Living rich communities are a virtual world's only exportable product
by Myrrh Massiel
[I met Myrrh Massiel a few years ago in the drama (and fun) drenched SL sailboat racing scene. While we have certainly had our differences of opinion, Myrrh has been one of the most committed people I know in staging events and dedication to the cause of Second Life. I was really surprised when Myrrh tracked me down saturday to say she was leaving SL. As she explained her reasoning, I begged for an Op/Ed piece as a parting gift to her friends and the metaverse at large. This piece is what arrived on the mojo wire yesterday - the Editrix]
Pixie, I've thought a lot about what you said - that I owe the public an explanation for my departure - and I suppose you're correct, at the very least to all those people with whom I've worked over the past couple of years that I've devoted toward building sustainable living rich-content communities. I'm really one more for decisive action than grand political statements, certainly more comfortable leaving the verbose diatribes to those better-practiced than myself, so I offer up something short I recently wrote to a friend in-world, possibly to be taken in conjunction with sentiments from other people pushed to similar action.
I'm really sorry, but under recent Linden Lab management policies prohibiting victimless consensual pretend behavior, irrelevant of context, I can't in good conscience contribute to the platform any longer - I've chosen to leave Second Life. Linden Lab's policies have long been capricious and inconsistent, which I've been willing accept as long as they were all part of a long-term trend toward greater openness, but once the course begins steering in the other direction I'm just not comfortable rallying behind its momentum anymore, especially when there are far better-suited venues out there in every other regard.
The crux of what drew me to Second Life, and the whole reason I've gritted my teeth through the surfeit of technical and communal grievances, was its potential to develop into an open platform, an unbound common carrier polis bootstrapping itself not unlike the nascent World Wide Web. Sadly, the recent developments toward restricting our right to make-believe as we see fit are the antithesis of why I invested myself in developing Second Life's communities, and without that core motivating freedom, there are other outlets a much better fit to my energies and ambitions.
I'll do whatever I can to ensure that nobody's left in the lurch by my departure, and of course I'm not leaving Second Life irrevocably, should Linden Lab's policies change or third-party hosts usher in a true common carrier scenario, but for the near future it's best not to plan upon my involvement in Second Life. Sorry to get so weighty on you, but this isn't a decision I took lightly and I feel i owe you a cogent explanation.
In the end, living rich communities are a virtual world's only exportable product, and they depend upon a world without boundaries in which to thrive. Thought police are the worst sort of intrusion upon that free intercourse of ideas, and one which I cannot idly abide.
Myrrh Massiel
While entirely respectable, unfortunately, one person leaving SL is not enough to make LL say, "Whoa. Wait a minute here." It wouldn't matter who it was.
Thanks for standing up though.
Posted by: Tenshi Vielle | May 15, 2007 at 11:44 PM
I find this a lot of hogwash, frankly. It posits the idea that the measures the Lindens had to take regarding ageplay constitute a chilling effect on art and freedom of speech. It implies that this is a selective policy proper to Linden Lab's management only. Saying something like this, "inden Lab management policies prohibiting victimless consensual pretend behavior, irrelevant of context" -- makes it seem that suddenly, unlike the *rest* of the Internet, LL has become a swamp of conformism and stultified
Uh...where on the *rest of* the Internet is child pornography legal? where was that other place you said there is "victimless consensual pretend behavior" that's allowed? Sociolotron, maybe, or something? I can't think. I think the answer is: there aren't any places like that. Maybe only in real life, if people are smart enough and discrete enough to elude their communities of concerned people and the police.
I'm failing to see why the theft of innocence of a child, and the use of coercion and duplicity and violence on a child -- even as "a fantasy" or even as "consenting adult play" is somehow a contribution to freedom and art and self-expression.
It's not. It's about coercion, snuffing, annihilation, suppression, elimination of freedom and art and self-expression. It's about taking away innocence and the freedom to develop without coercion, not about freedom. The "art" that is implied here isn't even decadence or depravity; it's more extreme nihilism -- it says the jackboot in the face is the future, and a future we're even supposed to enjoy or "consent to". No sale.
I don't think anyone has lost their freedom or capacity for self-expression by having a restriction in Second Life, common to the Internet at large, and common to communities in real life at large, against child pornography and sex with minors, even simulated.
If the best that the Lindens can show for rich content and freedom and creativity after 7 years is the imagery of brutal copulation of an terrified innocent child by a leering adult, I don't see that we've got progress, or art, or "a Better World".
If the larger crackdown or limitation of "adult" behavior on parcels is indicated as what's a cramp on freedom, that might be the more serious point to make. In the old days, comics like Lenny Bruce were censored for X-rated speech and the novels of Henry Miller were banned and ultimately the communities evolved and accepted these expressions as part of the spectrum of art. If there are enough people promoting the current mode of "adult" as acceptable and as art, the boundaries will eventually give way, but that won't be about the Lindens, it will be about the communities in real life that people live in.
They can, at best, only reflect those norms and comply with them when confronted.
Second Life is really hugely and profoundly indifferent to us when we leave or grow weary or are "done". We can make our dramatic or not-so-dramatic statements and they merely form a ring on the tree's soft inner core, which hardens and grows outward some more.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 15, 2007 at 11:45 PM
1 down, a few million to go. Your world is crumbling down. Are your getting it yet?
Posted by: BOX-Cutter Harry | May 16, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Myrrh Massiel - Thank you for announcing your intentions to leave Second Life. I got to this sentence that you wrote, "I'm really sorry, but under recent Linden Lab management policies prohibiting victimless consensual pretend behavior, irrelevant of context, I can't in good conscience contribute to the platform any longer - I've chosen to leave Second Life." I'm assuming that you are speaking about the controversial AGEPLAY topic that has been highlighted in the recent German Press and on blogs like Second Life Herald.
People who involve themselves in fantasies of raping children DO NOT BELONG to be among those of us who have deemed that type of behavior to be SICK and ILLEGAL. There are other places for people like you to be... like HELL.
Goodbye and enjoy HELL.
Posted by: Wrestling Hulka | May 16, 2007 at 12:38 AM
"I'm really one more for decisive action than grand political statements"
No, you're not, judging by the op/ed. Glad you're gone. STFU and leave if you don't like it. Don't whine. "WAH! THEY BAN VIRTUAL KIDDIE PORN! I'M LEAVING"
Posted by: Bye bye | May 16, 2007 at 01:02 AM
That's right dear commenters, think of the children. Of course these strenuating circumstances Linden Labs are in triggered the restrictions, but if you think this isn't a sign of things to come, you're blind to the bigger picture and what's -really- going on in Second Life.
I fully support her decision. I'd be on my way out the door too, if there was a feasible alternative to Second Life. Not because I'm some kind of kiddy fiddler, but because I fully support the concept of "As it harm none, do as you will."
Prokofy, dear, maybe your words would have merit if you had a shred of contrast in you.
Posted by: Ryozu Kojima | May 16, 2007 at 01:35 AM
This person can't be serious. Nothing has even been implemented yet. The least she could have done was wait around to see how everything played out.
Can anyone actually be this distraught by the loss of pixelated adult perverts having sex with pixelated children?
Posted by: The 9th Circuit | May 16, 2007 at 01:44 AM
CORRECTION:
*Can anyone actually be this distraught by the loss of pedophilic perverts coming into SL and having pixelated sex with pixelated children.
Posted by: The 9th Circuit | May 16, 2007 at 01:50 AM
>I fully support the concept of "As it harm none, do as you will."
Actually, they usually say: "An it harm none, do as you will" to give it that faux medieval feel to it, even though it's probably no more than 50 years vintage lol.
This wiccan/pagan/secular humanist/reward tekkie wiki meme around the Internet that passes for whatever "moral compass" the youth and half-educated adults of the Internet have is one of the things I repudiate most strenuously.
Note carefully the ideology contained in this concept. The ideology is: "I get to do whatever the fuck I want, by my desires and by my reckoning, as long as it doesn't harm anybody as I imagine it -- forever, without anyone telling me what to do."
Note how it contrasts with another, more ancient Judeo-Christian concept, called "Do until others/as ye would have them do until you".
That concept differs because it creates context, community, responsibility, empathy. It creates a dimension where if I swing my arm, I imagine, oh, if it hits someone's nose, that hurts, like it would hurt if I got punched. So I don't do that until I first look -- is there anyone in striking distance?
Contrast that with the wiccan crap which says "I swing and swing and swing because there's nothing inherently wrong with swinging, and as long as I feel like swinging, that's what counts." The "an harm none" isn't a context of a neighbour or a reciprocity, it's an abstraction, a blow-off, a check-off, something in which I say, "Oh, this is a victimless crime as far as I imagine it to be, so I can do what I wish". Of course, encouraging the pedophilic and predatory tendencies of another person might in fact be harm. It might encourage them to take into real life or to transmit real pornography. But...that doesn't matter to the wiccan/pagan/secular humanist, eh? Because THEY decide, not by what the community/neighbour/law outlines as a moral dimension, but whatever *they feel like*.
And they extend it out endlessly. There is never a boundary. It's "do what you will". Let your will extend forever, never meeting anything to counter it, never being circumscribed by even...the will of others similarly minded. (That's why I get a good chuckle over all those anarcho capitalists banging on sailboats trying to cross the water at the bottom of their pigheaded McMansion lots, because if they had easements, they'd be easements that would help them, too, to sail!)
>Prokofy, dear, maybe your words would have merit if you had a shred of contrast in you.
I'm nothing if not a man of contrast, my word!
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 16, 2007 at 02:35 AM
Another misinterpretation of the Golden Rule is majoritarianism, meaning that an individual must relinquish his/her background or belief system because it offends the sentiment of the majority. An example of this misinterpretation of the Golden Rule is a statement attributed to Adolf Hitler with reference to Otto Weininger: "There was only one decent Jew, and he killed himself."
Posted by: Godwin | May 16, 2007 at 03:29 AM
I wonder if Prokofy is as adamant against hentai, which is legal in the US and Japan, and far more explicit in its depiction of children being raped. There is a profound difference between fantasy and reality which Prokofy blurs intentionally for financial reasons.
I agree with Myrrh. There is a reason the Supreme Court upheld the right to make and view fictional depictions of such objectionable images, and when the powers that be start constricting that freedom, it is time to move on.
I note with great hope that OpenSim is making good progress. I think we will all be better off when we can literally own our sims cooperatively, instead of leasing them from a central corporation vulnerable to the whims of any law enforcement agency in a country with an extradition treaty.
Posted by: Sharon C. | May 16, 2007 at 04:39 AM
And so another immersionist departs. Soon it will be an exodus.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out...
Posted by: Toby McAllister | May 16, 2007 at 04:57 AM
I agree with Myrrh. There is a reason the Supreme Court upheld the right to make and view fictional depictions of such objectionable images, and when the powers that be start constricting that freedom, it is time to move on.
The court has neither viewed the nature of this material nor contemplated its consequences. It's viewed 17-year-old girls in school uniforms. Huge difference. Most of the stuff out there in SL seems to be worlds apart from that.
>I note with great hope that OpenSim is making good progress. I think we will all be better off when we can literally own our sims cooperatively, instead of leasing them from a central corporation vulnerable to the whims of any law enforcement agency in a country with an extradition treaty.
So how do you think "Open Sim" will change anything? The German police will still exist. The U.S. police will still exist. There's nothing different about the laws underpinning the Internet just because you can host your own sim. If anything, you as a host will face more obligations to conform with law. If anything, there will be more permits for virtual worlds, not less, sad as it may seem. Why is hosting your own going to exempt you from regulatory powers?
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 16, 2007 at 06:25 AM
Kudos Myrrh! I've got less guts and am still there because being too fascinated with this platform and it's still the one with the most leeway, but I saw that thing (that turn in general direction) coming and there will be more of that until they make a nice real copy of first life's restrictions.
And I fully second Sharon C's notion up there ... it's just about bridging the gap until real distributed sims are useable ... and I'll be one of the first to put longer term investments into these to make them fly.
Posted by: Nicholaz Beresford | May 16, 2007 at 06:25 AM
Sharon C. You are making straw-man arguments, but I'll take the bait and reply.
This can all be summed up in the below statement:
"Linden Labs is a private company trying to make a profit. As a private company they are not beholden to the 1st Amendment in regards to freedom of speech. As a private company, it is their right to dictate the things that occur on their servers so long as it is not sexist, racist, or bigoted in nature. Their only motivations are their their employees, stock holders (if any), their own moral beliefs, and their bottom line."
I'll bet you don't like that statement. That's fine. That is how is with all private companies. Only the US Government is restricted from banning your speech (...not that they don't try...). There is a reason the First Ammendment starts "Congress shall make no law....". It was designed to protect *you* from the Government, not you from private companies or individuals.
Don't like Linden Labs or their need to make a profit? Fine. Start your own company. "Sharon C and Myrrh's Kiddy Rape Labs". I'm sure you'll have customers, and the FBI, pounding down the door.
Bottom line, you, Myrrh, and the rest of the perverts can go pound sand, pound ass, or whatever the hell it is that you do, just stay away from the kids, and don't do it here.... and considering that raping a child is against the law.. good luck trying to defend that position. Anywhere.
Posted by: J. Smithy | May 16, 2007 at 06:45 AM
>And I fully second Sharon C's notion up there ... it's just about bridging the gap until real distributed sims are useable ... and I'll be one of the first to put longer term investments into these to make them fly.
And...your concept for how these hosted sims will remain untethered from real life laws and communities?
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 16, 2007 at 06:46 AM
>> So how do you think "Open Sim" will change anything? The German police will still exist. The U.S. police will still exist. There's nothing different about the laws underpinning the Internet just because you can host your own sim. If anything, you as a host will face more obligations to conform with law. If anything, there will be more permits for virtual worlds, not less, sad as it may seem. Why is hosting your own going to exempt you from regulatory powers? <<
Ok, Prok ... so then tell me how the U.S. police or supreme court so far did make solid ruling about pretended play between consenting adults. (Or the German police for that matter).
The fact that Linden banned those two people involved in that play, has nothing to do with legislation and has everything to do with giving in to public opinion (in world inhabitants and real world media).
Distributed sim hosting will do a lot for that, for cases where there are clear ruling, where there are conflicting laws in different countries.
Posted by: Nicholaz Beresford | May 16, 2007 at 06:48 AM
>> And...your concept for how these hosted sims will remain untethered from real life laws and communities? <<
I had a case like this on one of my forums recently. There was some big fuzz in another forum with other people who didn't like something of what someone posted there.
My reply was simply: If you don't like, don't read it and if you think it's illegal call the police and then I'll deal with that. But I didn't just ban that user because someone didn't like it and made enough fuzz.
Posted by: Nicholaz Beresford | May 16, 2007 at 06:56 AM
They came first for the ageplayers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an ageplayer.
Then they came for the BDSMers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't into BDSM.
Then they came for the furries,
and I didn't speak up because I was just a regular human.
Then they came for the goreans,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't gorean anymore.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Posted by: Martin | May 16, 2007 at 07:33 AM
>They came first for the ageplayers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an ageplayer.
>Then they came for the BDSMers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't into BDSM.
>Then they came for the furries,
and I didn't speak up because I was just a regular human.
>Then they came for the goreans,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't gorean anymore.
>Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
That's blasphemous, quite frankly, and Pastor Niemoller would be turning in his grave if he read such awfulness.
"First they came", as you can read on Wikipedia, is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. Socialists, Jews...then me.
But BDSM, Gor, Ageplayers -- these are all groups using force, violence, coercion, deception -- they all extol the notions of degradation, rape, humiliation, slavery. They bear everything in common with the Nazis; they bear nothing in common with those intellectual and racial groups destroyed by the Nazis.
There's absolutely no call here to confuse criminality with freedom, to obliterate the values of liberalism by flaunting destructive and nihilist ways of life in the name of "tolerance".
Honestly, only in the extremist and sectarian climate of Second Life could you so defame the meaning of a historically-significant poem like this and expect to get away with it. For shame!
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 16, 2007 at 08:08 AM
>Ok, Prok ... so then tell me how the U.S. police or supreme court so far did make solid ruling about pretended play between consenting adults. (Or the German police for that matter).
>The fact that Linden banned those two people involved in that play, has nothing to do with legislation and has everything to do with giving in to public opinion (in world inhabitants and real world media).
Actually, the two are charged with possessing and transmitting real-life child pornography showing real children, not avatars. I suggest you go to the website and watch the entire movie and read everything there is to read on it. Had it not involved real pornography, I'm not sure the Lindens would be executing a ban like that so swiftly.
If there is even a hint of real child pornography, they simply must act swiftly and pre-emptively, or risk having not only Germany cut off from SL, but all of SL shut down. Sorry, but that's how they saw it, and I tend to think they are right.
>Distributed sim hosting will do a lot for that, for cases where there are clear ruling, where there are conflicting laws in different countries.
It merely distributes the problem of how to conform utopianism to reality. Maybe that's a good thing as there might be more reality checks on the utopianists.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 16, 2007 at 08:12 AM
>> But BDSM, Gor, Ageplayers -- these are all groups using force, violence, coercion, deception -- they all extol the notions of degradation, rape, humiliation, slavery. They bear everything in common with the Nazis; they bear nothing in common with those intellectual and racial groups destroyed by the Nazis. <<
Yes, but you know, what you say up there about this groups is almost identical what the Nazis said about the Jews. Which of course was rethoric to daemonize and dehumanize them and rethoric with an intention is very rarely true ... in case of the Nazis, but also in yours.
Posted by: Nicholaz Beresford | May 16, 2007 at 08:16 AM
>> I suggest you go to the website and watch the entire movie and read everything there is to read on it. Had it not involved real pornography, I'm not sure the Lindens would be executing a ban like that so swiftly. <<
I did not watch the show (neither TV nor web) ... it's one of the worst and most tabloid on German TV and they just love to boil things up.
I certainly hope that you are righ on this though about the whole thing, because that Linden blog post sounded (and that may be the at the core why so many people are enraged about the ban) a lot like they were banned for age play and that the TV folks found real world images somewhere on SL (but not necessary associated with these people).
As said, I didn't watch that show, maybe this is just another piece of crappy Linden public communication (through their blog). In fact, I'd love to be wrong on that, because I'd rather prefer to be wrong and interacting in a world where the governement/owner (i.e. LL) act on a whim to please public opinion.
Posted by: Nicholaz Beresford | May 16, 2007 at 08:33 AM
of course this should read: "because I'd rather prefer to be wrong *than* interacting in a world where the governement/owner (i.e. LL) act on a whim to please public opinion.
Posted by: Nicholaz Beresford | May 16, 2007 at 08:35 AM
"But BDSM, Gor, Ageplayers -- these are all groups using force, violence, coercion, deception -- they all extol the notions of degradation, rape, humiliation, slavery. They bear everything in common with the Nazis; they bear nothing in common with those intellectual and racial groups destroyed by the Nazis."
You missed a group. Furries.
Does that mean you think furries are a group using force, violence, coercion, and/or deception, extolling the notions of degradation/rape/humiliation/slavery/what-have-you, bearing everything in common with the Nazis, etc. etc.?
'Cause that makes you sound like a /b/-tard, Neva. The group you hate so very much, and go off on holy crusade tangents against.
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?
Posted by: NobodyImportant | May 16, 2007 at 09:21 AM
>They came first for the ageplayers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an ageplayer.
>Then they came for the BDSMers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't into BDSM.
>Then they came for the furries,
and I didn't speak up because I was just a regular human.
>Then they came for the goreans,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't gorean anymore.
>Then they came for me...
but since I'm not a complete and total freak, they merely said "good day" and went on their merry way.
See what I did there? I fixed it.
Posted by: nivharkey | May 16, 2007 at 09:25 AM
If you need to leave second life because your "right" to roleplay child abuse is being stiffled, then good riddance. I'm happy the Lindens are finally wising up and making stand against these pathetic sickos.
Sociolotron can have them all.
Posted by: Karen | May 16, 2007 at 09:48 AM
>Yes, but you know, what you say up there about this groups is almost identical what the Nazis said about the Jews. Which of course was rethoric to daemonize and dehumanize them and rethoric with an intention is very rarely true ... in case of the Nazis, but also in yours.
Oh, don't be ridiculous. And it's BDSM, Gor, and ageplay that does the dehumanizing.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 16, 2007 at 09:48 AM
I still can't believe that people can argue that RAPING CHILDREN should be tolerated. It's not about restricted your freedoms, not one bit. The current law in ALL WESTERN WORLDS is that you don't have the freedom to rape children. No one is using this as a platform to go after BSDM, GOR, Furries, Trekkies...why? Because they are LEGAL.
Common Sense here folks.
Posted by: Wrestling Hulka | May 16, 2007 at 09:50 AM
>I did not watch the show (neither TV nor web) ... it's one of the worst and most tabloid on German TV and they just love to boil things up.
Sounds like you're shooting the messenger here.
>I certainly hope that you are righ on this though about the whole thing, because that Linden blog post sounded (and that may be the at the core why so many people are enraged about the ban) a lot like they were banned for age play and that the TV folks found real world images somewhere on SL (but not necessary associated with these people).
Let them be as enraged about ageplay itself. That ought to be the target of their outrage.
I don't know why people keep subjecting this story over and over to constant doubt and spinning. I don't see how the Lindens could be more clear. Robin has said it again and again. The allegation is that these images were found with these people. Now, there isn't some completed indictment, and LL itself seemed to imply they didn't find these images, but at least accept that's what the story is coming from this tv.
>As said, I didn't watch that show, maybe this is just another piece of crappy Linden public communication (through their blog). In fact, I'd love to be wrong on that, because I'd rather prefer to be wrong and interacting in a world where the governement/owner (i.e. LL) act on a whim to please public opinion.
You don't seem to want to grasp the fact that the Lindens have to ban child pornography from their server. They are no different than the rest of the Internet.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 16, 2007 at 09:52 AM
Actually, there was a cute SF short story about the Golden Rule that I wish I still had a copy of. In it, a Christian missionary goes to a remote planet to convert the natives. They listen to his sermons politely, and then one morning, the missionary awakes to find himself being fed the local delicacy, rotten roots.
When he asks why they're doing this to him, they explain: it's because of his sermons, and the Golden Rule he espouses. See, before that they always thought that you should treat another person the way that other person wants to be treated, but according to the Golden Rule...
Yes, the archaic "an" for "if" is there to lend a fake patina of age... but if it's honestly applied, it seems as reasonable a basis for ethical behavior to me as the Golden Rule--and there are plenty of folks who claim to follow the latter but don't. Seriously considering whether others are harmed would seem to me a good way to develop empathy, but you label all pagans as hypocrites. (Actually more than them, since you bizarrely lump secular humanists together with the decidedly non-secular pagans.)
The community can be wrong--or would you have been arguing for slavery, Prokofy, had you lived before the Civil War? I note that the Bible also says "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil."
Posted by: Melissa Yeuxdoux | May 16, 2007 at 09:56 AM
Glory is coming in the fact that the citizens of SL can finally see the greatness in the glory of good against evil! Let the beginning of the Great Work begin, hic et nunc!
All glory to god/man Philip and the greatness that rules you all! Creativity is the earmark of the devil! When evil is abolished, good reigns across the land! One law to rule all! One voice to speak all! One thought to subjugate evil! One iron fist to smash nonconformity! One steel boot to crush all dissenters!!!!
Sieg Heil!
Posted by: Tex Arcana | May 16, 2007 at 09:59 AM
No, "an it harm none" is a deliberate and diabolical undermining and conniving simulation of the Golden Rule that is really pernicious.
"and there are plenty of folks who claim to follow the latter but don't" is always the rhetoric we here when ever any sort of Judeo-Christian value is promoted. We're to grow weary hearing about how all these do-gooders don't live up to their ideals.
As if...all these wiccans didn't harm anybody, starting with themselves lol.
Melissa, you just doen't like wiccan and paganism being criticized, you think it's the cutting edge cool thing that is exempt from any kind of common sense lol. I simply disagree. In fact, those ideologies are as reactionary and flawed as anything they purport to reject in the religions they scorn.
"The community can be wrong--or would you have been arguing for slavery, Prokofy, had you lived before the Civil War? I note that the Bible also says "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil."
Well, I'd say that concept would start with wiccan and paganism more than anything, since they rely heavily on that kind of collectivism and "community being right" concept more than religions that hold the individual to be sacred and to have dignity.
Of course communities can be wrong. But the Golden Rule creates a context of community or even just one other person that implies a circumscribing or a limit on one's own endless and heedless hedonism. That's a good thing. That's not about following multitides to evil, that's about avoiding the excess of the ego that leads to evil. That of course bothers you terribly, as you think that should go on forever...
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 16, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Implying the Lindens are nazis for not wanting images of child molestation on their servers is assinine. Welcome to the real world. You might want to keep those kiddie porn mags hidden under the bed by the way.
Posted by: Karen | May 16, 2007 at 10:04 AM
>One steel boot to crush all dissenters!!!!
Yes, I find that BDSM, Gor, ageplay -- that is indeed like a jackboot crushing dissent. Criticism them -- they backlash terribly, they can't handle the slightest bit of resistance to their will. Then they turn around and claim that it is "oppression" simply not to wish to live under *their* oppression.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 16, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Prokofy, you are in no position to speak of severe reactions to dissenting opinions whatsoever. You are guilty of the exact same thing - far worse in fact.
If anyone dares to have a dissenting opinion, you roll out your little labels and apply them as you see fit ... Pot, meet the Kettle.
Posted by: Reality | May 16, 2007 at 10:18 AM
When you start defining one group as inherently evil and undeserving of civil protections, its just that much easier to define other groups as inherently evil and undeserving of civil protections.
While Sexual Ageplay may be illegal in some jurisdictions, there are distinctions between what goes on in SL and the virtual child pornography that is indistinguishable from a real photograph.
In response to the Pastor Niemoller quote, beyond the people you distinctly don't like, Prok and others, other "groups" have been identified as possibly leaving SL due to the restriction on speech by the Lindens, the escorts, the strippers, the furries, that are not part of your rape crowd. If consentual play, as in not forced, is restricted in one sense due to community standards, then why couldn't other consenual sexual play be restricted as well?
The acts described of consensual ageplay are by definition consensual. People entering in all the relationships, BDSM, Gorean, sexual ageplayers, are doing so consensually, and not coercively. And also, they can leave those relationships consensually.
As far as restrictions on speech, because this could be contentious, as it stands right now, in the near future, adult content will need to be flagged. The only way to access this adult content, however it is locally defined, will require age verification. Age verification so far is only being provided by the Lindens. So if you want to see Adult Content, or if you want to share it, you have to use the age verification system as provided, with any objections stiffled, or not use the system, and be denied either speech or the ability to hear speech.
Pedophilia has many troublesome aspects. First, there is no cure. Chemical castration, increasingly restrictive prohibitions and other measures taken have not served to stop pedophilia or even people willing to take the chance to be pedophiles. So what some are suggesting is that if there are people willing to provide an outlet or even an exploration, that should be bannible and possible a capital crime.
Second, its not like the internet created pedophiles. Pedophiles existed before the first PC. Its also true that the internet doesn't create pedophiles. It may be simplier for someone to explore, but that's not how a pedophile is created.
Posted by: Jessica Holyoke | May 16, 2007 at 10:26 AM
The world press and all of us are talking bout whats goes on in SL...Take a tour round in other places outside SL..go take a look at other3D online games and you will find neer the same content that goes on in SL...i wen to PG places 3D games like cybertown.com and found cuffs whips slaveposts and porn art and its hidden in users "Backpacks" = Inventory cuz in 2004 thay did forbidd the items to be sold open.
You will find ageplay in other places like " Sims" also,,its just hidden and thay did warn the kids on this in the press.. i am against ageplay, but if 2 adults think its fun to walk round in dipers thay may do that but not at my places! You will find slavery and Gorplay in a lot of games.. you will find naziplay and hanging and shooting and Good knows what in hundreds of wargames. nothing of this are news,,it been round for 10 yares online...at http://www.jewelofindra.com/ you will se a 3D ADULT communety with ADULT content..and there are a age verification provided by CCbil.com and it works just fine with a CC card and its based in USA.
Ppl in Sl worries on this:
-Will my RL ID gender and RL age show in my profile?
-Do i risk that the third party will abuse the information?
-Will i loose my land and my L$ and my RL USD if i cant or wont provide the information LL want?
This are 3 kay questions that ppl ask and LL have not yet answerd them?
Posted by: janeforyou Barbara | May 16, 2007 at 11:06 AM
1. I'm mostly on Myrrh's side, and admire her conviction.
2. Most you you really need to learn the difference between real and pretend. Read the blog post carefully -- Linden Lab's new policy on pictures of real-world children has not changed over the years. And, ironically, the ageplay community has been among it's strongest supporters, doing a much better job of reporting real children/teens than the free-sex, bdsm, gorean, or escort communities. What's new is the restrictions on what you can pretend, advertise, or talk about. That's quite different. That's why "victimless consensual pretend behavior" is a proper wording.
Prokofy's first post says: "It posits the idea that the measures the Lindens had to take regarding ageplay constitute a chilling effect on art and freedom of speech."
It does! It has really obviously had this effect on several groups I'm involved in.
and "Uh...where on the *rest of* the Internet is child pornography legal? where was that other place you said there is "victimless consensual pretend behavior" that's allowed?"
All over the internet! And off the internet for that matter. In the United States, you can do whatever you want with short childish cartoon images, even if it's lewd or violent. It's even legal in the U.S. for a real-world adult to put on a (very large) diaper and crawl around. There are still some people in the U.S. that know the difference between real and pretend. But we can't do even that in SL any more.
Posted by: anon | May 16, 2007 at 11:09 AM
@ Jessica Holyoke "Pedophilia has many troublesome aspects. First, there is no cure. Chemical castration, increasingly restrictive prohibitions and other measures taken have not served to stop pedophilia or even people willing to take the chance to be pedophiles. So what some are suggesting is that if there are people willing to provide an outlet or even an exploration, that should be bannible and possible a capital crime.
Second, its not like the internet created pedophiles. Pedophiles existed before the first PC. Its also true that the internet doesn't create pedophiles. It may be simplier for someone to explore, but that's not how a pedophile is created."
Do I sense sympathy for pedophiles in your statement?
Are you implying that since there is no cure for pedophilia that society should somehow provide an outlet by allowing them to explore it somehow?
How sick is that?
Hello!! Were talking about sick and perverted adults having sex with six year olds here!
If there is no cure, as it seems you are implying, then what society needs to do is lock these perverted sickos in a cell somewhere away from the rest of the civilized world and throw away the key!
Give me a break.
Posted by: The 9th Circuit | May 16, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Second Life is not a government regulating your lives, it is a company offering virtual entertainment. If it is in its interest to prohibit certain forms of gameplay to keep the level of civility acceptable to the great majority of its customers, it should do so for reasons of self preservation and prosperity. Most of us are apalled by virtual pedophilia and are cheered to see it banned. I am more inclined to stay in sl because of this policy, as I believe, are most others. The dissenters resort to the "slippery slope argument", that is, we are starting down down a slippery slope and must fear where it will all end. It is an argument that tries to mask the weakness of one's position by positing other scenarios to follow, none of which are even at issue. When you hear slippery slope, ask yourself why the proponent is afraid to argue the real issue at bar?
Posted by: Ryne Boucher | May 16, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Thanks Myrrh, I hear ya.
Posted by: Lucy Tornado | May 16, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Honestly, I don't understand ageplay all that much, but I don't like the idea of it. However, I'm still wondering why people are making such a big deal about it. Being on the internet for as long as I have, I've seen far worse things than two adults pretending to be 11 having pixel sex. Why doesn't anyone seem to care about the Rape RP areas or the animal-human mutants yiffing everywhere?
I must say I wholly agree with Prokofy when he protests the Capture & Rape RP. Call me a weirdo, but I find this one a lot more disturbing than ageplay.
Also, the furries. I get along fine with most of them, if they aren't too... yiffy around me, but again, I find it strange.
Posted by: Hazim Gazov | May 16, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Of course, if it were the case of REAL minors getting onto the grid and engaging in such acts, that'd be a different story.
Posted by: Hazim Gazov | May 16, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Myrrh,
I will miss you.
And everyone else: Boy are you EVER missing the point of Myrrh's letter - anyone who knows Myrrh would find the idea that this has anything to do with ageplay beyond ridiculous.
I would have to agree with the *real* sentiment here - that most of LL's policies lately seem geared towards running SL's homegrown communities and its dreamers out of town in favor of corporations and "protect the children" law-and-order special interests.
SL is losing a very wonderful person this day. :(
-Ana
Posted by: Ananda | May 16, 2007 at 12:11 PM
If jumping to conclusions is aerobic, you must be extremely fit, Prokofy.
I have no objection to wicca being criticized, or particular wiccans. I am not a wiccan myself. It is as bereft of any evidence the existence of its god and goddess as any other religion is of its god or gods. You're right; it's a recent development that people try to paint as ancient.
You assert, without citing evidence and contrary to what would seem to be the straightforward meaning of the text, that the "Wiccan Rede" promotes total hedonism and narcissism and lack of caring for others. That is contrary to what I observe of people who claim to be wiccans. I'll trust my observations over your logorrhea, thanks.
(I note that Wikipedia quotes a sermon of Saint Augustine: "Dilige, et quod vis fac," translating it as "Love, and do what you will." If it's from a sermon, one would think that it represented his post-conversion opinion.)
Those open to rational argument might wish to track down a copy of the late Peter McWilliams's _Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do_, a book about so-called "consensual crimes."
Posted by: Melissa Yeuxdoux | May 16, 2007 at 12:13 PM
I had a quick glance and I'm not quite sure I understand the point the post is making, some one is leaving over age verification or what?
Posted by: Pauleh Kamachi | May 16, 2007 at 12:19 PM
If you find another meta-verse even more open and free than Second Life, please do let us know where/when. I expect we'll see one once LL allows completely private servers onto the grid.
Posted by: Tad McConachie | May 16, 2007 at 01:05 PM
I'm so glad the Herald spends its time offering op-eds to wannabe child molesters.
Posted by: StallionSeven | May 16, 2007 at 01:18 PM
I dont see what the problem is, Adults pretending to roleplay or be children is wrong even if this game is ment to have freedom, and there is no argument that can support it been OK.
Posted by: Pauleh Kamachi | May 16, 2007 at 01:21 PM