatment" is a superior solution to "imprisonment". However, I fear that "treatment" would be forced on some people simply because they're different, and not because they're a threat to anyone.

      If a human being is perfectly okay with being attracted to children, and understands the ramifications and why this type of behavior isn't accepted by society, should you really put them through that kind of treatment? What if it destroys their self-esteem (because they think they're a sick freak now), and their life becomes ruined? Was it worth it to potentially save a child, in order to destroy some adult's life? Yes, I know, it's all hypothetical, but remember, this pedophile is only hypothetically going to go after children.

      Until a true ability to reason the wisdom of certain behavior develops, resentment is the typical response. That doesn't mean you don't limit childrens behavior at all. [snip] There's a vast gray area between guiding your kid safely through their childhood and youth, and locking them in the dungeon.

      Yes, I agree, but more and more I see parents trying to lock their kids in a dungeon to protect them. To me, it's far more reasonable to demonstrate why a particular behavior is dangerous to discourage it, rather than to have draconian rules.

      I have another friend whose parents never really told her what she can and cannot do. For blatantly stupid things, she would get a no, but she was probably given more freedom than she needed. Instead of telling her she's not allowed to do something, her mom would say "What you're about to do is stupid, for the following reasons:" and then let her daughter proceed to do the stupid thing. The daughter would then learn that, of course, mom is right. And, now, that is a lesson that's actually learned. And to top it off, there's less resentment involved.

      Isn't that just running away from the problem? (re: if you can't stop the problem, don't punish victimless crimes)

      No, it's not running away from the problem. The problem is adults who abuse children, not adults who are attracted to children.

      By saying that we should treat pedophiles who have harmed no one, you're effectively expanding the problem beyond its true bounds.

      Speeding is a victimless crime: are you suggesting that because people still fly down the highways and through neighborhoods and kill people, we should just stop handing out speeding tickets? Forgive my bluntness, but that's a very bad idea. Speeding is illegal because it puts people in danger, not because you shouldn't be able to drive how you want.

      Do you really, truly believe speed limits exist for safety? Why is it, then, that speed traps and speed cameras are usually in high-traffic places and at the bottom of hills and on expressways, and very rarely in neighborhoods or near schools or at dangerous intersections?

      The purpose of speed limits is to generate revenue. That it discourages some people from driving dangerously is a minor side effect.

      If someone kills someone else because they were speeding (or even if they aren't speeding!), we have laws to deal with that. Vehicular mansla

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    25. Re:Confused. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the kid will grow up and realize the parent actually cared enough to set limits.

      Or maybe the kid will grow up and realize that the limits that the parent set were unreasonable (because, frequently, they are) and they will think not that their parents care, but that their parents just get off on authority.

      Not all parents are like that, mind you. But, there are more like that than you think.

      Not doing anything because you can't do it all is kinda stupid.

      Punishing people for committing "crimes" that have not hurt anyone just because some other people who commit these "crimes" might hurt someone is kinda stupid.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    26. Re:Confused. by Keyslapper · · Score: 1

      You obviously make some very good arguments. I'm impressed by your ability to stay objective (and even civil) where the safety and well being of children are concerned. In almost any other scenario, I am typically the same way (or try very hard to be). But with children I can't seem to overlook the overpowering urge to protect them. In an ideal world, I'm sure most of your ideas would be highly beneficial. I'm afraid I'm not quite optimistic enough for that though. Perhaps that's one of the reasons the world is the way it is.

      The speeding trap point is a good one, and my only answer is that speed limits are intended to improve safety. The fact that every single state and local government has perverted the intent for the purpose of revenue and glory, however puerile on the part of the individual police officers is probably part of the pessimism I mentioned above. The police and government are often too busy generating revenue and punishing crimes already committed, for either to bother thinking of the best way to prevent them.

      I agree that the world is not a safe place and that children must learn to survive in it, but that doesn't mean you let your child enter even potentially dangerous scenarios just to teach them that. I used to believe that before I was a parent, but things change when you hold your first baby. Hell, I sound like my Dad.

      DeadCatX2, it's been an interesting discussion, and I wish I had the time to continue, but I have to keep the boss here happy.

      Cheers!

  3. Just goes to show by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

    If you can think of it, someone has already done it!

    --
    Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

    http://financialpetition.org/
    1. Re:Just goes to show by cHALiTO · · Score: 1

      Just the other day I was reading some other news on the subject and thought, what'll happen when things like second life becomes super photorealistic.. or if a porn producer cooks up some kiddie porn pics... but all raytraced, 100% artificial 3dstudio made shit (no real kids involved)?

      I guess it boils down to the intent of the law: was it made to ban kiddie porn because it's atrocious, disgusting, etc (ie it's being banned on morality grounds, like we could ban, say, violent video games.. whatever we call it it's censorship), or to protect kids, because (for now) they're being used for the pics, and they're being molested for real?

      If it's the first one, how is that any different from banning bondage pics, for example? or s/m or zoophilic pics that one might consider 'extremely perverted'? where is the line drawn and why?

      If it's the second one.. then one should agree that 100% artificial 3d-rendered kiddie porn pics should be legal...

      I'm not sure what to think of all this...

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    2. Re:Just goes to show by theshibboleth · · Score: 1

      But could you really tell the difference? If you have a rendered image of child porn that looks exactly like the real thing and you don't pursue those buying, selling, or creating it because they say it's computer-generated, it's pretty likely that everyone's going to say their stuff is computer-generated too.

    3. Re:Just goes to show by cHALiTO · · Score: 1

      yes, that's a problem. But it doesn't allow one to assume that they're lying. it's the responsibility of the person doing the accusation to prove that the other one is actually doing something illegal.

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    4. Re:Just goes to show by Gorobei · · Score: 1

      Easy answer: it was made to protect children, not to ban thought crimes.

      Googled text from 2002:

      WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a 6-year-old law that prohibits the distribution and possession of virtual child pornography that appears to -- but does not -- depict real children.

      The law had banned a range of techniques -- including computer-generated images and the use of youthful-looking adults -- which were designed to convey the impression of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

      The 6-3 ruling says the law violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. The decision hands a major setback to the Justice Department and the majority of Congress in their legislative efforts to fight child pornography.

      The supremes' actually bitch-slapped the govt pretty hard in this one. Their older ruling explicitly said computer-generated stuff wasn't child porn. The govt selectively quoted the supremes' earlier ruling to imply computer-generated stuff was illegal. Hilarity ensued.

    5. Re:Just goes to show by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Well, actually committing a crime is illegal, but encouraging the committal of a crime is also illegal. Drawings or computer-made pictures of kiddie porn are to be viewed by highly disturbed people with the potential to actually harm kids. Maybe such images could be banned for these reasons and not violate the right of free-speech.

    6. Re:Just goes to show by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      If it's the first one, how is that any different from banning bondage pics, for example? or s/m

      Don't speak too soon! The UK Government plans to criminalise possession of certain images - even if they are entirely simulated or performed with consenting actors - just because they are considered "abhorrent".

      To me it seems obvious that things should be illegal because of the actual abuse caused, but there are people out there, including Governments, who think possession should be criminalised just because some are offended by them.

  4. Counterstrike? by reality-bytes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whenever I see this sort of thing (both this story and the Belgian rape-investigation one) I can't help thinking that, by their lights, they should also be investigating tens of thousands of Counterstrike players for 'Virtual Homicide'.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
    1. Re:Counterstrike? by the_wishbone · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA. It's not just that some people were PRETENDING to be children, there were, allegedly, groups in there trading actual illegal material within SL.

    2. Re:Counterstrike? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The fact that you can pretty reliably guess that people who simulate child porn are probably also interested in the real thing, but that tens of thousands of people who go on shooting sprees in Counter-Strike don't even own guns should highlight some of the difference between the two.

      If you want to look at something that is related to digital child porn, don't look at Counter Strike look at that Columbine FPS. How well did that go over?

      If you can tell the difference between Halo, GRAW and Counter Strike vs. a game based on the Columbine shootings, than I think you ought to be to realize which category we should put simulated child porn in.

      Although I think the distinction goes even further. The connection between playing violent video games and becoming violent (or other negative impacts) is tenuous, but the connection between pornography and misogyny is not. One study (complete with control group) found that men and women exposed to porn recommended a sentence for a rapist of about 1/2 what was recommended by the control group. Connection directly to rape? No. Connection directly to attitudes about rape? Definitely.

      I can get a reference for this study (I read about it earlier this week) in a few hours after work.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    3. Re:Counterstrike? by johnlcallaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Although I think the distinction goes even further. The connection between playing violent video games and becoming violent (or other negative impacts) is tenuous, but the connection between pornography and misogyny is not. One study (complete with control group) found that men and women exposed to porn recommended a sentence for a rapist of about 1/2 what was recommended by the control group. Connection directly to rape? No. Connection directly to attitudes about rape? Definitely.
      All this statistics shows is that people who are exposed to porn have different ideas about rape, not that their idea is 'good' or 'bad'. It could just as well be interpreted that people not exposed to porn have harsher views of any sex act outside of marriage.
      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    4. Re:Counterstrike? by SilentChris · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except if you read the article you'd see they were also trading pictures of real child pornography. It'd be more akin to someone playing Counterstrike, then going outside and shooting people. Pretty much and open-and-shut case.

    5. Re:Counterstrike? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1, Interesting

      All this statistics shows is that people who are exposed to porn have different ideas about rape, not that their idea is 'good' or 'bad'. It could just as well be interpreted that people not exposed to porn have harsher views of any sex act outside of marriage.

      W. T. F. You want to attribute laxer attitudes about rape as merely a product of having a more open mind to extra-marital sex?

      Look, let's put this in perspective. The study group was given a newspaper story about a real-life rape and asked "what sentence does the rapist deserve?" In the control group (not shown any porn above and beyond what they may have watched anyway) the average was 94 months from men, 143 months from women. In the group shown porn regularly for a 6-week period the response was 50 months from men, and 78 months from women. (I may be off in the ones digits, but the 10s and 100s I'm confident on).

      Are you seriously telling me that you think this is possibly a result of just being less uptight about extra-marital sex? We're talking about forcible rape here. Furthermore, the porn groups expressed less support of expanding women's rights (study was in the 70s or 80s) and exhibited other anti-women viewpoints with statistically significant margins.

      The attempt to chalk this off as some kind of openness is exactly the kind of Slashdot mentality that led to my current sig.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    6. Re:Counterstrike? by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      Yup. FTFA:

      "Mr Schader was asked to pay to attend meetings where virtual and real child pornography was being shown."
      Ahem, note word 'real'

      "Members of this group also offered to put him in touch with traders of real child pornography."
      Nasty, lock 'em up forever.

      "The investigation also uncovered so called "age play" groups that revolve around the abuse of virtual children."
      Nasty, but not a crime, I would have thought, but no:
      "Under Germany law possession of "virtual" child pornography is punishable by up to three years in jail."

    7. Re:Counterstrike? by Stealth+Potato · · Score: 1

      The fact that you can pretty reliably guess that people who simulate child porn are probably also interested in the real thing, but that tens of thousands of people who go on shooting sprees in Counter-Strike don't even own guns should highlight some of the difference between the two.
      And yet many of us who play Counterstrike do own guns. What's your point?
    8. Re:Counterstrike? by bradavon · · Score: 1

      So that makes it acceptable then?

    9. Re:Counterstrike? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 0, Troll

      And yet many of us who play Counterstrike do own guns. What's your point?

      Not much of a statistician, are you? My point was that there is a strong correlation between simulating child porn and wanting to see real child porn, whereas the correlation between gun ownership and CS - if there is one at all - is likely much lower.

      If no CS players owned guns there would be a very strong negative correlation. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying no strong correlation at all. Which means that roughly as many CS players will own guns as the general population (possibly adjusting by age, race, income, education, etc. if you want to get snazzy.)

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    10. Re:Counterstrike? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, you're incorrect about the reliability of that guess--I can't find the studies right now, but a link between consumption of lolicon material and consumption of real child pornography or child abuse has repeatedly failed to surfaced.

    11. Re:Counterstrike? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. Please let me know if you do find the study, however. If I'm wrong I'd like to know.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    12. Re:Counterstrike? by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      If you can tell the difference between Halo, GRAW and Counter Strike vs. a game based on the Columbine shootings, than I think you ought to be to realize which category we should put simulated child porn in.

      Halo, Ghost Recon, and Counter Strike are 3D military simulations. Super Columbine Massacre RPG! is a low quality RPG reminiscent of games I played in the late 80's. Quality and genre aside, the only difference I see is military killing people vs civilians killing people. I'm not sure I understand how that distinction has anything to do with simulated child porn. Unless your point is that one form of violence disturbs you more than the other. I'd be curious what your thoughts would be on a game based on Harvey Logan.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    13. Re:Counterstrike? by file-exists-p · · Score: 1

      It seems that the paper tries to make a sensational news by making a confusion between the fact that the people involved where having "virtual sex" with child-looking avatar, and the fact that they were actually trading real child-porn material.

      Sentences mixing both like Mr Schader was asked to pay to attend meetings where virtual and real child pornography was being shown were obviously written to make that confusion in the reader's mind. As one can observe in the slashdot's comments, the goal was indeed reached beyond expectation.

    14. Re:Counterstrike? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, I just don't believe it. I suspect these kinds of people are very clever at covering their tracks, and they'd be stupid to use one of the most easily monitored systems on the internet, using corporate servers that host your files and log your every move.

      No, what I bet happened here was someone was offended by consenting adults role-playing something distasteful, and to justify witch-hunting them they trumped up a story of something far more serious to gain credibility. I'd be surprised if anyone finds any evidence of anything more than this.

    15. Re:Counterstrike? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, it is actually like some people playing counterstrike and then trading real war-scene *pictures* of corpses etc online. Corpses of people they've never met or knew, at locations they've never been to.

      And in our oh so "great" western society, these people would be prosecuted for murder / genocide based on anonymous pictures alone. Am I the only person here that thinks this is totally fucked up?

    16. Re:Counterstrike? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be more akin to someone playing Counterstrike, then going outside and shooting people

      No, it'd be like trading pictures of people shooting people.

    17. Re:Counterstrike? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Owning a picture of an act is not equivalent to performing that act. It doesn't take much digging into the issue to see that prosecuting people for owning (not producing, but owning) kiddie porn is no more than prosecuting them for their thoughts. The only reason I've seen that murder pictures are not similarly treated is that way more people enjoy watching murder than enjoy watching kids have sex.

    18. Re:Counterstrike? by lamasquerade · · Score: 1
      From what you originally said the GPP's assertion makes perfect sense. You said that the people exposed to porn gave lighter sentences and I believe the GPP meant that this was possibly just because they were less hysterical about sex crime than the non-porn group. Not that the sex crime was not wrong, but that they were less hysterical about it just because it had to do with sex. The assumption is that many in society want tougher sentences for rape not because they are rationally assessing the crime and thinking of a fitting sentence, but because anything to do with sex will get these people whipped up into a frenzy.

      As for your ideas about porn, I think you need to see that it is not as simple as you (or Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon) think. I have watched oodles of porn of all varieties, as have most of my male and some of my female friends. Yet I would personally describe myself as a feminist (just not anti-sex as the aforementioned two, more along the lines of Betty Dodson) and extremely un-misogynist.

      Yes, there is horrible misogynist porn on the internet and elsewhere and it makes me wonder just who watches it and it's horrifying. But equally there is some porn that's presents sex really nicely, or just with both genders obviously enjoying the act (a la Annie Sprinkle, Ovidie, etc - look 'em up), or just as complete sexual fun, no politics at all. It's not the case that 'all porn is evil'. It is the case that most people in IT, and on Slashdot watch porn, but I think, from my experience, this group also tends to be less misogynist than the norm... Finally, have a look at this - it ain't porn, but it's a really nice appreciation of cute girls, and there's heaps of stuff like that around... the internet isn't all misogynistic creeps.

      --

      // It had been Fat's delusion for years that he could help people. --Philip K. Dick, Valis

    19. Re:Counterstrike? by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      I was pointing out that you can derive more than one viewpoint from a statistic depending on what you want to prove. Was there any data to prove whether or not 50 months is any more of a deterrent than 94 months, or that a jail sentence is any deterrent at all? The statistic by itself only shows that groups exposed to porn feel 4 years in jail is enough of a punishment instead of the 8 1/2 years that the other group had.

      Or maybe it's the difference between one group of liberal people concept of justice v/s more conservative people wanting punishment. Was there included in the study whether or not the pro-porn people preferred therapy v/s jail time?? Was there any study to show that the non-porn group weren't lying about their porn habits?

      The statistic is merely interesting. Now, if it had said the porn group said no jail time, I might buy the correlation. The statistic, as you quoted it, proves nothing. It might make one wonder, and might provoke other studies. But I'm not about to go on an anti-porn legislative bent because of it.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    20. Re:Counterstrike? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd be wary with such statements. It smells a bit like one made by those zealous anti-shooter advocates. Because someone who enjoys virtual killing must have a ton of guns in their basement. How do they come to this conclusion? They never played one and simply draw parallels.

      I do assume you're doing exactly the same here. May I assume that you never simulated child porn and now assume, despite knowing nothing about it, that someone who does the virtual has to enjoy the real?

      Care to explain the double standards? Or based on knowing one and thus knowing it's bollocks to draw a parallel from virtual to real shootings, and not knowing the other one, thus allowing that parallel?

      Studies, btw, don't mean jack to me. Want a few studies that show a surefire parallel between virtual and real shootings?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Counterstrike? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      RTFA. It's not just that some people were PRETENDING to be children, there were, allegedly, groups in there trading actual illegal material within SL.

      You RTFA. The point is that even if there was no actual material, the pretending would still have been illegal.

      The fact that there's actual images of abuse makes this all the more worrying - why the need to prosecute for the virtual images?

      The problem is that laws like this get strengthened and enforced in courts by first going for those who have images of actual abuse (because, like you, no jury wants to defend them). But that sets a precedent for innocent adults where children aren't involved at all.

    22. Re:Counterstrike? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Except if you read the article...

      Except if you read the article, you'd have seen that possession of virtual images alone will get someone three years in prison.

  5. Wait, German porn viewers play SL? by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are scheisse videos even possible in Second Life?

    1. Re:Wait, German porn viewers play SL? by jandrese · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depressingly, yes. Not only could you model it with your avatars (I'm sure someone out there has a poop script), but you can also pipe movies into the client from anywhere you want.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  6. Thought crimes? by krbvroc1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This may sound odd in this 'thinkofthechildren' world we claim to live in:

    Has anyone considered that allowing someone to 'role play' or 'express' their desires, no matter how taboo, in a virtual world, might lessen real-world activity? Any studies on this?

    I mean how many people satisfy themselves with porn rather than engage in risky real life behavior?
    Maybe these 'sickos' can get their satisfaction on a virtual world?

    It seems like a lot of the 'oddballs' are the ones who come from a background of extreme sexual repression. A virtual outlet could eliminate that repression.

    1. Re:Thought crimes? by Applekid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's one example of real world evidence I know of: Japan.

      Pornography in Japan really doesn't have many limits except simply the censoring of genetalia. While fringe, there is easily available and obtained media of simulated rape, public exposure & sexual activity, sexualized streaking. In the fiction world there are lots of animated and printed works that very obviously depict additional rape, child sex (consentual and non), incest, disfiguring and nonconsentual S&M and human bondage. Hell, just look through Somethingawful's articles on hentai games and you'll see japanese interactive games that let you live out fantasies of banging your younger underage sister. And another one where you literally stalk and rape victims from a train.

      And yet, Japan enjoys the lowest rates of sex crimes of all 1st world countries. I'd say the ability for an individual to safely vicariously explore deeper and more sinister fictional sexual practices (as defined by society-at-large) definitely prevents a significant number of real crimes with real victims.

      I don't know anyone sexually abused as a child, but I'd be willing to wager that if the abuse could have been prevented by the perp getting his jollies off with a few drawn pictures of his fantasy instead, they'd definitely go for it.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    2. Re:Thought crimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Maybe these 'sickos' can get their satisfaction on a virtual world?

      Won't somebody please think of the pixels?

    3. Re:Thought crimes? by spud603 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the Japan example doesn't really provide support for or against the theory. I'm not saying it ain't true, just that better evidence is needed.

    4. Re:Thought crimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if we import the pixels from Switzerland?

    5. Re:Thought crimes? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet, Japan enjoys the lowest rates of sex crimes of all 1st world countries. I'd say the ability for an individual to safely vicariously explore deeper and more sinister fictional sexual practices (as defined by society-at-large) definitely prevents a significant number of real crimes with real victims.

      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.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    6. Re:Thought crimes? by spyrochaete · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Japan may "enjoy" a low rate of sex crime convictions, but public gropings are a huge issue there. Commuter trains often have whole cars exclusively for women who wish to be segregated from men while travelling.

      It can't be said whether this has any correlation to relief, or lack of, afforded by video games. It may be that grabby types don't play those games, or it may be that it encourages them. Germany, however, has traditionally employed censorship before (if ever) conducting research to substantiate it.

    7. Re:Thought crimes? by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Interesting point. IANAP (I Am Not A Psychologist), so, who (or which organization) dictates that it's unethical to expose people to pornography ala. actual scientific research?

      I figure the best way to keep things from getting settled is to tie the hands of researchers.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    8. Re:Thought crimes? by slughead · · Score: 1

      Has anyone considered that allowing someone to 'role play' or 'express' their desires, no matter how taboo, in a virtual world, might lessen real-world activity? Any studies on this?

      There's an interesting and amusing documentary called "I am a sex addict."

      Not to spoil the ending, but the guy eventually goes to a sex addict support group for men, and they all agree that indulging in their fetishes only made the problem worse--made it easier to go one step further.

      Regardless, I don't think child porn should be illegal. Molesting children and creating these images is already a crime (as it should be), these images are merely evidence that should be followed to its source.

      The FBI already spends *MOST* of its resources tracking down child molesters (predominantly online). I'd say we've got the problem pretty well under control.

    9. Re:Thought crimes? by krbvroc1 · · Score: 1

      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. You lost me when you got to your last paragraph. This seems very prudish and perhaps the 'ethicist' who objected to any/all studies was a 'theologian'. Any links to these studies?
    10. Re:Thought crimes? by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, after getting a virtual taste of what they desire, they may find the virtual nature of it lacking but have even more interest in trying the real thing. I'm not saying you're wrong and I am right, just that one can just as easily construct an argument to support the opposite. The actual truth is probably somewhere in between, where some people find it sufficiently satisfying and others not.

    11. Re:Thought crimes? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Interesting point. IANAP (I Am Not A Psychologist), so, who (or which organization) dictates that it's unethical to expose people to pornography ala. actual scientific research?

      I do know that all human trials have to be approved by college ethics boards, but I don't know if they have a united governing board or how the decisions compare at different colleges. However I'm fairly certain that since the study in question (and I'm really sorry I don't have the citation off the top of my head) no randomized porn study has been conducted in the use.

      I figure the best way to keep things from getting settled is to tie the hands of researchers.

      While true, the alternative would be to do things like determine the addictive power of cigarettes on children by getting a randomized group of 12-year olds to light up. We'd doubtless have been able to settle a lot of questions about how addictive nicotine is faster (randomized studies are far more powerful for this kind of research than observational analysis) but at the cost of getting a bunch of kids to smoke.

      It's ironic that the apparently detrimental impact of porn is what has - more than anything else - shielded the industry from serious statistical criticism, but I don't really say any ethical way around it.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    12. Re:Thought crimes? by krbvroc1 · · Score: 1

      Not to spoil the ending, but the guy eventually goes to a sex addict support group for men, and they all agree that indulging in their fetishes only made the problem worse--made it easier to go one step further. But I wonder if this is more a result of certain people having addictive predispositions. I am sure there are people who engage in many things in moderation. Not all pot smokers are addicts, not all alcohol drinkers are addicts, not all WoW players are addicts, not all people who work out are addicts.

      I think there is a group of people out there with impulse control issues. I wonder if they are really outliers. For those personalities, yes, any engagement makes things worse.
    13. Re:Thought crimes? by griffjon · · Score: 1

      Our investigations revealed the users behind these avatars to be a 54-year-old man and a 27-year-old woman

      The real question is, which was playing the child and who was the adult?

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    14. Re:Thought crimes? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      You lost me when you got to your last paragraph. This seems very prudish and perhaps the 'ethicist' who objected to any/all studies was a 'theologian'. Any links to these studies?

      It was because there were observable, harmful impacts of watching porn and has nothing to do with theology. It's the same reason you can't do randomized studies in which you ask people to smoke: we know smoking is harmful.

      I will try to find a link to the study. I have full citation at home, but I'm at work now. This may be it:

      Zillman, D. & Bryant, J. (1984). --Effects of massive exposure to pornography," in Malamuth, NM &
      Donnerstein, E, (Ed), Pornography and sexual aggression ,. Orlando, FL: Academic Press,

      (I'm pretty sure it's Zillman and Bryant, and that's the right time period, but I'm not certain.)

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    15. Re:Thought crimes? by sckeener · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wish I had some mod points to give, but instead I'll respond.

      I agree that Japan is a good example, but they also have a different view on sex.

      Back in the late 90s they had a crazy (still do in some ways) for the school girl look. Many teenage school girls started having side jobs as prostitutes. It got so bad that Prime Minister of Japan made some comments about the practice.

      As far as I know it just quieted down on its own. There was no country wide busts.

      Contrast that with America...

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    16. Re:Thought crimes? by Fex303 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Interesting point. IANAP (I Am Not A Psychologist), so, who (or which organization) dictates that it's unethical to expose people to pornography ala. actual scientific research?

      IANAPBISPAU (I am not a psychologist but I studied psychology at university.) Pretty much all universities have their own ethics committee whose job it is to come up with very pedantic rules for how any experiments should be done so that no-one is hurt or distressed. Getting permission from these groups can be incredibly difficult and they will often hold up grad students' research for months.

      Going another level up, the APA (American Psychology Association) is the dominant body with regard to psychology (around the world, not just in the USA). They have an ethics committee which set a best practice policy on what other ethics committees should think about.

      While I agree that it would be nice to be able to study anything without having to worry about the ethics, the can lead to interesting, yet morally flawed experiments such as the Stanford Prison experiment or the Milgram experiment, which were informative, but quite traumatic for participants. As a rule psychologists don't like to leave people more messed up than when they got them, so they tend to view overly cautious ethics committees as a necessary annoyance.

    17. Re:Thought crimes? by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

      There's one example of real world evidence I know of: Japan.

      Pornography in Japan really doesn't have many limits except simply the censoring of genetalia. While fringe, there is easily available and obtained media of simulated rape, public exposure & sexual activity, sexualized streaking. In the fiction world there are lots of animated and printed works that very obviously depict additional rape, child sex (consentual and non), incest, disfiguring and nonconsentual S&M and human bondage. Hell, just look through Somethingawful's articles on hentai games and you'll see japanese interactive games that let you live out fantasies of banging your younger underage sister. And another one where you literally stalk and rape victims from a train.

      And yet, Japan enjoys the lowest rates of sex crimes of all 1st world countries. I'd say the ability for an individual to safely vicariously explore deeper and more sinister fictional sexual practices (as defined by society-at-large) definitely prevents a significant number of real crimes with real victims. Well, see, that's because all the new Hentai videos now have a disclaimer at the end - after your 40 minutes of being entertained by animated rape, you're told that "rape is bad, don't rape people". That clears everything up.

      Though, I'm not sure you've accounted for the Densha Chikan types - groping on a crowded train is a real problem in Japan.
      --
      ---GEC
      I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
    18. Re:Thought crimes? by krbvroc1 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. After viewing quote from parts of it (and it is a rather old study from 1984 at the height of a War on Porn), I wonder if its the 'porn' itself or the social stigma/repression/guilt attached to viewing it. I'm kind of full circle to my original thought of whether a virtual outlet would reduce real-world risky behavior. The virtual world needs to be an environment that is not stigmatized.

      Your claim about observable, harmful impacts might be a bit misleading. I think the ethical concern is that you cannot tailor a study where the outcome is rape so measuring it is next to impossible.

      "With regard to experimental work, Donnerstein points out that, "one cannot, for obvious reasons, experimentally examine the relationship between pornography and actual sexual aggression" (1984, p. 53). He has, however, conducted experiments that show that the level of aggression of male subjects toward females increases after they have been exposed to violent pornography in which a female rape victim was portrayed as becoming aroused by the end of the movie. (Aggression was measured by the intensity of electric shock subjects were willing to administer, Donnestein, 1984)."

      I did find this which backs up what you say:
      "The exposure of sex offenders to pornography is another area of research that is relevant to the causal connections between pornography and rape. It is well known that many sex offenders claim that viewing pornography affects their criminal behavior. Ted Bundy is perhaps the most notorious of these males. For example, in one study of 89 non-incarcerated sex offenders conducted by William Marshall, "slightly more than one-third of the child molesters and rapists reported at least occasionally being incited to commit an offense by exposure to forced or consenting pornography" (Einsiedel, 1986, p. 62). Exactly a third of the rapists who reported being incited by pornography to commit an offense said that they deliberately used pornography in their preparation for committing the rape. The comparable figure for child molesters was much higher--53% versus 33% (Einsiedel, 1986, p. 62).

      However, as these sex offenders appear to have used the pornography to arouse themselves after they had already decided to commit an offense, it could be argued that it was not the pornography that incited them. To what extent they actually required the pornography in order to commit their offenses, like some perpetrators require alcohol, we do not know. Even if these perpetrators were eliminated from the data analysis, however, that still leaves 66% of the rapists and 47% of the child molesters who claimed that they were at least sometimes incited by pornography to commit an offense."

    19. Re:Thought crimes? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      I think I've found the full-text of an article on this research, but I haven't found the full text publicly available where I can link it. I think the actual research may first have appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but the article I'm finding is here:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7174873&dopt=Abstract

      or here:

      http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb =true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_Searc hValue_0=EJ270965&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_ accno&objectId=0900000b80083931

      or here:

      http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j .1460-2466.1982.tb02514.x?journalCode=jcom

      Like I said, though, no full text. Sorry.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    20. Re:Thought crimes? by kisrael · · Score: 1

      I figure the best way to keep things from getting settled is to tie the hands of researchers. ...kinky!

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    21. Re:Thought crimes? by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > And yet, Japan enjoys the lowest rates of sex crimes of all 1st world countries.

      All that says to me is that they don't bother reporting it. I recall a news story where it is quite common for young girls on the subways to be sexually abused. So much so that some girls actually use it as blackmail on the attacker because they know they+friends will be attacked.

      There is also the concept of what they consider child abuse. Again I had seen news reports from Japan of Japanese mums fluffing their sons so they can keep studying. Some cultures would see that as child abuse.

      * These are not the norms.

    22. Re:Thought crimes? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If you can, check out the other article I found (but was unable to find full text so far). I think it may address some of your concerns, but I'm not finished reading the study (I was aware of it 2nd hand as it was referenced in another book.)

      I think the article I linked to is about the same experiment, but just seems to go more in-depth (it's 13 pages long). It's worth noting that in this study the porn was 100% consensual (no rape porn or even sadomasochistic stuff) so we're evaluating non-violent porn here and still finding it to have a significant impact in attitudes about women.

      This is the part about attitudes towards rape (I'm just typing it in by hand from the .pdf):

      "Students were then introduced to a rape case, reading the newspaper coverage of a hitchiking that resulted in the sexual offense. The rapist's conviction was reported, but a sentene was not stated. Studnes were asked to recommend a prison term for the paticular offense. The length of th term was considered to indicate disapproval or condemnation of rape. Sexual callousnes toward women was expected to find expression in minimal prison sentences. Students also indicated their support for the female liberation movement on a scale ranging from 0 (no support) to 100 (maximal support). This assessment was included tolearn whether callousness, should it be created, generalizes from sex to gender."

      Here's table 3 from the paper "Number of months recommended for rape, as a function of massive exposure to pornography (by gender)" (Massive, by the way, means like 48 minutes a week.)

      Male
      Conrol: 93.7
      No exposure: 94.6
      intermediate exposure: 78.0
      massive exposure: 49.8

      Female
      Control: 119.7
      No exposure: 143.6
      Inter. Exposure: 101.4
      Mass. Exposure: 77.0

      And here's Table 4: SUpport for the women's liberation movement as a function of massive exposure to pornography (by gender) on a scale from 0 (no support) to 100 (maximal support)

      Male
      Control: 66.8
      No exposure: 71.0
      Int. exposure: 48.7
      Mass. exposure: 25.0

      Female
      Control: 76.2
      No Exposure: 82.0
      Int. Exposure: 59.2
      Mass. Exposure: 52.2

      That's pretty damming evidence, in my opinion, of a causal relationship between porn (of the non-violent variety!) and callousness towards women and women's issues.

      (If I'm quoting stuff you already read, at least it's informative for those who don't want to read the article themselves)

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    23. Re:Thought crimes? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Some things to consider

      1) Until very recently, Japanese woman could not say anything without disgracing the Husband.

      2) The stigma of having this happen to you is huge in Japan, and can letterly ruin your life.

      3) The children have very little opportunity to say anything.

      "but I'd be willing to wager that if the abuse could have been prevented by the perp getting his jollies off with a few drawn pictures of his fantasy instead,"

      here is the problem. People who abuse children will do both...via pictures and in real life. Some people may only want to pretend there pediophiles. Considering the nature of the crime, should you ignore when people pretend to be pediophiles?
      FYI they were banned and charged for real Child pornography, not virtual.

      Please do not compare it to murder, they are different things that require different mindsets.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:Thought crimes? by Eccles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's one example of real world evidence I know of: Japan.

      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.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    25. Re:Thought crimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      I dunno about you, but I like to look at porn. I probably have what some would call a lot of porn. (Yes, I have very little social life). Nothing illegal, mind you, but most people would probably think I was sick if they looked at the shit I like.

      But, I support women's rights, and believe they should be fair and equal to men. And, if I saw a rapist, I would try to kill him.

      Oddly, though, I'm anti-marriage. Though, that's probably because my parents/siblings/several of my friends have been ruined by marriage.

    26. Re:Thought crimes? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      As a rule psychologists don't like to leave people more messed up than when they got them

      "I have grossly misjudged the intent of the field" is what I said after hearing that the first time, and I withdrew my application to the psychology department.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    27. Re:Thought crimes? by evil_Tak · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are plenty of women in the US who would support a similar thing if commuter trains were the norm.

    28. Re:Thought crimes? by elborrachogato · · Score: 0

      Goes to show you don't know anything about Japan. I lived in Japan for 5 years until 2005 and have personally known several women that have been molested on a train a couple of them even experienced it more than once. It's called "Chikan" and there's a ton of porn specifically marketed towards it. I was also shocked when I found out that child porn is legal over there. Manga comics depicting child rape and even magazines with explicit pictures of girls as young as 8 is completely legal... it's insane. What I found even sicker was that in those magazines there's advertisements for sex tours to cambodia and thailand. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the people that go to those countries to exploit children were Japanese.

    29. Re:Thought crimes? by nick_davison · · Score: 1

      And yet, Japan enjoys the lowest rates of sex crimes of all 1st world countries. And many African states enjoy the lowest rates of hate crimes against homosexuals on the planet.

      Of course, that's only if you listen to the goverment figures vs. the estimated ones and if you politely overlook it being virtually impossible to prosecute such a crime and hence get it on to the books.

      Having a culture that turns a blind eye to many forms of sexual assault and thus has very low rates according to their own criteria doesn't mean much when those criteria are radically more lenient than others you're comparing them to.
    30. Re:Thought crimes? by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      here is the problem. People who abuse children will do both...via pictures and in real life. Some people may only want to pretend there pediophiles. Considering the nature of the crime, should you ignore when people pretend to be pediophiles? Murder is also a pretty nasty crime. Presumably you're not only against all violent video games, but believe that all players of such games should be investigated?

      How about we stop trying to criminalize thought and let the police focus their limited resources on actual crimes?
      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re:Thought crimes? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      commuter trains often have whole cars exclusively for women who wish to be segregated from men while travelling.

      I even read claims that some men objected to that because they consider groping their right.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    32. Re:Thought crimes? by BoothbyTCD · · Score: 1

      Well, Japan also has Compensated Dating, so I'm not sure that it is a good example.

      --
      snig
    33. Re:Thought crimes? by smaddox · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have a solution!

      All we have to do is clone the participants, and use the clones. Then when the study is done, just dispose of the clone!

      No more ethical dilemma!!

    34. Re:Thought crimes? by kabocox · · Score: 1

      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.

      First I've heard that theory. That sounds like a religious group and/or social group (women's rights groups or others) that doesn't believe that behavior is "good or moral" making a decision and then finding/creating studies to support it.

      I don't think that I've ever supported "women's rights." I think that it was some time around say 16 or so that I first was exposed to any porn. I've been against minitory and womens rights because from my point of view; they already have more rights than I do. I'm not allowed to form a white males rights group without being called racist or a male chauvinist pig or both and more nastier names so why should I support them being able to bash me?

      I've always thought that "marriage" was over rated. I'm married and will stick it out till one of us dies. My mother-in-law has been married 3 times. I have lots of friends whose parents have been divorced. It's no big deal if it isn't a "messy" divorce. The problem with marriage is that the government and individuals don't go into it thinking of it as just a contract between two parties/families. Rich people have thought in terms of marriage contracts for centuries. It would solve alot of our marriage/divorce issues if the government treated marriage as just a contract between two people that can be severed at a future date with prearranged terms and conditions.

      By your logic, porn makes me have bad/negative thoughts against your social issues so porn needs to be banned/limited. Um, no. I don't like your social/moral issues all by themselves. I don't really need a reason to like porn.

    35. Re:Thought crimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do any experiment you want. Just throw in a million dollar prize for the "winner" and blanket the lab with cameras. Cut a TV deal and they will pay you to do the research.

    36. Re:Thought crimes? by Quikah · · Score: 1

      I really need to take some statistics courses.

      What did they do to the No Exposure group? Everyone is higher than the control group, the female table 3 one absurdly so.

      --
      Q.
    37. Re:Thought crimes? by ffflala · · Score: 1

      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.

      It sounds like you just made that up. Because "we" know otherwise, if by "we" you mean those who have actually reviewed controlled, peer-reviewed statistical correlation on this topic. Poorly considered statements like those above merely serve to equate consentual adult pornography with child pornography, and that is unfortunate. Child pornography is detestable because it is a record of vicious sexual abuse and predation --a child cannot consent. Adults can, however. And they can enjoy sexual relationships with other consenting adults without harming people.

      I recently had to review a very similar subject and happen to have references to a number of controlled, peer-reviewed studies that found ZERO correlation between viewing pornography and any kind of sex crime or oppressive sexist opinions. You can probably access the text of these through an database such as PsychINFO or ProQUEST. Some examples:

      -An Exploration of Developmental Factors Related to Deviant Sexual Preferences Among Adult Rapists (Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, Vol. 16, No. 2, April 2004)

      -Men's Likelihood of Sexual Aggression: The Influence of Alcohol, Sexual Arousal, and Violent Pornography (AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR Volume 32, pages 581-589 (2006))

      -Pornography and sexual aggression: Are there reliable effects and can we understand them? (Annual Review of Sex Research, Vol 11, 2000. pp. 26-91.)

      -The role of pornography in the etiology of sexual aggression (Aggression and Violent Behavior
      6 (2001) 35-53)

      -The influence of media type on sexually impositional behavior. (Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, Vol 61(9-B), Apr 2001. pp. 5059.)


      It is noteworthy that one of the only studies arguing otherwise --that I have been able to locate, anyway-- applied only a specific sexual ideology, NOT original research or careful scrutiny of statistics. Namely this one:

      -Feminist explanations: Male power, hostility, and sexual coercion. (Sexual coercion: A sourcebook on its nature, causes, and prevention. Grauerholz, Elizabeth (Ed); Koralewski, Mary A. (Ed); pp. 61-73.)

    38. Re:Thought crimes? by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      Like the gun-control debate, comparing crime statistics across nations is notoriously prone to confirmation bias.

      Which is why the better studies of crime stats look at trends in crime rates over time in the _same_ country. Obviously if porn leads to rape then increase in porn availabilty (in the same country) will lead to increase in rape (in the same country).

      Except it didn't.


      The actual incidence of violent sexual crime, however, could very well not show an easily observable statistical change.


      In some cases it doesn't, but in some it does. Downwards. Statistically significantly downwards. (Kutchinsky etc.)


      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.


      And you were doing so well - then you've fallen straight into the basic mistake of assuming correlation proves causation. It doesn't. Lack of correlation can disprove causation (see above), but you can't go the other way.

      In the case of Japan, porn could only have become widely available after 1853(requiring technology such as printing, photography, etc.), so if porn causes sexism, women must have been more equal in Japan before that date than now. Oops... no they weren't (read some history on the shogunate).

      Also, one would expect places where porn was banned to show less sexism (if porn causes sexism). Places like, say, Saudi Arabia...

    39. Re:Thought crimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This Japan! Give the girls knifes, teach em jujitsu, and let the gro-ouching begin!

    40. Re:Thought crimes? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      After your 40 minutes of being entertained by animated rape, you're told that "rape is bad, don't rape people". ...but since it's in Japanese, all those gaijin who snagged it from 4chan can't read it and thus rape goes up everywhere but in Japan.

      And you wanna tell me that insert doesn't work! There is your proof!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    41. Re:Thought crimes? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the argument of the people opposing violent games. Now, that's something maybe more people here can relate to than virtual $fetish sex: Does playing shooters make you violent?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    42. Re:Thought crimes? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      The no exposure group watched 48 minutes of "educational and entertaining" film per week for 6 weeks. This film had no "objectionable content".

      And I highly recommend stats courses. I really think they should almost be a gen-ed requirement in this day and age.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    43. Re:Thought crimes? by biovoid · · Score: 1

      Like the gun-control debate, comparing crime statistics across nations is notoriously prone to confirmation bias.

      Does this mean the study you cited above linking porn to desensitisation towards rape really only applies to the country in which it was performed (I'm assuming the US)? That would make a bit more sense, though still very little.

    44. Re:Thought crimes? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Does this mean the study you cited above linking porn to desensitisation towards rape really only applies to the country in which it was performed (I'm assuming the US)? That would make a bit more sense, though still very little.

      I think that most pro-porn people are subjecting this study to levels of scrutiny they wouldn't apply otherwise. It's a double standard. When you compare gun-control laws and crime in different countries you know that there are large number of important legal and social differences. I would not look at a study that compared gun crime in, say, the US and Israel and say "it's preposterous to draw the comparison" if it weren't for the fact that I know very well what some of the reasons are for not drawing the comparison. (Off the top of my head: You can go down to the civilian armory in Israel and borrow an Uzi. There's no system like that in US. So right away you know gun availibity is very different between the two countries).

      So yeah - the study was conducted at a school in the east in 1981 or 1982. I would say that it probably is valid to apply it in general to people in that general age group (18-34) across the US and possibly some elements of Western Europe. When there are reasons to doubt the applicability (e.g. large differences in the role of women, rape or sexuality between the eastern US and, say, Japan) then it's not applicable.

      But I wish people would drop the double standard where they essentially say "unless you can prove applicability, I'm going to simply ignore the results altogether" and be rational. Does this *prove* that attitudes are the same in 2007 as 1982? Does this *prove* that the study can be generalized from college-age kids to senior citizens? No. Of course it's open to that criticism. But writing the stufy off entirely seems to me to be an obvious over-reaction based on a pre-disposition not to question porn.

      I wish there were bigger studies and more recent studies. It's a hard case to make because it's hampered by not having more and better evidence. But that doesn't mean that we have 0 evidence. We just don't have as much evidence as I wish we had. And when you don't have enough evidene to settle a question (as in this case) that doesn't mean you have no evidence, it means you don't have enough.

      I'm not trying to say this one study is proof. It's just evidence. Treat it for what it is: one scientific study with extremely powerful results but limited applicability.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
  7. This may be controversial, but... by popo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As personally distasteful as I find this -- I'm not sure this constitutes a breach of any laws. "Kiddie porn" involves the sexual photography (and horrible exploitation) of children. It is difficult to see who is being "hurt" by this Second Life activity. Yes, one can make the argument that if one engages in virtual fantasy, one is more likely to engage in the 'real thing'. But this is a straw man argument that has been applied to video games for years with zero proof of any virtual/real-world crossover.

    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.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:This may be controversial, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article talks about investigating a 'real' child porn ring on Second Life as well as the whole pretend cyber sex thing.

      What bugs me is that the main focus of the article is the people who are playing pretend and not the actual crime that may/may not be going on. It leads a lot of people to get confused to why the authorities are making a big deal about this.

    2. Re:This may be controversial, but... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Informative

      TFA didn't make it 100% clear but the reason for the investigation is that someone (or more) had set up a place in Second Life where you could pay to enter and see REAL kiddie porn in addition to simulated.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    3. Re:This may be controversial, but... by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      In addition to roleplaying they were trading real-life child pornography. You'd see this if you read the article. That's pretty much an open-and-shut case.

      As for "roleplaying fantasy", I never understood why people do this kind of thing on a company's public servers. People don't generally engage in this kind of activity in public -- why do it in a game with many players?

    4. Re:This may be controversial, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While your points are fine, how is that a straw man?

    5. Re:This may be controversial, but... by monkey_dongle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, if you had read the story, you would have discovered that virtual kiddie pr0n is punnishable in Germany by up to 3 years in prison.

      I disagree w/ that law, and in the US virtual kiddie pr0n is lawful (I believe it was upheld under a first amendment argument).

    6. Re:This may be controversial, but... by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      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.


      I consider this perspective sympathetic, but superficial and alarmist. Among the "though crimes" that currently seem rather uncontroversial I propose as an example: conspiracy to commit murder. Really if you are planning to kill someone, have you harmed anyone? Even if your intentions are genuine, they exist purely in your mind, right? This is, by strict construal of the term, a "thought crime".

      And yet we not only consider conspiracy to commit murder an indication of an impending crime, but the actual intention itself is a crime. So either you have to decriminalize such thought crimes, or you have to come up with a better definition of "thought crime" - or at least some exceptions.

      I'd say the simplest exception would be to willfully engage in activity that is directly linked to crime could, under some circumstances, be considered a crime. So while playing Counter Strike can not reasonably be considered training to murder people (I'd like to see your average CS junkie load and fire a handgun any better than your average Joe) it is possible that a simulated child porn may have a much closer connection to the real thing and fall into a gray area between Doom deathmatches and conspiracy to rape.

      Note: I'm not saying "case closed: simulated child porn should be illegal", but I am saying the old "thought crime" siren is too infrequently criticized, an that there may in fact be a legitimate reason to ban even simulated child porn.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    7. Re:This may be controversial, but... by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      "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."

      just curious.. do you find the concept of finding cars or guns sexually appealing abhorrent as well?

      how about shoes?

      how about members of the same sex?

      how about seeing pretty girls murdered or kidnapped by gorillas?

      in any event.. the orwellian laws you are not sure about are in full force in Canada. written stories, drawings, visual reproductions (which would include virtual reality), audio recordings, even purely textual descriptions.. are all defined as child pornography, even if it involved no actual children at any time in any way. It would be a crime to talk about it on the phone even. its not merely a crime to posses child porn. Even seeing it or hearing it is a criminal offense.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    8. Re:This may be controversial, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I propose as an example: conspiracy to commit murder.

      This is a bad analogy. Conspiracy to commit murder (a plan to kill a specific person) would be analogous to a plan to kidnap and rape a targeted child. That is far, far different from viewing simulated child porn. A better analogy would be viewing simulated violence in video games.

    9. Re:This may be controversial, but... by gimli · · Score: 1

      > "Kiddie porn" involves the sexual photography

      In Germany any portrayal ("Darstellung"), which includes, but is not limited to photography, of childs taking part in sexual activities is prohibited under laws against "child porn".

      So yes, at a German court virtual Sex with a virtual child in SL may very well be considered as portrayal which is realistic enough to be prosecuted.

      Oh, beautiful:

      "The German legal system applies international jurisdiction, so that any act of child pornography will be prosecuted in Germany according to German law, even if the act was not committed on German territory"
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Ger many

    10. Re:This may be controversial, but... by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      This is a bad analogy.

      The purpose was not to be a good analogy to simulated child porn. Read my post again, I left that open-ended. The point was that it is a "thought crime" that we apparently have no problem with.

      Do you disagree with that? If not - then clearly "thought crime" is not a very useful criticism. If you do disagree, please explain how it is not a thought crime.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    11. Re:This may be controversial, but... by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      The key as I see it is the intention

      If I play Counterstrike with the intention of having some fun in a video game, its perfectly acceptable. If I play Counterstrike with the intention of using it as a training sim for a hostage taking incident (probably with my own map designed after the targeted area and with a team of individuals who will be present in the real life situation), then I think I am guilty of planning to commit a crime, which is most likely illegal. If I engage in underage sex acts with a virtual avatar because thats my thing, and its voluntary on both participants parts and both are of legal age where they live (and most likely of legal age whereever the server happens to be located with the bizare possibilities of internet court cases), then it shouldn't be seen as a crime. If I do so, with the intent of doing so in real life, ie the victim is a model of a potential victim I know, or if the victim is in fact not of legal age, then it could be seen as criminal activity and dealt with accordingly. It has to be the intent. I can plan murders all day long and have it be totally legal - if for instance I am a crime novel writer - but its illegal if it can be shown that I intended to commit one of those murders in real life.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    12. Re:This may be controversial, but... by LihTox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      written stories, drawings, visual reproductions (which would include virtual reality), audio recordings, even purely textual descriptions...its not merely a crime to posses child porn. Even seeing it or hearing it is a criminal offense.

      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.)

    13. Re:This may be controversial, but... by rodmunday · · Score: 1

      The real question is, "should fantasy be policed in the digital age?" When fantasies are solely inside people heads how can they be? But there is a real difference between a head fantasy and a second life fantasy. There is a difference of degree and also over what the fantasy occasions. Role playing games amongst adults explore the possibility of certain ways of being with more than one adult sharing that fantasy. Does this not legitimate the fantasy in a more powerful way than if it were confined to a person's daydreams? If those ways of being are deemed illegal in the societies to which those people belong, doesn't it behoove the society to sanction that behaviour in the digital realm, or do we allow certain virtual contexts for fantasies that would be deemed abhorrent in the real world in the name of freedom? I don't want to come down on one side or the other in this debate but it is really interesting. But as other posters have said, this is an area that needs to be studied as well as talked about.

    14. Re:This may be controversial, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      So while playing Counter Strike can not reasonably be considered training to murder people (I'd like to see your average CS junkie load and fire a handgun any better than your average Joe)

      Counterstrike isn't a useful trainer, but games like Area 51, Virtua Cop, and other light gun games are. No link handy right now, but "some guy" (helpful I know) who had never fired real guns before went to the range with his video game skills and managed to do DRAMATICALLY better than people who had never fired video game guns or real guns in the past.

      Light gun games are also some of my faves these days :)

      I remember seeing an old school gangbanger (super tattooed, older dude in his late forties I'd guess, mexican, spare me the stereotype complaint because A) I was right next to the Flats in Santa Cruz and B) I'm a quarter mexican myself) playing Time Crisis at the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk... He was laying the fucking smack down. Guess those skills go both ways...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:This may be controversial, but... by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      No link handy right now, but "some guy" (helpful I know) who had never fired real guns before went to the range with his video game skills and managed to do DRAMATICALLY better than people who had never fired video game guns or real guns in the past.

      Well, to contrast your "some guy" I present: me. I'm a pretty avid FPS player and I've shot rifles and shotguns, but I can tell you that my first trip to the range to shoot some 9mm and 40cal handguns taught me that a handgun is a lot harder to aim accurately than a rifle. The kickback is hard to adjust for as well. Just my own experience, however, and I certainly don't think playing an FPS had anything to do with shooting a gun in real life.

      Light gun games are also some of my faves these days :)

      I could see how that might help in theory, but weight and recoil are part of what make accuracy with a handgun different - especially for repeated shots. You don't get that with light guns.

      He was laying the fucking smack down. Guess those skills go both ways...

      Hahahahahahaha... it's possible. In any case, however I think there's a fundamental difference. To the extent that an FPS is a good trainer for shooting, it's about motor skills, hand-eye cordination, etc. That's not what you need to make the jump from simulated to real kiddie porn, so I'm not sure that it's a "trainer" in the same sense of the word. The connection would be if you saw everyone that played FPSers develop a need to see snuff films. I don't think you do. You don't play an FPS to watch someone die or imagine killing someone. (If you do... then I think you should stop playing FPSs). But you do watch porn to get the same biological response you do from having sex - or a very similar one. (No, that's not the *only* reason to watch porn and not everyone masturbates every time they watch porn, but let's be real here - the connection is there).

      So I'm not even saying you go from kiddie porn to child rape, I'm saying you go from simulated kiddie porn to real kiddie porn because the point of it is to get aroused and you don't get aroused by the same old stuff anymore. The analog with FPSs, I think, is simply going from an xbox to an xbox360. You get tired of the graphics, and you need more. Needing better graphics is innocuous in and of itself, needing specifically better kiddie porn graphics is not (to the extent that it leads to use of the real stuff).

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    16. Re:This may be controversial, but... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      "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 problem is that this particular kink has the potential to perpetuate itself. Pedophiles often make pedophiles out of the kids they abuse, especially if the kid is male.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  8. Pursuing Kiddie Porn by mobby_6kl · · Score: 3, Funny

    And who isn't pursuing kidde porn in Second Life or, for that matter, in the first one?

  9. Did anyone else read this as... by mypalmike · · Score: 1

    "Germans Pursuing Kiddie Porn In Second Life"?

    Those Germans are sick bastards.

    --
    There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    1. Re:Did anyone else read this as... by flatass · · Score: 1

      Not me. Apparantly because I cannot read.

    2. Re:Did anyone else read this as... by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      That was my first take on it, yeah.

      "Dude, what the fuck is wrong with German people?"

  10. You mean those sheep in Second Life are real??!!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh crap.. No wonder they ask so many questions. I gotta go cancel my account.

  11. Who goes to jail? by 1_brown_mouse · · Score: 1

    The avatar in a Second Life jail? Will they have to program one?

    Or the person in real life?

    1. Re:Who goes to jail? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      I assure you that their are already quite a lot of Second Life Dungeons. So it has already been programed.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    2. Re:Who goes to jail? by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, SL already has a "jail" that they send people to to punish them. It's a giant corn-field with a tractor and a house. Not sure of all the details as I don't even play SL, but I ready a article about it a while back when one of the SL griefers got tossed in there.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    3. Re:Who goes to jail? by mink · · Score: 1

      That made me grin. I didnt think the SL people had enough of a sense of humor to make that kind of Twilight Zone referance.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  12. Aren't they both consenting adults? by VWJedi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm certainly not condoning the activity, but I have to ask...

    If an adult who appears to be a child chooses to be photographed naked, that is perfectly legal. So why is an adult who looks like a kid online different?

    1. Re:Aren't they both consenting adults? by the_germ · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's legal in the US, but not in Germany.

      In Germany photographs/videos of adults who look like children performing sexual activities are considered child porn.

      Don't know about other countries.

    2. Re:Aren't they both consenting adults? by cornjones · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is legal in the US either. I recall some law against any nudity by characters who were supposed to be under 18, even if the actor is over the age of majority.

    3. Re:Aren't they both consenting adults? by VWJedi · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Germany photographs/videos of adults who look like children performing sexual activities are considered child porn.

      How does that work? A person's age is a documented fact. How do you determine in an objective way if someone looks like a child?

      I've got a weird mental image of naked 18 year-olds parading through a courtroom of stern-looking German judges requesting permision to be in pornography. (Nein, das ist nicht gut! You're only a B-cup. Come back when you've gotten some implants.)

    4. Re:Aren't they both consenting adults? by VWJedi · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is legal in the US either. I recall some law against any nudity by characters who were supposed to be under 18, even if the actor is over the age of majority.

      Does that make American Pie kiddie porn? Or are we expected to believe all the characters are 18?

    5. Re:Aren't they both consenting adults? by fair_n_hite_451 · · Score: 1

      "I'm intrigued by your offer, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter"

      Had to be said...

      --
      Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
      "I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
    6. Re:Aren't they both consenting adults? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Does that make American Pie kiddie porn?

      The original law was overturned by the Supreme Court for that reason. It's since been passed again with the usual Miller "do it first and then we'll decide whether or not to ruin your life forever, but this isn't at all prior restraint" Test clause to cover cases with "literary merit".

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    7. Re:Aren't they both consenting adults? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      "If an adult who appears to be a child chooses to be photographed naked, that is perfectly legal. "

      actually in may places that is NOT legal.
      In fact, if you go someplace to have that developed, they are obligated to notify the authorities.
      In the US, that is.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Aren't they both consenting adults? by VWJedi · · Score: 1

      "If an adult who appears to be a child chooses to be photographed naked, that is perfectly legal. "
      actually in may places that is NOT legal. In fact, if you go someplace to have that developed, they are obligated to notify the authorities. In the US, that is.

      I used to work in a photo lab, and yes, you are required to contact authorities if you see anything you believe to be illegal on the photos. We once had some photos where it looked like some kids were committing murder, it was reported, the police investigated, and no charges were ever filed because it was all "an art project".

      If you report suspected child porn, the police should investigate, the owner of the photo should say "She's not a child, she's 18. Call her at 555-1234." The police track her down, check her id, and the case is closed.

    9. Re:Aren't they both consenting adults? by computational+super · · Score: 1
      all her at 555-1234

      How am I supposed to know what her phone number was? I can hardly remember what window I was standing outside of.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    10. Re:Aren't they both consenting adults? by VWJedi · · Score: 1

      How am I supposed to know what her phone number was? I can hardly remember what window I was standing outside of.

      Well, if you didn't get proof of her age, then you're screwed anyways*.

      * In the figurative sense at least...

    11. Re:Aren't they both consenting adults? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      How does that work? [] How do you determine in an objective way if someone looks like a child?

      The US tried the same kind of nonsense law, and thank god the Supreme Court nixed it.

      There is no objective way to rule on any given image. The way it works is that government persecutors ...I mean prosecutors... they come across some image that they personally offends them, and then they drag somebody into court over it, and he says to the jury something like:
      "The 20 year old slut... I mean 20 year old woman in this photo... with a really dick up her ass and a second guy fucking her from the front in really gross and sinful group sex... she has a lolly pop and a school girl uniform and pigtails and really small titties and I think she looks 16... and if you think anal sex and group sex are sinful.... err.... I mean if you think this girl looks 16 to you... then the law says that you can and should lock up these evil sinners in prison. And the law says that it doesn't matter that she's actually a 20 year old sinful consenting woman.... the only thing that matters is that you think the picture is really really gross... and ahhhhh that you think she looks 16.... yeah that's the ticket... that you think she looks 16. The law says you get to convict based on your personal opinion about the image."

      And then the jurors vote, based on their opinion.

      And god help you if your picture happens to include scat or two homosexual 20 year old guys in anal sex, or anything else that might offend someone. Yup... those two 20 year old guys definitely look 16 to me.... lets lock the fuckers up to protect society from those damn faggots.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  13. RTFA by SpeedyDX · · Score: 3, Informative
    fTFA:

    Mr Schader was asked to pay to attend meetings where virtual and real child pornography was being shown.

    Members of this group also offered to put him in touch with traders of real child pornography.
  14. WTF is "virtual" porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, I'm confused. I can understand going against the people actually trading real kiddie porn, but what the hell is "virtual" porn? And please don't tell me that a 53-year-old man and a 27-year-old woman were subjected to anything worse than being banned for "age play", if they were arrested or anything, that would be ridiculous.

  15. what, no pics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm going to hell.

  16. Morality Plays by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the German government says the problem with kiddie porn is that some adults are perverts, even if no children are involved.

    Do they arrest people in Germany for the love scenes in Shakespeare's _Romeo and Juliet_ between two underage kids, but played by adults?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Morality Plays by BeeRockxs · · Score: 1

      Under-age sex above the age of 16 is not illegal in Germany.

    2. Re:Morality Plays by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      Under-age sex is permitted if you are over-age?

    3. Re:Morality Plays by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Informative

      Juliet is 13 years old.

      FWIW, sex above the legal age is not "underage" anywhere, by definition.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Morality Plays by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Age of consent in Germany is 18. However, if you and your partner are both under 18 ("under age", by definition), but over 16, that is not illegal.

      This is similar to how many states laws work here in the U.S. Age of consent is generally 16-18, but there are often other ages where other rules apply. E.g. in some states if you are within 3 years of age of your partner, and your partner is over 16, then even though your partner is below the age of consent it is not considered statutory rape.

      So there you go: Not-illegal under-age sex by definition. And now you know.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Morality Plays by BeeRockxs · · Score: 1

      Age of consent in Germany is 16, not 18.

    6. Re:Morality Plays by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, not real familiar with it since I'm not going there and the first google link that came up suggested 18. I'm just pointing out that it's more complicated than just over/under AoC in many cases.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  17. Beyond logic by suv4x4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is why kiddie porn and terrorism is often called a hack for the consitition. Things have evolved in such a way that people forgot why those things are not desires, and instead opt to ban and censor anything that could mention or seem like, or possibly suggest, terrorism or child porn.

    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.

    1. Re:Beyond logic by mwissel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Hello,

      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.

    2. Re:Beyond logic by Tack · · Score: 1

      you seem to forget that pedophiles are mentally disordered people.
      You mean like the way homosexuality was up until 1992.
    3. Re:Beyond logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like talking about target shootout at work isn't terrorism, I think if I worked where you do I'd be a little bit terrified...

    4. Re:Beyond logic by suv4x4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hello,

      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.

    5. Re:Beyond logic by mwissel · · Score: 1

      Excuse me for being that harsh, but how the fuck would that in any way compare?

      I mean, pedophiles who actually abuse children are exploiting defenseless victims who mostly don't even understand what's going on. Homosexuals both agree in their actions.

      Well, I'd definately call pedophiles mentally disordered, yes. But compare that with homosexuality by any time? No.

    6. Re:Beyond logic by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      I think if I worked where you do I'd be a little bit terrified...

      And you gotta be. Since I know where you live. And I'm coming for you. And I'll animate me killing you in 3DSMax and give you a CD of it.

    7. Re:Beyond logic by mwissel · · Score: 1

      > 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!

      Well I'm gonna tell you once more so that you finally might get it. They are NOT sued for child abuse. They are actually sued for showing sexual practices involving a child. Got it?

      > Which are depictions of "virtual" child porn are a sudden exception to all this? Do you even realize why?

      Fyi, in another post around here I wrote that I share the disappointment. I just wanted to make clear what they are getting sued for, what's a crime here and what not. I think that it's sick yes, but I'd never put s.o. into jail for drawing a naked child or controlling an childavatar having sex. Though I think that it was Linden Lab's bad to not prohibit it. Those incident draws a very bad light onto Second Life.

      > Are you afraid that if you support someone's freedom to *draw* child porn, someone could consider you're a pedophile?

      There is no such freedom in germany, cause as said this is prohibited. And I don't see any reason for anyone drawing child porn (= actual sex involving one or more children, so this excepts bare pictures of naked children without any erotic background) other than being a pedophile.

    8. Re:Beyond logic by Tack · · Score: 1

      I was interested to see how people would react to this when I posted it. I agree with your statement about consent; I'd say that's important in terms of morality, but is that relevant to whether it's a mental disorder?

      The question before us is: given consenting adults engaging in (online or otherwise) age-play (where one or both of them is a minor), are they pedophiles? Are they mentally disordered?

      If so, then indeed by WHO standards at least, prior to 1992 any two consenting adults engaging in (online or otherwise) homosexual acts would be mentally disordered. The fact that the last sentence seems absurd (at least it does to me) is enough to give pause before answering the earlier question.

      Unfortunately the actual story involves real child pornography, about which the law is clear. But that aspect of the story is less interesting to me, and I suspect also other slashdotters. The interesting discussion to be had here is about the online roleplay aspect of it.

    9. Re:Beyond logic by Tack · · Score: 1

      (where one or both of them is a minor)

      It's not very clear, but I meant where one or both of them roleplays a minor.

    10. Re:Beyond logic by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Well I'm gonna tell you once more so that you finally might get it. They are NOT sued for child abuse. They are actually sued for showing sexual practices involving a child. Got it?

      Right, but stupid laws don't override my common sense circuits. I hope it doesn't do that for you.

      There is no such freedom in germany, cause as said this is prohibited. And I don't see any reason for anyone drawing child porn (= actual sex involving one or more children, so this excepts bare pictures of naked children without any erotic background) other than being a pedophile.

      Again that's like saying that there's no reason to write a book about a fictional serial murderer, unless you're one yourself.

      Look at the big picture. People have to go to jail for harming someone. They shouldn't go to jail for what they think or draw or simulate.

      In your case, even if someone drawing child porn is a pedophile. What then. He should go to jail for being a pedophile? What if he never harmed a kid, and never intends to, and may even have a normal family and three kids he never abused.

      But he's a pedophile. He sometimes thinks about sex with children, but never carries it out, and never intends to.

      You're in charge: do you put this guy in jail for thoughtcrime. Do you fire him from his job, for a thoughtcrime?

    11. Re:Beyond logic by mwissel · · Score: 0

      > Right, but stupid laws don't override my common sense circuits.

      That's no reason for inventing facts. You claimed they're accused of abusing children virtually. And they aren't. Merely the fact that someone was able to watch the scenery is the cause for this upcoming lawsuit.

      > Again that's like saying that there's no reason to write a book about a fictional serial murderer, unless you're one yourself.

      I don't think so. Someone who's pedophile doesn't necessarily rape children. Someone who has violent phantasies doesn't necessarily kill people.

      But I'd say that there's no reason to write a book about a serial murder case except you like or are thrilled by phantasies of violence.

      > In your case, even if someone drawing child porn is a pedophile. What then. He should go to jail for being a pedophile? What if he never harmed a kid, and never intends to, and may even have a normal family and three kids he never abused.

      I didn't say that. I just think that someone who draws kiddie porn pictures with erotic intends might be considered pedophile. I'm quite sure that someone who has an intension other than pornographic is covered by the freedom of art (german: künstlerische Freiheit).

      > You're in charge: do you put this guy in jail for thoughtcrime. Do you fire him from his job, for a thoughtcrime?

      No.

    12. Re:Beyond logic by kabocox · · Score: 1

      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.

      I'm grossed out by the thought of other people going to the bathroom and those TV operating rooms. So do we need to ban everyone from going to the bathroom because it grosses folks out, and recording operating rooms because it disturbs some people?

    13. Re:Beyond logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I know where you live. And I'm coming for you. Reminds me of a t-shirt with our galaxy seen from an angle, with the caption (and helpful arrow) "you are here" about 2/3 the way out. Happy hunting, rough-tough cream-puff.

    14. Re:Beyond logic by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      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.

      Slight correction; there is child porn there, but there is no child abuse. Most people, for some reason, haven't gotten used to the idea that you can have pictures of things that didn't really happen, so they equate child porn and child abuse. I think you know that, but I think the point is worth making clear.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    15. Re:Beyond logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pediophilia is not a crime. Being attracted to a 13 year old mynx is not a crime.

      Actually, there's good evidence that it's the norm, as much as we (males) suppress it.

      Women already know it's the norm; They were 13 year old girls at one point. If they were at all aware at that time-- they know how they've been seen.

      It's the protective males (which is just about all of us) that have this weird lust-love-protect-selfrevulsion-kill-the-pedophile s-! complex going on. We'll legislate and strike with all the passion we can muster, to prove we would never think of a 13 year old girl the wrong way.

  18. virtual vs actual experience? by rodmunday · · Score: 1

    This is interesting because it infers that there is not such thing as a virtual experience, or at least that virtual experiences cannot be dismissed as inherently less important than an actual one. For if it were otherwise, and if Second Life were just a game, then there would be no problem with this. The fact that there is a problem means the distinction between the virtual and the actual is problematic Of course it could be argued that murder is forbidden in the real world and yet is a common occurrence in the game world. Why the discrepancy? I think it has a lot to do with context and also cultural conventions. But this is only the most glancing analysis of the problem which is very complex and goes to the heart of belief and habit formation underscoring human behaviour.

    1. Re:virtual vs actual experience? by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      Your point is perfectly valid, but not in Germany. They've got some of the strictest video game "morality" laws in the world. German iterations of games are well known to feature robots in place of humans, green blood instead of red, and nice words instead of naughty.

      What's really interesting is that gaming is such a huge market there that many developers bend over backwards (or is it bending over forwards?) to modify their games exclusively for Germany. This is a huge undertaking as it requires creation of new assets like art and sound, and even redesigning of gameplay mechanics and rewriting of dialogue and objectives.

  19. I can see your point by mwissel · · Score: 1

    Hello. I can see your (you = you people living in other parts of the world) point, and why you are disappointed with that. I share most of your opinions about this being ridiculous. But I can tell that most users of one of the largest german news sites (heise.de) shared your opinion in their forums. And I think it's rather sad to instantly see something like "no wonder it starts in germany"-statements. We're past the nazi-era. I'd like to note that those players aren't actually sued for kiddie-abusing. They are sued for sharing rl-kiddieporn pictures. Additionally, german law says that any pornographic material, may it be written, as pictures or sounds are prohibited including material closely resembling actual childabusing which translates into these avatar-sex involving one clearly looking like a minor being illegal, same is for hentai showing kiddie porn etc. This news show is also famous for being sensationally bad in research and populist. They claimed the female player who controlled the child avatar was actually 13 years old. Wonder if they are going to prohibit sexual practices where the woman dresses as schoolgirl next...

    1. Re:I can see your point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This situation is actually two separate incidents. The couple, 54/m & 27/f, were just role playing. ANOTHER group was seen to be trading (UNPROVEN - The DE news won't give any proof). The couple got banned for no reason other than publicity: Pixel Sex of children is legal in US. They are in the US.

      How stupid.

  20. so if i ask my 25 y.o. girlfriend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so if i ask my 25 y.o. girlfriend to put her hair up in pigtails and put on the schoolgirl outfit, am i now quilty as well? if i ask her to call me 'daddy' am i now committing incest? ....i;ll just post this as an anonymous coward.......

  21. Virtual Child Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this involves 'The Germans', but hasn't a US Supreme Court decision kept virtual child porn legal (computer graphics and text)?

  22. Coming up next by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Funny

    In the same line of reasoning, I expect these coming soon:

    Banning midget sex (as they look like kids). You'll have to be this high to have sex.
    Banning sex with stupid individuals (they act like kids). You'll have to be this smart to have sex.
    Banning sex with people dressed like kids. strict outlines of what "dressed like adult" will be written in a law.
    Banning sex with people who said something that could suggest they pretend to be a child or pretend their mate is a child, or think about something child-related during sex.
    Banning videos pictures of adults looking at a kid, smiling or something else that could suggest the drawn indivial could have had eventually potentially thoughts about sex.
    Banning adults from touching kids, or people that look like kids, and talking about kids if they saw or did something sexual in the last 24 hours.

    1. Re:Coming up next by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      Banning with people who said something that could suggest they pretend to be a child or pretend their mate is a child You can't do that. That's how federal, state, and local special enforcement squads troll the internet. They strike up a suggestive or alluring chat and then, once they've accumulated enough bad words or phrases portraying s3xual activity, they'll drop the "I'm 17" bomb.

      Imagine a chatroom where authors for , Penthouse Letters, and Cosmopolitan hang out together. Then imagine being an FBI agent finding such a chat room... GOLDMINE!

      It's no different from an FBI prostitution sting busting their "John"... after swallowing.
      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    2. Re:Coming up next by sim82 · · Score: 1

      Banning sex with stupid individuals (they act like kids). You'll have to be this smart to have sex. Loop up "dumm fickt gut" and you will know the common german's oppinion on this one.
    3. Re:Coming up next by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      You can't do that. That's how federal, state, and local special enforcement squads troll the internet. They strike up a suggestive or alluring chat and then, once they've accumulated enough bad words or phrases portraying s3xual activity, they'll drop the "I'm 17" bomb.

      I wonder. If the reply to this is "Oh, I'm 17 too". What then.

      We have two adults who claim they're 17. Either you have no reason to check this guy since he claims he's 17, or if you check him, you'll have to realize that you both did the same thing. Claimed you're 17 and both aren't.

    4. Re:Coming up next by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      We have two s who claim they're 17 Except that they're both lying--and only one of them is a law enforcement officer trying to score a promotion. The other is a Penthouse author exploring material for next month's column.
      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    5. Re:Coming up next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How very...Orwellian!

      I thought that was supposed to happen in England, not Germany.

    6. Re:Coming up next by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Sweet -- it's like a Reader's Digest condensed version of the Book of Leviticus!

      I'm going to Hell for this one, aren't I?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    7. Re:Coming up next by Joker1980 · · Score: 1

      You forgot one. Ban sex. after all it can produce children and we cant have any connection between the two.

      --
      Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
    8. Re:Coming up next by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Banning sex with people who said something that could suggest they pretend to be a child or pretend their mate is a child, or think about something child-related during sex.

      Who's your daddy!

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    9. Re:Coming up next by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      Make it illegal to have sexual relations with anyone who is, or has ever been, a minor ;)

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
  23. this doesn't really make sence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While in the real world a grown woman can dress up like a child and have sex with a grown man, but while in a virtual world, it's illegal, in the real world?

  24. Cartman by johansalk · · Score: 1

    Where's Eric Cartman when you need him.

  25. My Sig by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    Probably the only time it's relevant.

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  26. Japan and Denmark by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Japan has a generally low crime rate, so it is not really that surprising that sexual crime is also low.

    The traditional example is Denmark, where there was a statistically significant decrease in rapes after the legalization of pornography. That statistic actually helped getting pornography legalized in other countries, not always with the same effect (so it might have been a fluke).

  27. Catholic school girl outfit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If my wife does up the pony tail and the classic Catholic school girl outfit, what am I guilty of?
    Child porn?
    Exploiting a minor?
    Hate crime (depends on the mood I guess).
    Contributing to the deliquency?

    1. Re:Catholic school girl outfit.. by cunina · · Score: 1

      When my girlfriend pretends to be Wonder Woman in bed, can I be sued by DC?

    2. Re:Catholic school girl outfit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not actually clear, given your description. If you could post some pictures, for our analysis, we could probably answer better.

    3. Re:Catholic school girl outfit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is a public performance, yes.

      OTOH, who wants to see a 400 pound Wonder Woman?

    4. Re:Catholic school girl outfit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends... send me some photos and I will let you know.

  28. And I'm Sitting Here on Death Row... by loafula · · Score: 1

    ...for PKing in Ultima Online

    --
    FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
  29. Roleplay & Thought Crimes by bogidu · · Score: 1

    Censorship strikes in Second Life. Were there any ACTUAL pictures of child pornography? Were there any ACTUAL children involved? No? THEN NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED!

    These two people were banned because they did something that was not politically correct, something that was "shocking" and that someone was offended by. They did NOT endanger anyone nor did they force anyone else to stick around and watch. They were punished simply because a "moral" majority did not approve of their particular kink.

    Two adults had both of their accounts terminated for roleplaying in a virtual world.

    Linden Labs is on the forefront of immersive multiuser graphical virtual worlds and as such they are helping define the future of communications technology. To begin limiting forms of human communication (YES, SEX IS A FORM OF COMMUNICATION) is simply counterproductive for what they are trying to achieve.

    LINDEN LABS - - Reverse this decision and reserve termination for REAL crimes.

    1. Re:Roleplay & Thought Crimes by bogidu · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected, I only read the LL blog response which did not indicate that real child porn had been traded as well. Ban them, arrest them, and have them shot.

  30. Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are a couple importing things to note here:

    A major component of this news story was not just that it was virtual child pornography, but that *there was real child pornography also in the mix*. If you haven't played Second Life, you must understand that it is possible to do anything with images in SL. Wallpaper a building. Send it via the equivalent of a Private Message--a "notecard." Wrap it around a 3D object so that it can walk and talk.

    A few weeks ago, there was an alarmist article that alleged terrorists might use Second Life to conduct virtual training sessions. It was ludicrous, and still is, to think that terrorist cells, who obviously value anonymity, would use an open and unprotected medium such as Second Life to conduct covert activity.

    On the other hand, quite a few of these "ageplayers" feel that they are doing nothing wrong. And while I certainly don't begrudge anyone their sexual fetishes, and acknowledge that in the U.S. (unlike much of the rest of the world) virtual child pornography is legal, I think it is important to note that we're not talking about what you or I would consider "ageplay" in the real world.

    Some people have compared this to dressing up your girlfriend like a schoolgirl while you play principal. While it is analogous, it is not by any means comparable to the actual content at hand.

    After the Second Life Herald conducted a widely circulated interview with the operator of Jailbait, a couple SL griefers and I went into the sim to try to figure out exactly how we could fuck with it. It was difficult to enter--a highly protected area. When we finally got in, it was somewhat shocking, even by SL standards. There were apparently prepubuscent avatars screaming and crying in baby talk as they were tortured by older figures. There were "adoption agencies", so that the ageplayers--and yes, I will go out on a limb here and say "pedophiles"--could add a pinch of incest to the mix.

    The ageplaying in Second Life is *on another level*.

    Sure, none of that stuff is unheard of on the Internet.

    But on the Internet, it is generally limited to dark, unknown, secret corners: password protected forums, underground Usenet groups, anonymous image boards.

    Contrast this to Second Life, which is experienced as an open, freely accessible world, where one can walk around and see anything as it exists. No effort is needed to find these things--they can be found through mere wandering. It is experientially different, even if qualitatively similar, to the most depraved shit the Internet has to offer.

    What is worth noting, in my opinion, is not whether or not this is thought crime or harming anyone or worthy of legal action. There are different traditions of jurisprudence--or, to use a term coined by the jurist Jeffrey Rosen, "jurisprurience"--that govern different areas, and we are unlikely to reconcile international obscenity laws when our own are so obfuscated.

    Rather, it is interesting to note the widespread media and political reaction to the seedier side of Second Life, which is nothing new, but whose presence was glossed over or ignored in the initial rush to adopt virtual worlds technology based on media hyperbole.

    1. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm glad to hear from someone who has seen this stuff first hand. I also believe that the people engaging in this kind of stuff are probably pedophiles themselves. But I think that the best way to deal with them is to leave them alone in the virtual world, where they are out in the open, and no one gets hurt. Then anyone can keep an eye on them, get their info, and do a cross check on what they're doing in their first life. If someone's an actual pedophile - bam, slammer for you.

      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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 1

      To clarify, I'm not casting moral judgment on sexual roleplayers. I am no Jack Thompson or Rick Santorum, imputing impurity with the accuracy of scattershot.

      I do not feel qualified to defend or decry America's relatively puritan sexual mores. Nor do I think Internet-based obscenity is punishable by law.

      At the same time, I'm not sure I feel comfortable further normalizing pedophilia. Many academics argue that events in Second Life, for a variety of reasons, are experienced as "real". I'm not sure I want to go that far, but I do believe that there is a reason people conduct explicit sexual ageplay and I doubt it is entirely benign. Remember: this is not you and your girlfriend, who hopefully is not prepubescent, dressing up like principal and naughty schoolgirl. Sexual ageplay in Second Life is about the fact that it is a child who is under your power. If you're into that, I suppose it's your roleplaying right. But let's not confuse it with more benign real-life roleplaying, where fantasies are paradoxically less convincing.

      For a few months now, lazy and hyperbolic media coverage has built Second Life up into some sort of utopian incarnation of human creativity, embellishing the pros without investigating what the average American might see as a con.

      Now that the pendulum of public opinion is swinging back the other way, let's see how Linden Lab responds. So far, it hasn't done particularly well. Their proposed solution has been to institute a real-life identification system, in which people, in order to enjoy full access to the system, must supply their personal information to a company whose primary business is selling information to political campaigns. Doesn't sound like a great PR move to me.

    3. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 1

      I suppose it is "safer" to allow such people to operate "only in a virtual world." But with all due respect, that is predicated on the rather naive assumption that people will keep these predatorial fantasies locked within the rather unsatisfying realm of virtual reality.

      Another useful question:

      Linden Lab is attempting to claim common carrier status in order to avoid legal prosecution. They say they are providing a communications service.

      However, if they begin to actively censor content based on content alone, doesn't that revoke such status (if indeed they ever had it)?

    4. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Doesn't allowing them to "practice" their fetish in a virtual world count as reinforcement? Perhaps even connecting their activities with rewards?

    5. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sexual ageplay in Second Life is about the fact that it is a child who is under your power.
      This is where you're wrong. The normal Second Life "grid" - which is pretty much unmoderated, and where all this takes place - is explicitly designated as adults-only. Ostensibly, when you meet another avatar in SL, no matter what they look like, a user is meant to be secure in the knowledge that there is an adult at the controls of said avatar. It's the one thing you're guaranteed by the TOS.

      If you're into that, I suppose it's your roleplaying right. But let's not confuse it with more benign real-life roleplaying, where fantasies are paradoxically less convincing.
      So fantasy is only alright if you do it badly? Should we jail Anthony Hopkins because he was really good at playing a crazed murdering psycopathic cannibal in that movie?
    6. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by Kjella · · Score: 1

      After the Second Life Herald conducted a widely circulated interview with the operator of Jailbait, a couple SL griefers and I went into the sim to try to figure out exactly how we could fuck with it. It was difficult to enter--a highly protected area. When we finally got in, it was somewhat shocking, even by SL standards.
      (...)
      But on the Internet, it is generally limited to dark, unknown, secret corners: password protected forums, underground Usenet groups, anonymous image boards. Contrast this to Second Life, which is experienced as an open, freely accessible world, where one can walk around and see anything as it exists. No effort is needed to find these things--they can be found through mere wandering.


      Sorry, this does not compute. Most fourms are open, most usenet groups are public, more photo sharing places aren't anonymous (at least not to the police). What you're saying is that they've walled themselves off to one little corner of SL, just like they've walled themselves off into a corner of the web or usenet or whatever. You might say that's slightly stupid because it's being run by a company, but if that was the case there wouldn't be any kiddie porn on msn/yahoo/aim etc. either, which I'm sure it is.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 1

      As I corrected in another comment, I meant to say that the permissions were restricted in that particular sim. Sexually explicit material, while not more prevalent than on the Internet as a whole, more *evident* in Second Life. On the Internet, if you build a website, you can set pretty good controls on it to keep people from screwing with it. In Second Life, the old joke goes, if you build a house you can pretty much guarantee at one point you will return to find people having sex in it.

    8. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 1

      "This is where you're wrong. The normal Second Life "grid" - which is pretty much unmoderated, and where all this takes place - is explicitly designated as adults-only. Ostensibly, when you meet another avatar in SL, no matter what they look like, a user is meant to be secure in the knowledge that there is an adult at the controls of said avatar. It's the one thing you're guaranteed by the TOS."

      It's by no means guaranteed--they have no practically meaningful prevention scheme in place. While legally protective, it is about as effective as the drop-down birthday selection menus on porn sites.

      But it doesn't matter. My point was not that an ACTUAL child was under your power, but a VIRTUAL child, who speaks, looks, and acts like a child. This is, after all, a virtual world.

      "So fantasy is only alright if you do it badly? Should we jail Anthony Hopkins because he was really good at playing a crazed murdering psycopathic cannibal in that movie?"

      No. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between dressing your real partner--who may have varicose veins, cellulite, a birthday coming up, even pubic hair, anything to remind you that she or he is in actuality an adult--as a school girl and creating a virtually realistic fantasy centered on an avatar who, within the limits of the virtual reality system, is for all intents and purposes and appearences a child.

      Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, legal or illegal. I'm just saying it's different, and the analogy to real-life sexual roleplaying are a priori and unconvincing.

    9. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      But with all due respect, that is predicated on the rather naive assumption that people will keep these predatorial fantasies locked within the rather unsatisfying realm of virtual reality.

      With all due respect, that is predicated on the rather naive assumption that all people who engage in this sort of virtual fantasy are going to seek to live it out.

      Sure, some will. Some already do, regardless of the existence of the virtual world. Some people also try to live out GTA.

      Those who are mentally unstable will be mentally unstable whether or not you give them the virtual world to explore their instability with.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    10. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But with all due respect, that is predicated on the rather naive assumption that people will keep these predatorial fantasies locked within the rather unsatisfying realm of virtual reality."

      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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    11. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I have no interest in creating a nanny state, nor in creating a state that tells me what is good for me. There is a fine line between looking out for the rights of helpless victims and trampling all over free speech and criminalizing bad thoughts. This line starts right here.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    12. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      You've confused me about how you're linking two points you've tried to make. Age players in a private area of a virtual world who are all adults are just that -- age players. Whether they use makeup or tape themselves down in real life or dress up virtually, its still age-play. Personally, I think its weird and deviant, but that's not relevant to the law, now is it?

      You then mention something about using 'real' kiddie porn images. This I object to of course, but if you still mean in terms of virtual hand-made avatars and not those made from images of real kids, then I think we're still in age-play land here.

      Granted, different countries have different laws. Japan's view of these things is quite a bit more liberal than the United States. In Canada, artistic renditions of graphic (and normally illegal) sexuality are legal so long as no actual children were involved (except in the artist's mind) and the artist /never shares the works with others/. That last bit of course comes into play on Second Life, should the renditions seem realistic enough to be "artistically" created child porn.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    13. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 1

      "You've confused me about how you're linking two points you've tried to make. Age players in a private area of a virtual world who are all adults are just that -- age players. Whether they use makeup or tape themselves down in real life or dress up virtually, its still age-play."

      No, I think there is a difference between people who investigate age based power structure as part of their sexual experience (real life) and people whose attraction is to naked children (sexual ageplayers in SL or other virtual worlds).

      "You then mention something about using 'real' kiddie porn images. This I object to of course, but if you still mean in terms of virtual hand-made avatars and not those made from images of real kids, then I think we're still in age-play land here."

      Again, if you RTFA, it says that part of the reason this is such a big story is because there is real child pornography involved, as in actual pictures of actual children. The press, through my articles and others, has known about the seedier side of Second Life for some time now. This is just another level, because now people are realizing that since you can do "anything you want" in Second Life that might include some activities others find distasteful.

      "That last bit of course comes into play on Second Life, should the renditions seem realistic enough to be "artistically" created child porn."

      In certain countries, yes. But with an international audience eating up Second Life, Linden Lab is placed in the difficult position of needing to pay lip service to other laws or risk using their international userbase.

      And again, with this article we're talking about *real child pornography* in SL. Which is nothing new to the Internet, by any means--but with the golden reputation Second Life has received from the MSM, one wouldn't expect such nasty things to take place inside it!

    14. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 1

      I'm also a civil libertarian. As I said, I don't mean to impute criminality. I just think that perhaps there should be some distinctions drawn where currently there are none, and that the media is now beginning to report on the social downsides of SL after building it up for so long.

    15. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by jgoemat · · Score: 1

      No. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between dressing your real partner--who may have varicose veins, cellulite, a birthday coming up, even pubic hair, anything to remind you that she or he is in actuality an adult--as a school girl and creating a virtually realistic fantasy centered on an avatar who, within the limits of the virtual reality system, is for all intents and purposes and appearences a child.

      So we should make it legal to have sex with tall, fat kids, but illegal to have sex with adults that have a bikini wax or are flat-chested? You need to think about WHY laws make things illegal, and why we have so many of them. By their nature, laws restrict our freedom. I am of the opinion that we shouldn't make things illegal that don't harm others. Although states disagree on an age where someone can give consent to have sexual acts, I think we can all agree that sex before some age is harmful to that person's development, even if they believe it to be consensual. If you have actual child pornography, there was some child that was abused in the taking of that picture. Without the market for the picture, it may not have been taken and the child might not have been abused. Having sex with a 25-year-old woman that looks like she's 15 causes no harm to anyone. Having virtual sex in Second Life with a 25-year-old woman that is just pretending to be under-age doesn't hurt anybody.

      But it doesn't matter. My point was not that an ACTUAL child was under your power, but a VIRTUAL child, who speaks, looks, and acts like a child. This is, after all, a virtual world.

      So why make it illegal? It is like making it illegal to think something. The actual act itself is nothing harmful to anyone, you are basically punishing them for their thoughts. You're not actually making an argument that avatars (lacking even AI since they are operated by people) deserve protection based on their pixels? You could make the argument that people that are into that have a higher risk of abusing children so we should get them off the streets, but then you are depriving them of their rights for only being likely to do something actually harmful. This may come from deep hatred we hold for child molesters and the sorrow for their innocent victims, but must we throw out the wheat with the chaff?

      The only way to have it make any sense is to go by the actual age of the participants. Second Life doesn't have the best graphics around in the first place. What if a 30 year old midget with a bikini wax wants to make an avatar that looks like her real body but without the wrinkles? Will we also make it illegal to shout "Who's your daddy?" while having sex because it implies incest? Will a college football player get arrested for having virtual sex with a college cheerleader that is young-looking?

    16. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 1

      "You need to think about WHY laws make things illegal, and why we have so many of them."

      Never once in any of these comments have I articulated a need to criminalize anything. In fact, multiple times I have stated that I am not commenting on the legal state of things, but merely describing differences that distinguish (if not in a legal sense) real life roleplaying from second life ageplay.

      You need to learn how to read.

    17. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      The distinctions are drawn - actual child abuse harms someone, virtual child abuse doesn't. Whether virtual child abuse leads to actual child abuse is a different story. I still say that SecondLife should be used to expose these fuckers, rather than drive them underground.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    18. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by khallow · · Score: 1

      At the same time, I'm not sure I feel comfortable further normalizing pedophilia. Many academics argue that events in Second Life, for a variety of reasons, are experienced as "real". I'm not sure I want to go that far, but I do believe that there is a reason people conduct explicit sexual ageplay and I doubt it is entirely benign. Remember: this is not you and your girlfriend, who hopefully is not prepubescent, dressing up like principal and naughty schoolgirl. Sexual ageplay in Second Life is about the fact that it is a child who is under your power. If you're into that, I suppose it's your roleplaying right. But let's not confuse it with more benign real-life roleplaying, where fantasies are paradoxically less convincing.

      First, I don't think there's a case for saying this "normalizes" pedophilia. Second, many academics argue all sorts of silly things. Third, one doesn't speak of a harmless act as "not entirely benign". So where's the harm? Further, it's you and some other SL player playing principal and naughty schoolgirl. And it's not a child under your power. To the final statement: bull. It's only a paradox in your imagination.
    19. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by LinuxTek · · Score: 1
      Just a little nitpick of your comment. First you say:

      After the Second Life Herald conducted a widely circulated interview with the operator of Jailbait, a couple SL griefers and I went into the sim to try to figure out exactly how we could fuck with it. It was difficult to enter--a highly protected area. When we finally got in... Then, you mention:

      But on the Internet, it is generally limited to dark, unknown, secret corners: password protected forums, underground Usenet groups, anonymous image boards.

      Contrast this to Second Life, which is experienced as an open, freely accessible world, where one can walk around and see anything as it exists. No effort is needed to find these things--they can be found through mere wandering. It is experientially different, even if qualitatively similar, to the most depraved shit the Internet has to offer. So, you had to actually look really hard, "fuck with" a highly protected area in order to get the "bad stuff" in SL. How is that different from having to figure out the secret corners of the internet where this stuff is at? To me, it looks like you're actually saying that whatever is going on SL is as protected as the few Internet sites that condone or even promote these kind of services.

      I'm very much against RL child pornography, because actual children are being abused, and the main reason why the accounts were banned from SL (according to TFA). But the virtual stuff, although tasteless, indecent, immoral, etc., is just a puppet show where no actual child is involved (the lesser of evils, I guess).

      On another note, if virtual pornography is illegal in Germany, isn't the TV show reporter now a felon for acquiring/viewing/distributing the videos?
      --
      Signatures are supposed to be funny?
    20. Re:Time out, Slashdot, and RTFA by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I also believe that the people engaging in this kind of stuff are probably pedophiles themselves. [...] To some extent, this is like people advertising that they're pedophiles.

      You should consider that opinion very carefully, because I think it's irrational. I play Counter-Strike regularly, as do millions of others, and many play all sorts of violent video games. We all know how many players of such games actually commit cold-blooded murder in real life. Why would you assume that those choosing to act out a different fantasy (one that is, IMHO, no more reprehensible than cold-blooded murder, and no less) are suddenly likely to do it in real life? It's quite likely that many of them are just morbidly fascinated by the idea. I don't think there should be a problem with people conducting this stuff *in a fantasy world*.

  31. The study by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The study is pretty commonly quoted as an argument against pornography, not sure why.

    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.

    1. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You seem unfamiliar with the study. This wasn't the type where you have a bunch of people in to interview them, ask about their attitudes, and draw conclusions. This was a randomized, blind study with a control group (not double blind, I think). Students were selected and divided into groups and for 6 weeks saw either porn, 1/2 porn and 1/2 innocuous content, innocuous content, or no films at all. Those watching films were told the study was about film techniques.

      So the issues you bring up - deliberately misleading interviewers - revolve around selection bias that randomized studies are designed to address.

      In short, the study is academically rigorous and not the "pseudo-rational crutch" you describe. It's easier to attempt to dismiss it as such rather than confront the possibility that porn really is bad, however, especially on Slashdot were I'm sure practically everyone enjoys porn. See sig.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    2. Re:The study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... See sig.

      You seem intent on making everyone read your sig, but frankly, I find your sig to be a lie. I see absolutely NO porn on Slashdot. Maybe you could point me in the right direction?
    3. Re:The study by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And people exposed to western female supremacy ideals think that stoning adulterous women is wrong.

      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.)

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:The study by DeadChobi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My opposition to your citation of this study comes from the fact that it's about 20-30 years old. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a culture's attitudes change over time? This very well may not be true anymore.

      --
      SRSLY.
    5. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Where do you draw the line on moral standards?

      In a way that's not the point. The point is that - regardless of the starting point - porn desensitizes people to rape. So yo could argue that if we were oversensitive to begin with we end up in a better place, but rather than debate what the correct response to rape should be, I'd just point out that anything that cuts that response in 1/2 is probably not great. And the other issues you bring up aren't really relevant in this particular case because it wasn't a question of rape in general, but a specific case of a woman who was raped by a hitchiker. Not a date-rape scenario, but the traditional forcible rape scenario. Furthermore the question didn't ask about burden of proof, but merely about sentencing once the guy is found guilty.

      And finally the negative impacts went far beyond rape. Here's some stuff I grabbed from the article:

      "Students were then introduced to a rape case, reading the newspaper coverage of a hitchiking that resulted in the sexual offense. The rapist's conviction was reported, but a sentene was not stated. Studnes were asked to recommend a prison term for the paticular offense. The length of th term was considered to indicate disapproval or condemnation of rape. Sexual callousnes toward women was expected to find expression in minimal prison sentences. Students also indicated their support for the female liberation movement on a scale ranging from 0 (no support) to 100 (maximal support). This assessment was included tolearn whether callousness, should it be created, generalizes from sex to gender."

      Here's table 3 from the paper "Number of months recommended for rape, as a function of massive exposure to pornography (by gender)" (Massive, by the way, means like 48 minutes a week.)

      Male
      Conrol: 93.7
      No exposure: 94.6
      intermediate exposure: 78.0
      massive exposure: 49.8

      Female
      Control: 119.7
      No exposure: 143.6
      Inter. Exposure: 101.4
      Mass. Exposure: 77.0

      And here's Table 4: SUpport for the women's liberation movement as a function of massive exposure to pornography (by gender) on a scale from 0 (no support) to 100 (maximal support)

      Male
      Control: 66.8
      No exposure: 71.0
      Int. exposure: 48.7
      Mass. exposure: 25.0

      Female
      Control: 76.2
      No Exposure: 82.0
      Int. Exposure: 59.2
      Mass. Exposure: 52.2

      That's pretty damming evidence, in my opinion, of a causal relationship between porn (of the non-violent variety!) and callousness towards women and women's issues.

      Source: "Pornography, Sexual Callousness, and the Trivialization of Rape" by Don Zillmann and Jennings Bryant, Journal of Communication 1982

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    6. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      My opposition to your citation of this study comes from the fact that it's about 20-30 years old. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a culture's attitudes change over time? This very well may not be true anymore.

      First of all, this wasn't a study about "attitudes". They showed porn to people and compared their reactions based. It was blind (at least, possibly double blind) and randomized. So it really was about the impact of porn on people, not just asking them what their attitudes were about sex and porn and rape.

      Secondly, ethics boards seem to disagree with your flippant dismissal that "culture's attitudes change over time" since they seem unwilling to let anyone run the experiment again to see if it still holds true.

      Sure, you can say "it's an old study" but without *any* positive evidence to suggest that culture has changed in such a way that we will have a psychologically different reaction I think simply saying "it's old" is just sticking your head in the sand.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    7. Re:The study by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

      And how many "students" participated in this?

    8. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There were 160 students total, so 40 per group. Before you go "you can't tell anything from so small a sample" ask yourself how much you know about statistics and setting up randomized samples. If the answer is "a lot" let's talk, but if you really have no idea than just take it on faith that you can get statistically significant results from a study of that size (especially given that they were assigned to the groups randomly and there was a control group.)

      I mean, better yet go and take some statistics courses and such. I highly recommend it. But assuming that's not an option, then just trust me.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    9. Re:The study by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      So what does the study's method of obscurity have to do with what it's measuring? I can say that culture has changed in such a fashion because the attitudes of a culture frequently change from generation to generation. Also, the ethics boards may not disagree with my assertion at all. They may just feel that it's not an ethical study to run, kind of like an ethics board having people pretend to be electrocuted in front of other people also doesn't indicate their opinion on the cultural basis of that matter either. I really don't see any arguments against what I've said in your post. Just a couple of fallacies and an insult.

      --
      SRSLY.
    10. Re:The study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The study seems flawed to me. What types of porn? The assumptions the study uses is that more prison time means more hatred/whatever for rape. This is a flawed assumption, especially given the small sample size you quoted later at 160. Randomization is meaningless with such a assumption, as if all the students where from the same area (possible given that its only 160 people, i would also say likely), they may all share the same ideals of the legal system, vs 160 "random" people selected elsewhere in the world. The assumption made by the researchers may not match the assumption of the students in the groups, so while they may only give someone 10 days in jail, they may think they did a horrible crime. On the other hand, they may think the crime was equivalent to, say, pick pocketing, but give 30 days in jail.

      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?)

    11. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Also, the ethics boards may not disagree with my assertion at all. They may just feel that it's not an ethical study to run, kind of like an ethics board having people pretend to be electrocuted in front of other people also doesn't indicate their opinion on the cultural basis of that matter either.

      OK, do me a favor and explain exactly what your assertion entails. I'm saying that the study showed a causal link between pornography and attitudes about women. What societal change are you suggesting that would make people impervious to pornography now in ways that they weren't 20 years ago? Do you mean the same people are impervious, or that the rising generation is impervious?

      As far as I can tell you haven't stated anything specific at all just a generic "culture changes" imperative that's supposed to wipe away the results of a study because it is 20 or 30 years old.

      Furthermore, if the ethics boards continue to refuse to allow a study to be done decades after it was found to be harmful or dangerous then one can only suppose that they continue to believe it is likely *still* harmful or dangerous. They don't consider things unethical without a reason. So either they have the same reason that they did 25 years ago (that the study demonstrated porno had a detrimental psychological impact) or there must be some new ethical consideration that did not exist 25 years ago.

      Since you clearly think that the old reason is no longer valid, what is the current ethical problem with a controlled, randomized study on pornography?

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    12. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      The study seems flawed to me.

      And it sounds like you're grasping at straws because you don't like what you hear to me.

      What types of porn?

      "All erotic films depicted heterosexual activities, mainly fellatio, cunnilungus, coition, and anal intercourse. None of these activities entailed coercion or the deliberate infliction or reception of pain."

      The assumptions the study uses is that more prison time means more hatred/whatever for rape.

      Right, and it seems valid in contrast to the control group. Do you have an alternative interpretation? Cultural and other differences are out: the difference was caused by the exposure to porn (that's what the randomization proves) and therefore how could watching porn and being caused to give a rapist a lighter sentence based on the exact same information indicate anything other than lenience towards rape?

      Randomization is meaningless with such a assumption

      No, it is vital to ensure against selection bias. Without randomization, you'd have people that wanted to watch the porn in the porn group, and people that didn't want to watch the porn in the less-porn groups. It is randomization that allows you to start to get at causality.

      they may all share the same ideals of the legal system

      How is this a flaw? It may limit the relevance of the study, but it certainly doesn't indicate a flaw in the study itself.

      The assumption made by the researchers may not match the assumption of the students in the groups, so while they may only give someone 10 days in jail, they may think they did a horrible crime.

      This would not explain the difference between the groups of students. Which is kind of the point of the whole study.

      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?

      what if it did? That would in no way impact the study. If watching porn changes your attitudes about rape, and another study shows that eating pixie stix has the same impact, this in no way changes the impact of the first study.

      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.

      So what if it did? Is treating women like objects OK as long as we treat men like objects too? That would essentially result in a world full of sociopaths. Not the best outcome, in my opinion, even if it's no longer a question of bias.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    13. Re:The study by bjorniac · · Score: 1

      Does an MMath with Statistics count? I'd agree that you can get somewhat informative results with a sample size that small, but what I'd really want to know is how the sampling was done: How was exposure to porn controlled? I can't think of any student I knew when I was an undergraduate who hadn't had "massive" exposure to porn since they were 16...

      Also you call 100 maximal support, yet the female control group scores 119, and another group over 140, so I'm not so sure I understand your numbers. Could you elaborate further or give a link with more details? This is very interesting to me - I'd like to know exactly how the measurements were taken and exactly what was being measured. A sample size of 40 can be significant in a continuum scale, for example, but on a small discrete scale (Yes/No or Very Happy, Happy, Ambivalent, Not Happy) it is not significant (IIRC, it's been a few years ;-) ).

      Of course, outside statistics people will argue whether or not shorter prison sentences really count as condoning rape. Perhaps that's what punishment they believe the crime merits. I don't condone murder, but I don't think every murderer should be locked up for 30 years or executed by the state, for example.

    14. Re:The study by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

      First, IANASG (I am not a statistical genius). However, I'm not an idiot either. The US population in 1982 was 231,664,458. If you honestly believe that a survey of 160 students, all likely within the same county and state, accurately represents the views of 240,132,887 children, teenagers, young adults, middle-aged adults, and senior citizens, then you truly are a fool. "Statistically significant" does not exactly mean that the results are completely accurate. Not to mention the fact that all those surveyed were students - are you going to also tell me that most students share the same views as most adults and senior citizens?

    15. Re:The study by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

      Oops, had wrong number copied for second population count. Use the linked one in it's place...

    16. Re:The study by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 1

      I'm struck with the simplicity of your ingenious plan. Outstanding method designed to troll for free pr0n links, kudo's..;)

      --
      the significance of a signature is insignificant
    17. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      How was exposure to porn controlled?

      There were 4 groups. The control group was shown nothing. They may or may not have watched porn on their own, but would have reflected normal porn usage. The other 3 groups were should 6 8-minute videos once a week for 6 weeks. The "massive" group saw 48 minutes of porn, the intermediate 24 (and 24 of other programming) and the no-porn group saw 48 of no-porn on a weekly basis.

      Also you call 100 maximal support, yet the female control group scores 119, and another group over 140, so I'm not so sure I understand your numbers.

      There are two tables (that I copied over). The first has units = months (of imprisonment) so there's no upper bound. Averages vary from 49.8 to 143.6. The second has units = support for liberation movement on a scale of 0 - 100. The averages range from 25.0 to 82.0.

      This is very interesting to me - I'd like to know exactly how the measurements were taken and exactly what was being measured.

      I can't just hand-type the whole study over! :-D I know that it was based on questionnaires at the end of the 6-week study, but I don't know what the specific questions were.

      Of course, outside statistics people will argue whether or not shorter prison sentences really count as condoning rape. Perhaps that's what punishment they believe the crime merits. I don't condone murder, but I don't think every murderer should be locked up for 30 years or executed by the state, for example.

      Right, but these are problems of an absolute nature. The point of the study wasn't that porn viewers thought that rape didn't deserve an adequate punishment. The relevant fining is that watching porn changed the punishment from the norm. So it's the differential between the control (93.7) and the no-porn group (94.6) to the intermediate porn (78.0) and finally the maximal porn (49.8) that's relevant (those are the guy numbers). Regardless of whether 94.6 is too much or too little (or any other) you took a group of students, assigned them to the groups randomly, and those watching porn became twice as lenient on rapists.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    18. Re:The study by lgw · · Score: 1

      Correlation is not causation. Did you learn that in your stat classes?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      If you honestly believe that a survey of 160 students, all likely within the same county and state, accurately represents the views of 240,132,887 children, teenagers, young adults, middle-aged adults, and senior citizens, then you truly are a fool.

      That's not what I'm saying at all. But two things are relevant here.

      1. This is not a poll. This means demographic impacts may or may not be as relevant. I'm not saying that you can extrapolate from the reaction of college kids to the reaction of senior citizens (and certainly not children), but I am saying that the emphasis was not on "what do college kids think (as opposed to some other group)" but was on "how watching porn causally impact attitudes of college kids." Your quite right, there may be some important differences. But we don't know, and we're not allowed to do the studies. This is all we have, and I'm not saying it answers the question with finality, but the results are very strong.

      2. Kind of a repeat of what I just said. This isn't supposed to be like "the ultimate answer that says how porn impacts every living human being in the country". A statistically valid poll for a voting involves what - 1,200? 1,600? You can ask that few people and get results that extrapolate to the opinion of the entire nation. Now again, this is not a poll. It was a test to determine how porn impacts people. It's an experiment, not a poll. But the comparison is there just to indicate that you can get powerful results from a small sample. Note that I said "powerful", not incontrovertible.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    20. Re:The study by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I'm very curious to know what they think the mechanism at play was, especially since I highly doubt that that exposure to porn was new or exclusive. Do you have the reference for the article? I'd like to find out more about its details.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    21. Re:The study by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I really enjoy being treated as an object. It's very simple. No negotiation-- god what a nightmare we have gotten ourselves into in our relationships these days. I also enjoy treating my so as an object occasionally. I don't have to worry about her fun. And she enjoys it a great deal too. You just go like beasts and forget all the touchy feely caring about if you are taking care of the other person's needs and going boom at the same second.

      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 ,violence, being a republican, being a liberal). We are horrendously manipulated by modern media as a result (Drink POW Cola and you will get laid by lots of attractive people of the appropriate sex!!!) and there is evidence that even if you know it is wrong going in- that the stuff internalizes and comes out later.

      ---
      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.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    22. Re:The study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having the sentences the same would certainly encourage murdering someone to avoid being convicted of rape. Dude I never even thought of that; I always wondered why rape is only a 3 year sentence, now I know....though I suppose we could still take it up to 10 right? Murder is like 15-25 or more, so why not?
    23. Re:The study by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Average sentence for rape is 117 months for violent offenders (in 1992). Murder was 149 months.
      After good behavior, they got off in 65 and 71 months respectively.

      OTH, "rapecrisis.com" says the average is currently 4 years (48 months) and here (http://www.hdtl.org/protect2.html) "The average rape sentence is just 10.5 years, and the average time served is less than half of that, approximately five years.".

      I think the difference is between time served and time sentenced.

      Part of the problem (here i go off topic) is that our prisons are full of people who would be good citizens if not for our insane drug laws.
      We incarcerate a very high percentage of our population. That means we end up letting some real bad people go.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    24. Re:The study by Alsee · · Score: 2, Informative
      My opposition to your citation of this study comes from the fact that it's about 20-30 years old.

      The reason he cited a 20-30 year old study was because it was virtually the only study ever to come up with the results he wants to hear and to quote.

      Zillmann and Jennings Bryant, the authors of the study, are a pair of crusaders for a cause. Their results are what are known as "irreproducible". Other legitimate researchers have tried repeating the work and did NOT come up with the same results. In other words the original results were either:
      (A) Good science that was the unfortunate victim of an EXTREME statistical fluke... like a genuine random sample of 40 coins that came up 35 heads and 5 tails.
      (B) Deliberately manipulated and fabricated.
      (C) An honest attempt at good research by a pair of bad researchers with such extreme drive and motivation to (honestly) prove what they believed, with extremely deeply held biases, with such distorted mental definitions of terms due to those biases, and thatit lead them to overlook errors and distortions in their process and led them to discard "obviously erroneous" data that inconveniently contradicted the "truth" they were trying to prove, and that their peculiar definitions miscategorized things and produced results that were anywhere from outright wrong to horribly misleading.

      Whatever the reason, in science "irreproducible" results are deemed absolutely worthless. He's citing 20-30 year old results because they are the the only (irreproducible) results he likes, the only ones that say what he wants.

      Zillman came up with the term "callousness towards women", and his work revolves around proving that exposure to porn causes "callousness towards women". According to another researcher, Avedon Carol, Zillmann's concept of "callousness towards women" means:

      a greater tolerance for homosexuality; a belief that women should be able to choose other priorities beside motherhood; less belief in marriage; a belief that women may enjoy sex and choose to participate in it for reasons other than pleasing their husbands or conceiving children - in short, the goals of most feminist groups of the time.
      In a sense Zillmann generally got the results he wanted to get because they were generally *right*.... at least according to his peculiar definitions. If callousness towards women means the idea that women might actually enjoy sex, that women might want to have sex as something other than a means to get pregnant or as an unpleasant DUTY and SERVICE to her husband's needs... then yeah... it is quite plausible and even likely that familiarity with porn really does increase "callousness towards women". If callousness towards women means the idea that women are and should be equal and free to do something in life other than (or in addition to) the role of housewife... then yeah... it is quite plausible and even likely that familiarity with porn really does increase "callousness towards women". If callousness towards women means a reduction in homophobia... it is quite plausible and even likely that familiarity with porn really does increase "callousness towards women". If callousness towards women means the idea that marriage is something that men and women choose, rather than an obligation... then yeah... it is quite plausible that familiarity with porn might increase "callousness towards women".

      Zillmann and Jennings Bryant are women-belong-in-the-kitchen-barefoot-and-pregnant misogynists who define modern liberation and social equality for women as "misogyny". Yeah, according to their neandertal notions, familiarity with and social acceptance of pornography really is "corrosive to society".... corrosive to the "family values" misogynistic society that they honestly believe to be right and good.

      That is the context around (and explaining) the results that our Stormin' Mormon crusader is so eagerly trolling* back 20-30 years to cite.

      (*) Note that I am using "trolling" as in the fishing technique of dragging an giant net through a vast quantity of ocean to catch what your looking for, as opposed to using trolling in the the internet-troll sense.

      -
      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    25. Re:The study by Alsee · · Score: 2, Informative

      we see increasing numbers of child attackers

      Actually according to official US Federal crime statistics, the youth violent crime rate has gone MASSIVELY DOWN in the last twenty-odd years.

      The "increase in youth violence" is a straw man being held up by social crusader causes, and an illusion being created by media coverage. Every once in a while the mass media latches onto and hypes up the latest shocking event. Out of a country of 300 million people there's some nutcase or some evil-fuck somewhere doing something, each and every day, and there always have been. Two kids go psycho at Columbine and people start screaming that society to going to hell. It's the Leave-it-to-Beaver mentality... that the world was all shiny and better back in the good old days... that bad things didn't happen back in the good old days.

      The biggest difference was that "back in the good old days" we had 5-to-7 TV stations if you were lucky, most of them ran a grand total of an hour or two of news a day, and news wasn't so much the sensationalist entertainment medium it so often is now. We didn't have three or four or five dedicated 24-hour entertainment-news channels competing to overhype the select story of the day. Scott and Lacey Petterson.... umpteen hundred hours of news coverage on one stupid arbirary murder... just one random over hyped murder out of the daily stream of un-newsworthy anonymous murders there always have been. Umpteen hundred hours of news coverage on the dissapearance of Natalee Holloway... just one random over hyped dissapearance out of the daily stream of un-newsworthy dissapearances there always have been.

      Umpteen hundred hours of news coverage on Columbine... just one random over hyped mass rampage out of the... ok not DAILY stream of mass rampages... but the at least yearly stream of mass rampages that have always happened. And in entertainment-news, any youth/school violence item anywhere in the country gets to ride on the coattails of Columbine and get hyped up newstainment as well.

      If you ignore the news and look at the actual crime statistics, total youth violence has gone way down in the last two decades or so.

      ----

      Oh, and back to the porn study subject... the reason Stormin' Mormon is citing that decades old study is because it is almost the only study giving the results he wants to hear and wants to cite. With just a few minutes of Googling it turns out that other researchers in the field have found the results to be.... anomalous... and non-reproducible. In other words these restuls do NOT show up when other people try doing the same sort of study. The people who did this study were.... lets say they were highly motivated. A pair of women-belong-in-the-kitchen-barefoot-and-pregnant crusaders.

      From their point of view individual familiarity with porn and general social acceptance of porn is damaging for all sorts of... interesting.... reasons. The idea that women might WANT to have sex other than a means to obtain a child or as wifely duty to satisfy their husband's needs. The idea that women may want to chose something in life other than (or in addition to) a role as housewife, and that that is OK. The idea that marriage is something men and women choose, rather than an obligation. And... horror of horrors... the terribly socially destructive idea that individuals who are familiar with porn... and a society that accepts porn... might be less homophobic.

      By that standard, yeah... I would generally agree that individual familiarity with porn and and social acceptance of porn probably does cause or correlate with most if not all of those things. That religious and social oppression and criminalizing porn would cause or correlate with the opposite of those things.

      So yeah, I agree porn really is harmful... if that is how someone defines harm. Chuckle.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    26. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Personally, I really enjoy being treated as an object.

      What you mean is you enjoy some level of emotional detachment from time to time. If, in certain narrow circumstances, your desires and your partners desires line up in such a way that you can both be treating the other as objects without any negative repercussions, that's fine, but it's hardly a defense of objectification in general, since objectification in general carries no guarantee whatsoever that it will only take place in a mutually beneficial way. If porn causes men to objectify women, then it is going to cause them to care less about whether those women want to be objectified or not. If you like sadomasochistic sex (just as a hypothetical) that's fine for you, but it doesn't mean that it's a good idea to watch something that encourages sadism in general.

      And any thing you show as positive is going to corrupt people towards that point of view (smoking ,violence, being a republican, being a liberal).

      I'm extremely skeptical that any of your proposed alternatives would have as significant an impact in as short a time. You honestly think that people who start smoking once a week are going to be twice as lenient towards rapists in a month and a half? There's a serious question of magnitude that you seem to be sweeping under the rug here.

      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 disagree. The sentencing guidelines for forcible rape by a stranger have not gone through a radical increase or decrease of such a huge magnitude in the last 100 years (to my knowledge). I think that laws around rape (such as disclosing the accuser's name or attitudes about burden of proof) may have changed, but attitudes about forcible rape by a stranger have, I think, been relatively constant.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    27. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      I've posted it in a few other places. I think the study was reported in at least 2 articles. The one I've been using is by Zillmann and Bryant (as are the other ones) from the Journal of Communication in 1982 with a title that includes "and the trivialization of rape".

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    28. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Which is the entire point of randomized studies.

      A major goal of scientific experiments and statistical methods is to approximate as best as possible the counterfactual state of the world.[citation needed] For example, one could run an experiment on identical twins who were known to consistently get the same grades on their tests. One twin is sent to study for six hours while the other is sent to the amusement park. If their test scores suddenly diverged by a large degree, this would be strong evidence that studying (or going to the amusement park) had a causal effect on test scores. In this case, correlation between studying and test scores would almost certainly imply causation.[citation needed]

      Well designed statistical studies replace equality of individuals as in the previous example by equality of groups.[citation needed] This is achieved by randomization of the subjects to two or more groups. Although not a perfect system, placing the subjects randomly in the treatment/placebo groups ensures that it is highly likely that the groups are reasonably equal in all relevant aspects.[citation needed] If the treatment has a significantly different effect than the placebo, one can conclude that the treatment is likely to have a causal effect on the disease. This likeliness can be quantified in statistical terms by the P-value.[citation needed]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_ imply_causation#Determining_causation

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    29. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      The reason he cited a 20-30 year old study was because it was virtually the only study ever to come up with the results he wants to hear and to quote.

      Rather than assuming that I'm some kind of biased crusader, I welcome any similar randomized study that has been performed since this one that fails to reproduce the results. You see as far as I know it's impossible to do such a study because ethics boards won't allow it, and therefore your contention that it is "irreproducible" is entirely without basis. If there have been similar studies, please share the citations.

      Zillmann and Jennings Bryant, the authors of the study, are a pair of crusaders for a cause.

      Well, now we all know exactly what a text-book ad hominem attack looks like. Thanks.

      a greater tolerance for homosexuality; a belief that women should be able to choose other priorities beside motherhood; less belief in marriage; a belief that women may enjoy sex and choose to participate in it for reasons other than pleasing their husbands or conceiving children - in short, the goals of most feminist groups of the time. (from Zimmermann)

      So you've proved Zimmermann was an anti-feminist? I guess if you can't attack the study, attack the author, right? (See comment above.) The fact is that the actual study had nothing to do with this quote which I don't believe is even taken from the same article. Zimmermann tested for things like "how much do you support the women's liberation movement on a scale of 0 to 100" and found that 6 weeks exposure to porn (48 minutes per week) had a causal relationship to a steep (and statistically significant) drop in support for women's liberation. (Which, consiering the time period was 1981 or 1982, likely included the ERA).

      Zillmann and Jennings Bryant are women-belong-in-the-kitchen-barefoot-and-pregnant misogynists who define modern liberation and social equality for women as "misogyny"

      I'll say this for you: when you decide to engage in logical fallacy, you don't do it 1/2-way. Were they nazi sympathizers who kicked kittens in their spare time too? Cause, you know, that's an equally valid criticism of the study.

      That is the context around (and explaining) the results that our Stormin' Mormon crusader is so eagerly trolling* back 20-30 years to cite.

      Or it could be that there have been no similar randomized studies since then. You know, kind of like I said. But hey - you can make me eat my hat if you can find some and prove me wrong.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    30. Re:The study by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

      If you honestly believe that a survey of 160 students, all likely within the same county and state, accurately represents the views of 240,132,887 children, teenagers, young adults, middle-aged adults, and senior citizens, then you truly are a fool.

      That's not what I'm saying at all. But two things are relevant here.

      1. This is not a poll. This means demographic impacts may or may not be as relevant. I'm not saying that you can extrapolate from the reaction of college kids to the reaction of senior citizens (and certainly not children), but I am saying that the emphasis was not on "what do college kids think (as opposed to some other group)" but was on "how watching porn causally impact attitudes of college kids." Your quite right, there may be some important differences. But we don't know, and we're not allowed to do the studies. This is all we have, and I'm not saying it answers the question with finality, but the results are very strong.

      2. Kind of a repeat of what I just said. This isn't supposed to be like "the ultimate answer that says how porn impacts every living human being in the country". A statistically valid poll for a voting involves what - 1,200? 1,600? You can ask that few people and get results that extrapolate to the opinion of the entire nation. Now again, this is not a poll. It was a test to determine how porn impacts people. It's an experiment, not a poll. But the comparison is there just to indicate that you can get powerful results from a small sample. Note that I said "powerful", not incontrovertible. Ok, I'll accept that. The problem I have is where you said "That's pretty damming evidence, in my opinion, of a causal relationship between porn (of the non-violent variety!) and callousness towards women and women's issues." While that may be your opinion, it is by no means "damning evidence".
    31. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Eh... if that's not damming evidence, I don't know what is. "Damning" just points out the the evidence is negative, and as for whether or not it's evidence: what else do you consider the results of an academically rigorous experiment of precisely this question?

      There's a reason I said "evidence" and not "proof". It certainly is evidence, but I don't think its enough evidence to settle the question beyond argument.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    32. Re:The study by lgw · · Score: 1

      And still: correlation is not causation.
      Are there studies which affirm that rapists often enjoy pornography, perhaps moreso than non-rapists? Yes. This makes sense on the face of it, as some rapes are caused by an obession with sex (though, of course, many aren't).

      Are there studies which discriminate between (a) pornography *causing* someone to be more willing to commit a rape and (b) being the sort of person who would commit a rape *causes* one to consume more pornagraphy? Nope. You need people to honestly answer questions about their own motivations for that, which simply doesn't happen in questions about actions society frowns upon.

      But of course that didn't stop for a second people with a political axe to grind (in either direction) from doing the former and claiming they've done the latter.

      However, pornography has become ubiquitous for modern teenagers thanks to the internet, and thus far the social impact seems positive. Too early to see the long-term consequences of new behaviors, but web cam "sex" seems to me to be a wonderfully safe and healthy outlet for normal teenage drives. It's difficult to lose control and accidentally get someone pregnant over the internet. ;)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    33. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      And still: correlation is not causation.

      Look, I'm getting tired of this. I don't need you to repeat facts that are an integral part of my day to day profesion. I know how to do statistical analysis. It's what I do for a living. And at no point have I said "this study demonstrates causation between pornography and commiting rape". It does illustrate causation (that's why we do randomized experiments!), but the causation was between pornography and attitudes about rape. Not rape itself. Specifically attitudes about the fair punishment for rape. That is the causation the study demonstrated. It also demonstrated causation between watching pornography and attitudes about "the women's liberation movement".

      So this: Are there studies which discriminate between (a) pornography *causing* someone to be more willing to commit a rape and (b) being the sort of person who would commit a rape *causes* one to consume more pornagraphy? is a giant straw man. Maybe someone, somewhere is making the claim that this type of study has been done. I am not that person.

      However, pornography has become ubiquitous for modern teenagers thanks to the internet, and thus far the social impact seems positive.

      That is your response? Your personal opinion versus a randomized statistically vetted study? This is where the old saying about someone who knows just enough to do serious damage comes into play. You're shown you get "correlation != causation" and that's terrific, but you completely mangled the application of the correct principle to reject a study that actually does demonstrate causation, and then you counter the study with nothing but your what - gut instinct? What all your buddies say?

      web cam "sex" seems to me to be a wonderfully safe and healthy outlet for normal teenage drives.

      Again... we're not even in the same playing field. I'm interested in STUDIES. Experiments. Journals. Peer-revied publications. This is just some dude talking. And while there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, it's really not very convincing to pit 'some dude talking' against "acadmic, professional, randomized experiment".

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    34. Re:The study by bjorniac · · Score: 1

      Then clearly it is only a relationship between being forced to watch porn and rape sentencing, not just watching right? I mean, I could watch porn every waking hour apart from that involved in the study and still be in the "no exposure" group.

      Sorry about missing the numbers, my stupidity in not reading properly! Also, I'd question how support for the liberation movement was measured - wording things in certain ways can change the outcome of any questionnaire to whatever you like, as was drilled into us when we did discrete stats. Thanks for the reference, I'll try to check it out if I can.

    35. Re:The study by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I was not attempting, and do not intend to attempt, to convince you. It seems to me your reply had two main points, #1 ad hominem and #2 that I should cite the exact studies. I will state that you are in principle right on both points let you "win" on both... with explanation.

      #1 Ad hominem : Pointing out that a smoking&cancer was done by a tobacco company is ALSO fundamentally an ad hominem point. Most people will accept that that is an important fact to know, and that that is enough to explain and dismiss those results when they are contrary to other research. My post was not directed at you, my post was directed at the person I replied to, and to any bystander readers similar to the person I replied to. My post was directed to people who would consider this study even WORSE and even LESS CREDIBLE than a tobacco company study when they learned that the researcher was of such a mind to consider it HARMFUL to increase the acceptance of women's role as more than an housewife, to consider it HARMFUL to accept the idea that a woman might engage in sex as anything other than an unpleasant duty to her husband and an unpleasant means of obtaining children, to consider it HARMFUL to increase tolerance of homosexuality. Call my comments ad hominem if you like... reject it if you like... I am not trying to convince you. My comments were directed at people who would consider that information important to know in considering the integrity of the study.

      #2 You're right I really should cite exact studies. In a few minutes of Googling I came across a host of quotes from numerous other researchers and quotes of various study results, however I do not intend to spend god-knows-how-long hunting down original papers. My expectation... my assumption (fair or not) is that I am not going to convince *you* of anything, not matter what I cite.

      My comments was directed at a person (and bystanders) who already know or accept that the overwhelming body of research comes down on the "porn is not a problem" side who do not demand me to back up that fact (or that claim if you prefer to call it that). It was directed at a person (and bystanders) who took your cited study seriously and were puzzled by it.... but who would have considered my information important and who would have had their puzzlement cleared up by that information.

      You want to reject my entire post as wrong and unfair and closeminded or whatever else.... fine. I have already spent more time on this subject than I really want to invest.

      Again, I have no dispute with you walking away claiming victory on both points. Just agree that we disagree on the general subject, and don't waste any more time on me. I choose not to invest my time pursing this subject here and now. I spend too much time on Slashdot as it is, chuckle.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    36. Re:The study by lgw · · Score: 1

      Your study demonstarated a correlation between pornography use and attitude about punishment for rape. I guess I missed the part that went to causation.

      Meanwhile, do you doubt that pornography is ubiquitous in the internet? Certainly my tax dollars have been wasted studying this. Has there been some huge upswing in rapes that the news media has ignored? No?

      If you want to argue that pornography is bad because it somehow causes people to become more likely to commit rape, there seems to be a lack of evidence to support that view.

      If you want to argue that people who consume porn should be watched more closely because they are more likely to commit rape (mere correlation), well, I'm sure you know all about Bayesian reasoning as it applies to profiling.

      If you want to argue that you find porn distasteful and it should therefore be illegal, then, hey, that does seem to be how we make laws in this contry, and to Hell with the social consequences.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    37. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Rather than assuming that I'm some kind of biased crusader, I welcome any similar randomized study that has been performed since this one that fails to reproduce the results. You see as far as I know it's impossible to do such a study because ethics boards won't allow it, and therefore your contention that it is "irreproducible" is entirely without basis. If there have been similar studies, please share the citations. (my previous post)

      reject it if you like... my assumption (fair or not) is that I am not going to convince *you* of anything, not matter what I cite.

      Well, it's hard to really imagine you coming up with something more insulting than that. If I may ask, is it the fact that I'm Mormon that persuades to ignore my plainly-stated open-mindedness on this issue, or the fact that I happen to have a negative opinion on the impact of pornography?

      Again, I have no dispute with you walking away claiming victory on both points.

      What makes you think victory is my motivation? There are rarely, if ever, clear-cut "victors" in an anonymous internet debate. You're interested in attacking the author of the study, I'm interested in:
      1. Pointing out that that's a pretty irrelevant discussion
      2. Learning if there are any credible, randomized studies that contradict this.
      I know there are stacks of observational studies that go both ways, but observational studies lack the power of randomized ones (especially to determin casuality) and thus if you have any randomized studies I'm extremely eager to hear them.

      No matter how much you may want to write me off as a biased crusader and paragon of intellectual inflexibility, I'm actually quite open to having my mind swayed on this issue; or at the very least recognizing that my position is not as backed-up by evidence as I thought.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    38. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      I guess I missed the part that went to causation.

      Then I guess you don't understand they point of randomized experiments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled _trial

      Meanwhile, do you doubt that pornography is ubiquitous in the internet? Certainly my tax dollars have been wasted studying this. Has there been some huge upswing in rapes that the news media has ignored? No?

      Please show where I thought this study meant people were more like to rape each other if they watch porn. It's possible, but I'm actually content to say that attitudes about porn and feminism taking a downward plunge based on porn (both of which are indicated by the study) is negative even if the actual incidence or rape shows no perceptible increase. A misogynist is a bad thing, even if its not a rapist.

      If you want to argue that pornography is bad because it somehow causes people to become more likely to commit rape, there seems to be a lack of evidence to support that view.

      Agreed. Good thing that's not what I was arguing.

      If you want to argue that people who consume porn should be watched more closely because they are more likely to commit rape (mere correlation), well, I'm sure you know all about Bayesian reasoning as it applies to profiling.

      Err... not sure that I do, but I know about 1 - false positives and 2 - the Constitution, so if I did want to advocate that I'd be in a tight spot. Good thing I don't.

      If you want to argue that you find porn distasteful and it should therefore be illegal, then, hey, that does seem to be how we make laws in this contry, and to Hell with the social consequences./i

      There's a lot that I find distasteful that I would fight to keep legal on the basis of freedom. I can't honestly say that porno in general is one of those things. I have a hard time filing it under "free speech". But I'm certainly not advocating making all porn illegal. I think defining it and banning it would lead to trouble. I don't even want to get into that game.

      My only intention in writing this stuff is to raise awareness of the fact that some good research indicates that there are negative conequences associated (causally) with porn-viewing in an effort to just kind of raise the banner of people who don't want porn and object to it personally. I don't really expect to persuade porn-watchers to stop (just looking at how I get modded on these topics convinces me that porn watchers aren't really rational about their porn) but if there are any fence-sitters or people who have already noticed negative effects in the porn they or their signicant other consumes: let this be the evidence that supports their intuition and leads to hopefully healthy choices about porn. Even if it's not to quit, hopefully it's to cut back.

      Porn effects different people different ways - I just think that for men and women to make responsible choices about it they should be aware of the consequences. And this research indicates what some of those consequences are for the general population (or at least for college-age kids).

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    39. Re:The study by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I definitely do want to answer part of that.

      If I may ask, is it the fact that I'm Mormon

      I can do better than answering with a 'no' or any sort of denial.

      I'm not thrilled with any of the current Republican candidates for president, but if one of them were to become president, I currently consider Mitt Romney an above average preference among them.

      It seriously would not have made the slightest difference to me if you were theStorminChristian or anything else.

      As for the rest, I am well aware that the details of any particular study make a big difference. You are not merely asking for general studies on the subject. There are a lot of studies on the subject and I do not want to spend the time with re-Googling general second hand pages on the subject and from there trying to dig up the various original studies and then reviewing all the details of each to find one that is appropriate to reply with. If I dig up a study I expect to dig up the right one. It would be a project.

      If the subject were, for example, evolution... I have far more expertise in the subject and far more interest in debating it and I pretty well know where and how to quickly track down a quality reference to back up virtually anything I might say. But a squabble on porn... after the Googling and all the reading of quite a few sites addressing study you cited... I realized it had already consumed far more time than I was really interested in spending on it.

      In a proper debate on the issue you would deserve a specific study citation... it would be my responsibility to back up my statements. My statements were based on (what I considered convincing) pages with second hand discussion and peicemeal quotations of researchers and peicemeal quotations of their studies. I don't want to do further work. I acknowledge your criticisms of my post. I pass on properly debating it... and I think I am especially free to decline since my post was a reply to someone else... and that that person appears to have have been satisfied with it. I agree to disagree on the general subject.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    40. Re:The study by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      In a proper debate on the issue you would deserve a specific study citation... it would be my responsibility to back up my statements. My statements were based on (what I considered convincing) pages with second hand discussion and peicemeal quotations of researchers and peicemeal quotations of their studies. I don't want to do further work. I acknowledge your criticisms of my post. I pass on properly debating it... and I think I am especially free to decline since my post was a reply to someone else... and that that person appears to have have been satisfied with it. I agree to disagree on the general subject.

      What an entirely rational and civil post. I understand where you're coming from, and I can agree to disagree under those terms as well with one minor caveat: it seems to me that there really aren't as many experts on porn in the Slashdot community as there are on (for example) evolution, and yet I'd wager support for the two (porn and evolution) is pretty similar.

      Part of what frustrates me is the very fact that - despite using it on a regular basis - no one is even bothered to actually do the research. While on an individual level I certainly understand that you don't want to expend the time and energy getting into a protracted debate outside your area of expertise, it's frustrating to me that porn seems to be outside virtually everyone's area of expertise and yet everyone continues to indulge without considering seriously the possibility that it may have harmful effects.

      Anyway... rant over.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
  32. FBI comment by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    Any sources to back that claim of "...FBI already spends *MOST* of its resources tracking down child molesters"?

    The FBI has many roles, from counter-terror, to counter espionage, to kidnapping and a zillion other things.

    1. Re:FBI comment by Danga · · Score: 1

      Any sources to back that claim of "...FBI already spends *MOST* of its resources tracking down child molesters"?

      The FBI has many roles, from counter-terror, to counter espionage, to kidnapping and a zillion other things.


      You are correct that the FBI has many roles and I would say that most of the FBI's TOTAL resources are not put into tracking down child molesters but they definitely do have quite a few people working on it.

      However, I will say that a LARGE majority of any law enforcements computer crime investigations do involve child molesters/pornography. I am a software developer for a company that specializes in computer forensic applications (the FBI is our biggest customer) and nearly all of the forensic examiners I have talked to have said that they are overwelmed with the amount of cases involving child molesters/pornography. They just don't have the man power to handle it all. This is not just in the US either, I have heard it from examiners all over the world.

      The problem is FAR, FAR from under control as the poster you responded to seems to think.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
  33. Really bad subject line by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    Makes it sound like Germans in general are seeking this stuff out. That is so inaccurate. Everyone knows the Germans are into scheisser porn.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  34. BAN FURRIES by bogidu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Since beastiality is taboo, guess LL needs to ban all furries in SL too?

  35. Since this is SL we're talking about... by glindsey · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...I would think they would be tracking down all the furries and arresting them for "virtual beastiality".

    But then Linden Labs would lose 90 percent of their revenue...

    1. Re:Since this is SL we're talking about... by glindsey · · Score: 1

      ...and that should've been "bestiality". Oops. Slashdot, get off your butts and add comment editing abilities, please.

    2. Re:Since this is SL we're talking about... by jfodale · · Score: 1

      [i]"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."[/i]

      Well, seeing how they just banned half the user base, 90% doesn't seem like that much more.

      --
      Waiting for Warhammer Online.
    3. Re:Since this is SL we're talking about... by jfodale · · Score: 1

      Oh god dammit, I messed up my post too.

      --
      Waiting for Warhammer Online.
    4. Re:Since this is SL we're talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I would think they would be tracking down all the furries and arresting them for "virtual beastiality".

      Hey, now! Furry stuff is wholly separate from bestiality. As a lifelong animal-fucker, I don't want anyone associating me with those weirdos in their mascot costumes. That's just sick, right there.

  36. Hakim Bey was right by Tom · · Score: 1

    It's not about justice, or protecting the innocent - Stories like this reveal what's really going on. Think about it: There are pedophiles, always have been, probably always will be (at least for the forseable future). Maybe it's a mental illness, maybe just perversion. Does it matter?

    Given that pedophiles exist, and the urge is hard to suppress, shouldn't we welcome that they do their stuff in a virtual world, instead of the real one? Right now, aside from claims by the German authorities, there is no evidence that even a single child was actually involved. And living in Germany I can tell you the authorities have lost a lot of reputation recently. We've reached the point where even mainstream magazines doubt the sanity of our minister of the interior. He was assaulted some year back, has been sitting in a wheelchair since. PTSD is a very likely result of that tragedy.

    And this is what it's about. Like the razzias in several cities yesterday, it's a show of force, a spectacle, in the words of Hakim Bey.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:Hakim Bey was right by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a mental illness, maybe just perversion.

      You can't make such a judgment by lumping all paedophiles together, because in reality it's far too broad. For example, if a 20-year old male feels attracted to a healthy, sexy physically developed 15-year old, I doubt that you can realistically say that that is a sign of mental illness or abnormality or perversion. Heck, it would be unnatural if he wasn't at least a little attracted. Most of us are regularly attracted to underage girls without even knowing it as they are often used as models for advertising, for example (e.g. Kate Moss was 'discovered' at age 14). You see a beautiful girl in a magazine, you seldom consider how old she might be, you just enjoy the view. On the other hand, a (say) 40-year old (or anyone) wanting to screw a pre-pubescent girl e.g. 10 year old, or ANYONE wanting to screw a toddler, that's a totally different thing we're talking about. That should probably be regarded as mentally abnormal. Yet these totally different things are thrown under the same banner.

      I wonder how old this avatar representation was. Did it look like a 16-year old or a 9-year old? (No I haven't RTA)

    2. Re:Hakim Bey was right by Tom · · Score: 1

      You ignored the part "does it matter?". It doesn't to me. But you are right, there are borderline cases thrown in there. Heck, most of us are pedophiles by the broadest definition. I know when I was 16, I wanted to screw a few 15 and even (horror!) 14 year old girls. ;-)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  37. Inconsistency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "After the Second Life Herald conducted a widely circulated interview with the operator of Jailbait, a couple SL griefers and I went into the sim to try to figure out exactly how we could fuck with it. It was difficult to enter--a highly protected area. When we finally got in..."

    vs.

    "Contrast this to Second Life, which is experienced as an open, freely accessible world, where one can walk around and see anything as it exists. No effort is needed to find these things--they can be found through mere wandering."

    Something's wrong with your brain.

    1. Re:Inconsistency by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whoops. I meant to say that it was a highly "restricted" area, because it had a ton of rules about what you could place or what you could create. It had a lot of false walls on the outside, but it was easy enough to enter. In any case, my latter comment was directed towards sexually explicit material in general, not any particular ageplay club. You *can* merely meander through Second Life and be accosted by obscenity.

    2. Re:Inconsistency by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, I've had my share of SL, and I still wonder where those seedier parts are. Personally, I never went into any "seedier" part that I wasn't explicitly looking for, I doubt you can simply stumble over it. You said yourself you heard about this place and went there deliberately to check it out, then had to find your way through barricades of false walls and so on, until you finally, finally made it in.

      Doesn't quite sound to me like something someone could accidently stumble into.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  38. This is not new. It has applied to brothels by geekoid · · Score: 0

    for years.

    In Nevada, where Pristitution is legal, it is illegal for them to pretend to be under 18, or related to the patron anything closer the 2nd cousins.

    It's a perfectly fine line for a business to have to draw.

    Oh, and it is not 'thought crime' at all. They are not arresting people for thinking about having sex with someone who is an adult pretending to be a child.

    Also, depictions of children having sex is illegal in civilized places. The fact that the depiction in this case is an animated avatar makes no difference.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:This is not new. It has applied to brothels by computational+super · · Score: 1

      You're one of those, "this 'freedom' concept has gotten out of hand" people, aren't you? So, let's see - if you're arrested for criticizing the government, that's not a thought crime because you weren't arrested for thinking about criticizing the government? That's one seriously tortured piece of logic you have there, dude... and since abusing things that aren't alive appear to be criminal in your book, you should turn yourself in for horrendous abuse of logic.

      And yeah, that's a way stupid law.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    2. Re:This is not new. It has applied to brothels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Nevada, where Pristitution is legal, it is illegal for them to pretend to be under 18, or related to the patron anything closer the 2nd cousins. Frequent visitor to Nevada, are you?

      Oh, and it is not 'thought crime' at all. They are not arresting people for thinking about having sex with someone who is an adult pretending to be a child. That is the very essence of a "thought crime". They were roleplaying one of them was a child! If they had consential sex in person and someone found out they were playing as a "kid" would that be a crime? It shouldn't, because both are consenting adults and the last place I want the government is in my damn bedroom.

      Also, depictions of children having sex is illegal in civilized places. The fact that the depiction in this case is an animated avatar makes no difference. What civilized place? What age is a child? Remember, there was a time when it was frequent for children to be married by 12 or 13 and pregnant before 15. Now, even think about a child in the wrong way and bam...prison for you. Humans were not meant to live into their 50-70s. Why do you think are sexual peaks occur somewhere between 18 and 30 and we become "sexually mature" in our teens?
  39. I Disagree by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the fiction world there are lots of animated and printed works that very obviously depict additional rape, child sex (consentual and non), incest, disfiguring and nonconsentual S&M and human bondage.
    I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there exists a third class of reaction that a person can have to a subject outside of "interest in engaging in" and "outright repulsion by". The third reaction would be "enjoy fantasizing/pretending about".

    Of course, I don't have to tell you that 99.999% of those who play Grand Theft Auto have zero interest in actually engaging in the various felonious in-game pursuits in real life.

    In addition, I would assert that among those who enjoy fantasizing about rape, very few would ever have an interest actually committing a rape or being raped. Perhaps they enact their own fantasies with their partners, but I doubt many would want the real deal.

    On the other hand, it is part of human nature to desire to protect the defenseless, including and especially children. This is why you see so many draconian and oftentimes blatantly unconstitutional laws being passed under the auspices of protecting kids. I doubt that there is much middle ground between those who would be interested in engaging in, and those who would be repulsed by, having sex with children.

    That is why I think your use of Japanese pornographic tastes does not apply here. I'm willing to bet that the Japanese people, while they may enjoy fantasizing about rape, are not interested in going around raping each other. On the other hand, I doubt that there are many people who would be interested in only fantasizing, but not acting, on having sex with children. This is for the reason I mentioned above, the human-nature desire to protect the defenseless.
    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    1. Re:I Disagree by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Of course, I don't have to tell you that 99.999% of those who play Grand Theft Auto have zero interest in actually engaging in the various felonious in-game pursuits in real life. In addition, I would assert that among those who enjoy fantasizing about rape, very few would ever have an interest actually committing a rape or being raped. Perhaps they enact their own fantasies with their partners, but I doubt many would want the real deal.

      I play GTA:SA at least once a week and I abhor violence, haven't been involved in any since high school.

      I have a rather worse record with automotive collisions :( but I don't perform them intentionally.

      Similarly, I have been involved in various sorts of fantasy play (I won't go into any detail, it would be TMI for all involved) that simulates illegal behavior. It was safe, sane, and consensual. I have never performed the actual offenses, and have no plans to. I find the actual practices abhorrent, but the acts in which I was involved were entertaining enough.

      Rape fantasy in particular is supposed to be intensely common. And I have known women who play the part of the child being abused by a pedophile. Anecdotes are worthless, I do realize this, but what I'm trying to express is that there is more beneath the heavens than is imagined here on earth.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:I Disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand your argument; Why exactly does the Japan argument not hold up? Are the Japanese somehow exempt from human nature?

      On the other hand, I doubt that there are many people who would be interested in only fantasizing, but not acting, on having sex with children.

      Utterly and totally wrong.

    3. Re:I Disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah, you don't know the japanese porn market ;) putting underage-looking girls in sexual situations is like a freaking genre. (in anime porn, they'll really be 12, no joke)

      in japan, there exists a huge amount of interest in underage girls. i can't speak as to the actual numbers, but i don't think that that many 12 year olds get raped in japan (or in general).

      i don't mean to say child porn is ok, but i do think that there are still people in the grey area you described in rape pornography, but for the case of child pornography, where they'd never rape an underage person but would watch underage pornography. i mean, it's probably true for lots of things.

  40. No, I read it as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Germans Purusing Kiddie Porn In Second Life"

  41. Missing Child Madeleine McCann (as of 2007 May 10) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PLEASE HELP
    follow this event at SKY NEW special section:
    http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine
    PLEASE HELP

  42. Just an SL user and... by Attis_The_Bunneh · · Score: 1

    I can say that the majority of so-called 'kiddie' porn is really just age play, considering the fact that the avatars can be altered to be as small or as tall as you like within their constraints. According to the article there is alleged real kiddie porn in the mix, but alleged doesn't count in my book, but then again I live in America were we're suppose to have an adversarial legal system [that probably doesn't count for much anymore sadly], but this case is in Germany, which probably has a completely different take on innocence of the accused, so that card won't work even if it's right. So all I can say is that in SL, an accusation is taken seriously by LL, and you can lose your account and all your IP in that domain by them, it's a sad state of affairs, but that's the course LL has chosen. It wants to look all squeaky clean, but the fact is that SL is primarily used for all sorts of fetishistic sex play.

    Hell, I play on a sim for a cyberpunk city called Midian City, which literally has an assortment of all kinds of sex play; vanilla (of all orientations), BDSM, pred/prey capture sexplay, and so on. Yet, it's still no the bread and butter of RP on that sim, despite being the primary audience attraction when it comes to general RP. So, I don't get most of the taboo and icky feeling that the folks at LL have about all this. If they want squeak clean just say so and put it in the AUP or whatever contract it needs to be in, and then I'll just take my leave to elsewhere because I do happen to be an adult and I do not want to be censored (oh noes, I might say b00bs one instance and offend some blue hair'd individual or a bible thumper or two...) among adults. SL use to be a fine idea for a 3d environment, but the more press it gets the more the chilling effect gets placed on adults in SL, despite the addition of a Teen/Kid-only grid which is separate from the main grid. In the end, the only way to resolve this issue is to have someone reverse engineer or make a completely independent version of SL. Frankly, I think that's its future, and LL knows it, they're just trying to rake in more cash before it's too late and everyone makes up their own little 'meta-verses.'

    -- Brede

    1. Re:Just an SL user and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In the end, the only way to resolve this issue is to have someone reverse engineer or make a completely independent version of SL."

      as you wish...

      http://osgrid.org/
      http://openmetaverse.org/wiki/OpenMetaverse

    2. Re:Just an SL user and... by Attis_The_Bunneh · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I'm getting tired of the walled garden attitude at SL anymore. I guess it's time to cut my baby teeth in programming on something, worthwhile or not. ;)

      -- Brede

  43. As much as I'm against kiddee porn... by Demon-Xanth · · Score: 1

    ...this is really a grey area. Given that everyone involved was a consenting adult. Much like hentai, where many of the styles have "young" looks, even though the characters aren't. Or it can even be argued with "adult babies", or girls in schoolgirl outfits.

    This isn't something where you can really break out the pitchforks for, but you can't exactly say for the win.

    --
    If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
    1. Re:As much as I'm against kiddee porn... by meringuoid · · Score: 1

      Much like hentai, where many of the styles have "young" looks, even though the characters aren't. Don't ever read a 'Basic Japanese' book. You might discover that when the subtitles say 'eighteen years old' the spoken dialogue says something quite different. And then you might feel horribly guilty about all that J-pr0n you've collected.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  44. Perverted Germans! by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the title should have read "Germans crack down on kiddie porn in Second Life" or "Germans pursue punishment for kiddie porn in Second Life" I don't think they would agree with the current inferred sentiment it carries.

    --
    A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
  45. Rather troubling by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    OK, so it is some kind of virtual playground where nobody gets hurt. Sort of.

    Except it is easily shown that what is going on here is reinforcing this behavior and rewarding it.

    For a bully being able to bully people in a virtual world where all the victims meekly submit and cower pretty much assures the bully that this is a good thing and encourages acting out in the real world. I see the same thing here.

    We need to clearly identify behavior as acceptable or unacceptable and enforce that in all venues, virtual or not. If being a bully is acceptable, then they can practice their bullying anywhere at any time without restriction. If being a pedophile is acceptable, then they should be able to seduce little children whenever and whereever they want. By acceptable I mean acceptable to society - not just a few people but pretty much everyone that could potentially be affected. Today, that means more than just their local community.

    Alternatively, if being a bully or pedophile is not acceptable then they should not be able to practice it anywhere, real or virtual, or even talk about how they would really like to do it but are currently restraining themselves. No "reinforcing" behavior, no simulations, no gameplaying. Utter ban.

    Pretty much as a society it has been decided that calling black people niggers and "nappy haired ho's" is not acceptable in any venue. You do it once and get fired from your job. You do not find virtual worlds where people get to practice calling black people niggers. Creating such a virtual place would result in a large outcry and banning such a thing. We can develop the courage to ban other activities just as completely.

    1. Re:Rather troubling by Salamande · · Score: 1

      Pretty much as a society it has been decided that calling black people niggers and "nappy haired ho's" is not acceptable in any venue. You do it once and get fired from your job. You do not find virtual worlds where people get to practice calling black people niggers. Creating such a virtual place would result in a large outcry and banning such a thing.
      Guess they should shut down Xbox Live then.
    2. Re:Rather troubling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever thought that some black people refer to themselves as that way?

      Ever thought that society will ALWAYS complain about SOMETHING, that in the end if you enforce all "looked down upon behaviors" that society feels is bad that ANYTHING will be illegal?

      You're thinking inside a box... please come out when you are at least 18 years of age

  46. so if two 15 year olds are going at it.. by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    who gets charged with a crime?

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:so if two 15 year olds are going at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy.

      Always.

    2. Re:so if two 15 year olds are going at it.. by Cederic · · Score: 1


      In the UK, usually, they'll both get a telling off and the daughter's parents will ground her and the boy's parents will congratulate him.

      There has been an instance where the parents of the girl demanded that the boy be prosecuted for statutory rape. I was continually amazed that his parents didn't demand the same of her. Can't remember how that one ended.

      Anybody within a year or two in age tends to get away with it; if it's someone that's 14 on someone that's 9 (it did happen a while back) that's considered pretty clearly a rape.

  47. Sex crimes in Japan are bad. by MMInterface · · Score: 3, Informative

    Its a good example and Japan does have a low crime rate but they do have serious problems with sex crimes and sexual harassment that the numbers don't show. For example, the train gropping thing is a problem that I have experienced first hand, and I am a man. I have been grabbed by men and woman on the train in Tokyo. Oh I found it down right hilarious but I'm sure plenty of the women there don't. The funny thing is I have seen Japanese porn where the theme was gropping and then raping women on the train. Its a really common theme and there are even places you can go to pay to act out the scenario yourself. And yes recently there are women only trains because the train gropping is that bad. One reason the numbers are low is because a lot of this stuff is tolerated on a level that would never happen in the US.

    My gf's experience is also a good example of the situation in Japan. She was certain science field that was mostly dominated by males. If you were a woman in a lab you were probably the only one. As she started her job in the lab she met the woman who recently quit her position there and she told her she left because she was being harassed by the boss. Eventually my gf gave up the field entirely because her male cowokers were alwasy watching porn in front of her at work, talking dirty to her, touching her etc and this happen in more then one place including the university. It goes without saying that when you do hear about this stuff in Japan's news its a small minority of cases where the person even bothers to say anything.

    Child sex crimes are another example. Various regions in Japan have different laws regarding sex with minors but many of them are lower in the US. Regardless of the law there is a big illegal market for underage prostitution. The numbers for sex crimes in Japan mean squat because it has one the largest illegal sex industries in the world and a huge amount of it is tolerated or goes unreported. There's even plenty of cases where some of these more ametuer videos weren't entirely consensual. Even the part of their sex industry that apears legal is almost always run by yakuza who are just as criminal as any gang memeber in the US but are often treated like real corporations, not that there is much of a difference anyways (recroding industry).

    Stalking is also a big problem there. Its not a case of there is porn that involves stalking themese so you see less of it in real life. Again, I have experienced this first hand. I have been stalked by several women and when I told people some of them thought it was cute and they were just persistant women, but other foreigners immediately knew what the deal was and had experienced it or seen it themselves. Again it wasn't really a criminal matter and after telling my collegues I was the one who was almost transferred until one of the girls started doing things that were so off the wall they couldn't ignore it. In any event police were never involved and I was told not to involve them. Put that in the stat books.

    But... I'm totally for porn and against censorship. Japan is just a really bad example for this argument. I could go on and on with examples because sexually Japan is screwed in almost every way from an unexceptable amount of adults doing audacious stuff in public to declining birthrates. If we were talking about violence and crime in general then you would be right on even if you include the higher rate of suicide and bullying. They don't have the censorship we have, yet their crime rate is much lower and your not as likely to get shot, robbed or approached by crack heads.

    1. Re:Sex crimes in Japan are bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess. English teacher?

      If so, please let me know. I have a standing argument with a friend that unqualified, imported English teachers are the biggest reason that the quality of spoken and written English is so bad in modernized East Asian countries like Japan. Your posts sure would go a long way in helping me prove my point.

  48. worrisome by nanosquid · · Score: 1

    Trying to restrict freedom of thought and expression among consenting adults should not be acceptable in a democracy. There are lots of arguments one may come up with for and against, but the simple fact remains: giving the state the power to criminalize thoughts, pictures, or speech in areas as vaguely defined as morality and sex is too dangerous.

    It is exactly those powers that the Nazis in Germany used to turn a democracy into a fascist state, with the Germans cheering them on. The rhetoric and issues are the same: protecting the children from deviants, degenerate pictures, illegal aliens, family values, Christian values, etc.

    People, get a clue: don't fall for this bullshit a second time.

  49. ERROR IN reprod(m,f) by Aelcyx · · Score: 5, Funny

    MEMORANDUM

    To: God
    RE: Error found in reprod(m,f)

    I found a threading issue with reprod(m,f). Someone set the priority way too high and it's creating a system-wide slowdown that's eating up a lot of resources. I'm thinking of de-prioritizing it to spend more resources in power management instead. Also, invoking reprod(m,m) and reprod(f,f) appears to halt other parts of the system inexplicably.

    Please tackle these issues ASAP. They've apparently been around for a while, but since after fixing a lot of other stuff, they seem to be more of an issue.

    Sincerely,
    Humanity

    1. Re:ERROR IN reprod(m,f) by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      MEMORANDUM

      To: Humanity
      RE: Error found in reprod(m,f)

      Don't worry. Wait a few hundred years, the system will reboot itself.

      Faithfully (glad you are),
      God

    2. Re:ERROR IN reprod(m,f) by mink · · Score: 1

      Just don't tell him his floodfill code is crap.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    3. Re:ERROR IN reprod(m,f) by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I much prefer invoking:
      void reprod(f,f,m);

      Much better argument list, with no pesky return value to deal with.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  50. How can you have sex in the digital world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does not make sense. One, it is a biological function for replication and last I read, digital characters do not require this process. So at most, what was viewed was an imitation of a sexual act, but that does not make it sex. In addition, the digital world has definite boundaries and can only go as far as the code will allow activities to be performed. So, if they were imitating sex, it must have been because the code had logic in place to render such activities. If this never happened, then how can someone imitate sex in SL? Since sex does not exist in digital world and the imitation of sexual acts can only be done in the digital world because code creates it and I imagine SL did not code routines for this purpose, then what was seen? My guess is that it is some kind of reflection of what the viewer saw which still does not make it sex. It does reveal the mindset of the person that saw whatever it was.

  51. Where are you coming up with your Japan claim? by Bueller_007 · · Score: 1

    Where are you getting your data that Japan has low sex crime rates?

    I live in Japan, and I personally know a large number of women who have been sexually assaulted. you might have heard the word "chikan", which describes men who molest women. Usually on trains. This is a social problem so grave that there are now women-only train cars. As I recall, I've read one statistic that said something like 1/3 of all women can expect to be groped/molested on a train to one degree or another by the 25th birthday.

    And this cannot be brushed off by saying "Japanese trains are packed, and women just think that any old body contact is rape nowadays". I have personally taken the near-abandoned first train home in the morning, and watched a drunken Japanese businessman start pawing at the crotch and ass of one of my female Australian friends right in front of me. A quick shout of the word "chikan" was enough to end the incident, but Japanese women are usually hesitant to do this because it's a source of embarrassment for the both of them. This often results in the assault usually continuing unabated, and going unreported.

    I am not alone in having witnessed this. My cousin lives in Tokyo and once sprang to the defence of a girl who was being molested on the train by grabbing the assaulter's fingers and breaking them.

    There is also a not-insignificant amount of stalking and lurking, as well as men taking up-skirt camera pictures on escalators.

    I would really check up on your data again, and if it does in fact support your claim, I would suggest that it: a) refers only to instances of penetrative rape and not sexual assault; or b) refers only to instances reported to the police, the vast majority of instances, IMO, not being reported.

  52. Clarification of German law on cp etc. by Xonea · · Score: 1

    Ok, as there seem to be some open questions about the german law governing child pornography, I will try to explain it a little bit... Child pornography is a criminal offence according to 184b of the german penal code (Strafgesetzbuch).

    According to 184b Stgb. it is forbidden to distribute, display, present or make accessible child pornography (punishable by up to 5 years of prison).

    It is also forbidden to procure or to own child pornography (punishable by up to two years of prison). You don't even have to be aware that you own child pornography to be punished for it. There have been cases of people being convicted fo owning child pornography that have tried to fight agains it.

    Child pornography includes everything that deals with the abuse of children (anyone under the age of 14 in germany); that means that it is forbidden for underage avatars to have sex with each other in germany (and it doesn't matter if the people behind it are adult or not). Stories of children (under 14) having sex are also forbidden.

    Linden labs has to take actions against this, otherwise they might be punished themselves (for distributing and making accessible child pornography). And germany is an important market for linden labs; there are more germans in second life than u.s. residents (about 209,000 germany logged in to SL in april 2007 compared to 207,000 americans).

    Furry sex is also forbidden in germany; according to 184a Stgb. the distribution, exhibition, etc. of pornography with animals is forbidden (it doesn't matter if they are virtual or not; it doesn't even matter if it are real animals or only fantasy ones). But it is not forbidden to own animal or to procure animal porn. But linden labs might be punished for making it accessible.

    1. Re:Clarification of German law on cp etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, awesome that 15-18 is OK :)

      Second, Fuck That - Linden Lab should just shit-can access to Germans and call it a day.

  53. THE women's liberation movement? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Do you have a bit of info on how they defined the women's liberation movement? I am against the use of the term feminism, I am a humanist. Or an equalist. So I might have answered that question either way simply depending on my mood and the potential interpretation, and the precise wording of the question (I'm anal-compulsive that way.)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:THE women's liberation movement? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      All I can tell you is that the study dates to around 1980 or 1981. So right around the time of the ERA.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
  54. Re:Relative Certainties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not too long ago, maybe a few hundred years, people got married at 12 and were considered adults in the teens. Seems like a very natural thing with nature and maturation taken into account. Or go back to biblical times if you want to be religious about it, or go to some other countries and cultures right now. We tend to think our culture is correct in its judgements about what is good/evil/allowed.

    So lets draw a line in the sand. Say 18.. thats a good number. If your older and have intimate relations (possibly just touching) with your girlfriend who is just under 18. Throw you in jail, brand you as a sexual offender, require that you register everywhere you go for the rest of your life. Seems reasonable doesn't it.

    Well now we can extend that abitrariness to the virtural world. And your right even if that was consentual its a crime and we will label it as "abuse".

    Thats not to say non-consentual sex is ever acceptable. And certainly we all want to protect children from non-consentual abuse. But lets not get too hung up on the arbitrary boundies, and for gods sake thought crime should be illegal. It is truly a slippery slope to 1984 to start making thinking or expressed thinking illegal. Except of course for those who think that thought crime is acceptable, we may have to make that illegal.

  55. Crying wolf by kibbled_bits · · Score: 2, Insightful

    SCOTUS has ruled that synthetic digital forms of [fill in the blank] cannot be banned when they ruled on this a couple of years ago. To be fair, Germany and most of Europe would also come down on synthetic digital forms of racial hate, etc. So lets keep this in context, I don't see Slashdotters defending synthetic digital forms of hate (just use your imagination). Bottom line is if you are the sick pervert getting your kicks off of naked kids in any form you need to taken away from the rest of society (i.e. locked up, chained up, rubber room, etc). Wait until we see abuses of these laws where we see them being abused before we cry wolf.

  56. The Boy Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent that sues first gets dibs... but it's usually the girls father of course :)

  57. Role Play by Dancindan84 · · Score: 1

    "Two children on a school yard today were found playing cops and robbers. During the exchange, the virtual officer was forced to use his side arm to halt the fleeing virtual robber. The robber has been charge will virtual theft under $5000 for stealing a virtual sum of money from a virtual bank, and the officer's use of virtual force is under investigation by Internal Virtual Affairs."

    I hate the idea of child porn as much as everyone else, and think that the work on the distribution ring should be commended. Where does the line get drawn on role playing though? It sounds an awful lot like a witch hunt.

    --
    "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
  58. How public is public? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still, this incident occurred in a public enough online space that the investigators were able to capture it. If they were able to find and see it, others would be as well. It may be a virtual act between consenting adults, but SL is full of underage people. If people want to engage in graphic virtual sex, they need to do so in a forum that is adults-only, for the same reason that real consenting adult sex is not legal in public. How public is public? If you do it in a remote location, but somebody happens to see it using binoculars, can it be considered public? Is it public when police need a two-way mirror and a square key to see it?


    IMHO, if you need to make a non-trivial effort to see something, it should not be considered public, even if it happens on public ground.


    Well at least our SL players should have had enough sense to add a Bush avatar as a whitness to that hot sex scene, in order to get the real Bush in trouble.

  59. Well, I for one actually live here, in Germany so by vorlich · · Score: 2, Interesting

    yeah I am surprised by this sort of post. If you happened to live here as I do you would know how ridiculous the implied sentiment of your comment is.
    South Germany is a rather quite place where people have rather liberal views about sex and sexuality, violence in media and games is considered unhealthy and child Pr0n is illegal.
    Brothels and prostitution are perfectly legal, controlled by the same regulations that apply to all other industries. People aren't obsessed with sex, it is just treated as a normal element of human behaviour.
    Nor do Germans have an interest in coprophagia as is often suggested, in fact the only two occassions I have ever heard this mentioned was by an English author (on German TV) much to the great insult of my German family and friends, who expected me to defend the fellow until I reminded them that I am of course Scottish and I course I heard it here today on slashdot.
    Nor is Germany a dark rainy place full of people dressed in black clothes and clasping 1.5 litre glasses of beer (eine Mass) to their chests.
    It is a nation comprising of a vast number of the various people whose parents were completely displaced during the war and relocated all over Germany.
    South Germany is very tolerant society where, in general people of different races have the same access to education and employment My students are German, my family here is German, my friends are German and no, there isn't an excess of crimes against children compared to any other part of the West. When Justin Timberlake whipped off JJ's "wardrobe" during the Superbowl spectacular malfunction people were queuing up to ask me why the US was going so crazy.

    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
  60. This may be news to you: by cvb90ugnldgsf · · Score: 1

    Pedophilia is not a crime.

  61. Worrisome? Troubling? by axia777 · · Score: 1

    What I find troubling is that people here are defending Child Porn, even virtual, on ANY level. Child Porn should be destroyed on EVERY level. It should not be defended, for any reason. Anyone who does so in my eyes is crazy. Let all Chi8ld Porn purveyors be slapped in cuffs and put away for life. It is what they deserve.

  62. Slashdot eating accented characters in URLs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  63. Mods? by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know we have a "+1, Informative," but is there a "-1, Too Much Information"?

    1. Re:Mods? by Adriax · · Score: 1

      "-1, The Goggles, they do nothing!"

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  64. U.S. Prosecutors Pursuing: +1, Helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Theft of the U.S. Federal Government by the world's largest crime syndicate.

    When will reality follow fiction?

    Patriotically,
    K. Trout, C.E.O.

  65. Yes, that makes sense by jgoemat · · Score: 1

    We need to clearly identify behavior as acceptable or unacceptable and enforce that in all venues, virtual or not.

    We need to lock up Anthony Hopkins for the murders he committed virtually in "Silence of the Lambs". We also must mandate X-Box Live for everyone and monitoring software. That way you can play Grand Theft Auto, but if you shoot someone or run over someone in your car the police will be notified so they can come arrest you. Don't get me started on the housing code violations I found on my Aunt's low-rent Baltic Avenue slum last weekend... Whack-a-mole at Chucky Cheese? I say "Animal abuse!"

    I say the punishment should fit the crime though, much like Grand Theft Auto has the police that come after you if you commit crimes. If you catch someone in Second Life having virtual sex with an under-aged-looking avatar, make them have a virtual trial and make their avatar sit in virtual jail. They can login whenever they want, but they can only move around in their cells and pray their cell-mate doesn't take a shining to them...

    Oh wait, It's not illegal to have sex with someone that merely looks underage. Some women in their twenties still look like their 14. Do you want to explain to the dwarf with cancer why she can't have sex with her husband?

    1. Re:Yes, that makes sense by eboot · · Score: 0

      Out of interest, why did the dwarf have cancer? Was it just a coincidence or was it brought about by not being allowed to have sex?

      --
      Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.
    2. Re:Yes, that makes sense by jgoemat · · Score: 1

      I was thinking her pubic hair would fall out from the chemotherapy :)

  66. What is child pornography/exploitation? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

    Is it having sex with a 6 year old girl?
    I would definately say so.

    Is it having sex with a 16 year old girl?
    I would say no (age of concent in Denmark is 15), but others would say yes.

    Is it having sex with a 75 year old elf girl?
    If you go by normal standards, 120 elf years roughly equates 18 human years, so I'd say yes.

    Is it having sex with a 3 year old woman?
    Depending on the species I'd say no if it was Kes from ST:Voyager, as she's obviously sexually mature (and played by a 30-year old woman in the series).

    When dealing with regular humans, it's easy to tell.

    When dealing with human characters, as others act out their feelings and reactions (as in Juliette, as someone pointed out above, who is only 13 years old), it becomes a bit more tricky.

    How about furries? A skunk is sexually mature at 4-5 months(!) old, definately outside the range of 18 years, which many seem to think should be a solid mark for when it's no longer child pornography/exploitation. So, is a 2 year old skunk furry getting it on with a 6 year old Ocampan really child pornography/exploitation?

    What kind of line can you possibly draw, that doesn't end up being completely fucked up in the first place?

    And why settle for 18 years of age? Some countries have an age of concent of 21. And some outright outlaw prematital sex, so that's right out too. Oh, and killing ... that's really bad too. And gambling. And I'm sure some would argue that women walking around outside without being escorted by men while wearing a burkha or worse, should result in stoning, so women aren't allowed either.

    And on and on and on ...

    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  67. come on people by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

    -1, Flamebait? That's just pathetic.

    Slashdot may be all about first amendment rights, but the mods sure know how to stick their fingers in their own ears.

    --
    The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    1. Re:come on people by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Well... I would have to agree that *some* mods just don't like what they see. However, I would take my lumps on this one. I personally enjoyed your posts on this topic (even if I'm still highly suspicious of the study - personal experience ;) ) and would have modded you up. Chalk it up to having posted on the day when a few idiots got their mod points.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:come on people by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Chalk it up to having posted on the day when a few idiots got their mod points.

      Nah... this is the kind of modding experience I get every time there are posts about porn. I've had some prior experience with the Slashdot community's response to porn. And I don't mean to come off as complaining. I mean what I wrote: it's pathetic. It gives me the impression that a lot of people would rather down-mod me than respond with any new information/argument, which calls into question (in my mind) the existence of said questions/arguments. As you can see it's not like I'm unopposed - a lot of good contradictory viewpoints have been given, but unlike other topics it seems as though a lot of people are incapable of expressing their disagreement in anyway short of the all-mighty-mod.

      I'm still highly suspicious of the study - personal experience

      It's funny. Some of the time people refuse to believe that I don't look at porn because in their universe every male human being does. The rest of the time it's assumed that not only do I not look at porn, but I think sex is dirty and gross and I'm probably in need of a long talk with a shrink to work out my issues with sexual repression because I'm a Mormon. The truth is that I don't look at porn, and that originally the decision was made based purely on religious dogma (when I was like 12... I was just not very rebellious as a kid) but at 25 and married with a kid I'm happy with my decision. Of course I've seen porn a few times in my life, but I just choose not to look because it goes against my personal philosophy on life. I've also never smoked and never drank alcohol. I suppose in the eyes of some that makes me unqualified to talk about smoking and binge drinking, but honestly I think it means that I've got a unique viewpoint to bring to the discussion. Not that I have a better view point than those who watch porn, but certainly a valid different opinion.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    3. Re:come on people by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      My experience has no bearing on yours. :) I would simply argue that your personal experience supports the study, while mine doesn't - and which is why I'm suspicious of it, while you use it to support your position. Furthermore, I'd argue that the large majority of males are being exposed to porn on a semi-regular basis, which calls into question the setup of the study.

      As for the moderators.... well, I guess there's some truth to it. I get a similar effect when posting about Global Warming. Some of my posts undergo wild fluctuations from +5 informative to -1 troll several times over the course of the day. I still wouldn't take it too seriously. Yes, ideally the tags would mean what they do, but as I said earlier: even dicks get mod points. If you feel your post was good, leave it at that. Personally, I just read the responses and ignore the modding.

      Browsing at -1 can make my eyes bleed, but at least I can quickly filter stuff.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:come on people by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, I'd argue that the large majority of males are being exposed to porn on a semi-regular basis, which calls into question the setup of the study.

      That's certainly true now, but there was no internet when the study was conducted back in 1981-1982. So I think the %age of males exposed to explicit video porn was probably a lot less, and in any case the results stand for themselves in this regard. Whatever else the participants were watching on their own, exposure to an additional 48 minutes per week had a significant impact.

      Browsing at -1 can make my eyes bleed, but at least I can quickly filter stuff.

      Amen to that. I usually do the same thing.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
  68. Nobody was arrested. Chill out, man. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Do they arrest people in Germany for the love scenes in Shakespeare's _Romeo and Juliet_ between two underage kids, but played by adults?

    Nobody was arrested. They were banned from SL. Not quite the same thing.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Nobody was arrested. Chill out, man. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      And "SL" isn't quite the same thing as "Second Life". Second Life doesn't have the power to arrest people. The question is what is the basis, and therefore the appropriate consequences, for prohibitions against representations of sex with a minor, when no actual minors are involved.

      So you can "chill out", but you have offered no insights into what is at work here. Which looks more like regulating morality than anything else. A practice in which neither the state nor a private corporation have any business.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  69. Re:Worrisome? Troubling? by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    What I find troubling is that people here are defending Child Porn, even virtual, on ANY level. [...] It should not be defended, for any reason. Why not? Why should anyone accept such a claim by assertion alone? Prove to me that adults role-playing as virtual children and engaging in virtual sex is exploitive of real children.

    I would even be so bold as to assert to the contrary, that such role-playing may in some cases act as a substitute for the real thing, therefore protecting real children from exploitation. I have no proof, but I daresay you haven't any for yours either, just the power of affixing the social stigma.

    Most children are exploited by people they know, such as family, neighbors, and authority figures close to them (e.g., teachers or clergy). My advice to law enforcement everywhere is to stop the Internet witch-hunt and concentrate on working locally; if this were really about protecting children instead of exercising power, that is what would be done.

    Anyone who does so in my eyes is crazy. I don't know about that; my psychiatrist never saw any reason to have me carted off in either a straitjacket or handcuffs, and I think he knows me better than you do.
  70. The study.. by weierstrass · · Score: 1

    ..showed no causal link. the study showed a correlation.

    what i wanted to ask you further up the thread is: why is it necessarily bad thing that one group wanted shorter sentences? perhaps sentences are in fact too long, and the group exposed to pornography were more reasonable and compassionate?!?

    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
    1. Re:The study.. by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      The study did show a causal link. It showed that if you show people porn for 6 to 8 weeks, they will have different opinions on rape sentencing than those who watched something else for the same time period. It can't be anything other than the viewing causing the opinions because the only other possibilities are that their opinions caused them to have watched the porn already, which is impossible because they were randomly selected, or that neither caused the other, which is also impossible because every other variable was controlled for. The two groups were only different in what they saw in that period. Showing the one group porn caused that group's average sentencing to differ. That is how causation is determined, and that is what this study showed.

      Note that it isn't necessarily a bad thing that one group wanted shorter sentences.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    2. Re:The study.. by immerrath · · Score: 1

      There is the possibility that watching porn modified a third behavior that had the side effect of making them more lenient with respect to rape sentences. Sure, ultimately this is a "causation", but it is an indirect effect, which changes the conclusions drawn from the study a lot.

    3. Re:The study.. by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Thanks for covering that.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
  71. Congrats by Draeven · · Score: 1

    You've all fallen victim to Robin Linden's PR spin.

    Come on people, get your shit straight before even THINKING about replying... there's a whole SLEW of DIFFERENT issues here. The only reason one applies to the other is because they got stuck in the same blog post.

    Issues at hand:
    1) Two adults banned for roleplay.
    2) Legality of fictional (rendered, written, drawn) children engaged in sexual acts.
    3) Jurisdiction of different governments within the virtual space.
    4) Presence of Real child pornography.

    These are mostly separate issues. The two that were banned in issue one were banned for their roleplay. Let's not get that confused with the issues.

  72. Different people by Aexia · · Score: 1

    It looks like two different groups are getting conflated here unless I'm not reading the article right. There's the adults doing age-play/virtual child porn and then there's another group trading actual child porn. The news investigation encountered both.

  73. virtual children are not real children (duh) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay. Actual kiddie porn is bad, because it involves exploiting real children. If they found real kiddie porn shown in SL, by all means, they should go after it. Virtual kiddie porn, however, is not at all the same. No children are being exploited!

    What if they applied this logic to real life? For example, I'm 18, but look younger - say, 13 or 14. Does that mean that people shouldn't have sex with me until I look older, even though I'm legally old enough to consent to sex? I mean, if you're not even allowed to have imaginary sex with imaginary people who look like kids, why should it be allowed to have real sex with real people who look like kids? But the whole thing is just absurd...

  74. IANAPBILA by jasonhamilton · · Score: 1

    IANAPBILA = I am not a psychologist but I like acronyms.

    I just wanted to join in. Thanks.

    --
    SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
  75. OK, so lets clean this mess up by Sander_ · · Score: 1

    ...and when we have all these pervs, lets go after anyone having a copy of Ghost Recon, Counter Strike and GTA. Heck, lets take anyone who played ever PacMan, that's cannibalism, dots eating dots.

    Seriously. If anyone uses any medium to exchange any real underage porn then go after that. I saw a few articles where the german prosecutors where quoted saying its as illegal when it is virtual as when it is real. That is disturbing, as I'm about to start good old AoE3 and make sure I annihilate a few civilisations... and I'm not going to the international cout in the Haugue anytime soon.

    -w

  76. Re:Japan and Denmark - good point by cathector · · Score: 1

    as subject.

  77. Re:Worrisome? Troubling? by QCompson · · Score: 1

    What I find troubling is that people here are defending Child Porn, even virtual, on ANY level.

    Throw your brain in the dryer, it's thoroughly washed! I'll defend virtual child porn on every level. If two adults want to roleplay in fantasy la-la land as giraffes, grandmas, or kids what the hell do I care? Why do you care? Do you support the surveillance of married couples' bedrooms to make sure they are not involved in ageplay? Do you honestly believe someone who draws a picture of two 16 year olds having sex should be thrown in prison for life?!?

  78. Oooh baby baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woohoo !
    Can we charge Britney Spears for encouraging child pornography too?
     
    Then again, she did *kind of* look cute in the music video dressed up as an "underage" school girl, no ?
     
    And I have to submit as AC, cause I don't want to be caught encouraging this kind of thing ... Britney Spears.

  79. In Soviet Germany... by Mondor · · Score: 1

    Kids are pursuing German porn...

  80. Why... by shish · · Score: 1

    Why does a system designed primarily for 3D cyber sex have child avatars to begin with?

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    1. Re:Why... by guardian-ct · · Score: 1

      The default avatars that you start out with are youngish adults (and a few odd-shaped other things I don't recall), not children. Smaller "child" avatars are player-designed.

      So, it didn't have child avatars to begin with, and I'm fairly sure it wasn't originally designed for cyber sex. Emergent behaviors are difficult to predict accurately.

    2. Re:Why... by mink · · Score: 1

      AFAIK (not a user) it does not have a button to click on for "child avatar". It's just a feature of having a fully customizable avatar system. By tweaking the atributes you can make one that appears to have features commonly associated with young people. Simple things like hight, weight, chest size, ect. Every game with an avatar system can be abused this way, the more detailed/flexable (hobbits are bendy) the system the less dificult it is to create a child like avatar.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  81. I suppose two adults in their bedroom are criminal by Gel214th · · Score: 1

    I guess two adults roleplaying in their bedrooms are similarly breaking the law. If a husband and his wife decide to indulge in sexual roleplay in their homes where perhaps she's a school girl and he a teacher or vice versa, then they can expect the German police to break their door down and arrest them for child pornography. This is ridiculous. Just when you think the world can't get any worse, punishing the majority because of the few criminals in our midst, it does. Next we will have people being jailed for years because of 'Virtual Rape', 'Virtual Murder' , 'Virtual Fraud','Virtual Robbery'. You think situations like this can only arise in doomsday Science Fiction novels. Seriously, someone should test the system by complaining that someone robbed them of a necklace in Second Life or 'unlawfully' killed them in World of Warcraft (griefing becomes a crime punishable with two months confinement *smirk*), they might actually be able to get the person locked up as though they had actually performed a crime in the real world. Would having a MMORPG which expressly bans people under 18 from playing solve these issues? Now won't that be just great?

    --
    -Gel214th
  82. Oh, one more thing... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    Re: thinkofthechildren, I think that a lot of these "protect children" laws are being passed because some parents these days are raising children when they are blatantly incapable of doing so. These laws are then being used to make up for a lack of parental ability.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  83. Re:Worrisome? Troubling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's your psych's phone number, I may have something interesting to tell 'em.

  84. Re:Worrisome? Troubling? by neminem · · Score: 1

    You should take him up on that threat. I think, after all, this guy needs the shrink more than you do.

  85. Is Pixel Kiddie Porn Porn by AUDIOMIND · · Score: 1

    Let me see if I get this str8.

    Two consenting adults role-played, one supposedly as a child (that's definitely up for debate considering the character variations allowed in SL), and simulated pixelated sex in a game and LL is getting all fussy about it, considering that they have openly allowed it for how long? I'm no advocate for kiddie porn, but am I the only one that thinks this is a little beyond absurd?

    Next we'll be banning Furry Pron and guns in video games. THE HORROR!!!

    Oh NOES!!!

    Mark my words, the amount of information they are requiring for age verification will be SL's downfall.

  86. Not an english teacher. by MMInterface · · Score: 1

    No I'm not an English teacher. Part of my family lives in Japan, I have gone to school there and worked in the software industry. Nice try at being a third leg. Your argument is also dead wrong. There are tons of horrible English teachers in Japan but its not the reason for the poor quality of written and spoken English in modernized East Asian countries. By the time most of them have even met a foreign instructor they have already established their habits from native Japanese teachers. The most obvious answer would be that its not their native language. Native English speakers are usually worse at Japanese. The Japanese language does not contain many sounds in the English language and the English language does not contain some of the sounds in the Japanese language. Its not so easy for everyone to make new sounds with your tongue when you are already in college. Their grammer is also vastly different. English tends to be more specific even when it doesn't need to be. The English phrase, "I'm going to the bathroom" could be as simple as "bathroom go" in casual Japanese speech. When you study a language there are many different levels of speech that are relevant to your study. I know quite a few Japanese students who understand English grammer better than most Americans, but if you say "Hey, how ya doin" they run for their electronic dictionaries. So a big motivation for selecting English teachers is to learn how to speak and understand the bad English that native English speakers use because they want to talk to real people and not some prick who only pretends to understand proper English. As a student I felt the same way. I just wanted to talk to a native speaker because proper Japanese speech that you learn in class does very little for a real life conversation.