Child porn 'found in Second Life'
Posted by Tom Warren on 09 May 2007 - 10:53 · 73 comments & 10379 views
About the Author
Full name: Tom Warren
Forum name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Tom Warren
Forum name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by obsolete_power on 09 May 2007 - 10:55
- OMG I was actually wondering when this would happen!! I guess it is inevitable when you create a virtual world...
-
(4 replies)
#3 Posted by 8-n-1 on 09 May 2007 - 10:57
- Next they'll be saying that people are trading warez on IRC...
-
#3.1 Posted by Yakkob on 09 May 2007 - 11:24
- Quote - (8-n-1 said @ #3)Next they'll be saying that people are trading warez on IRC...
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're implying???
Yes, people do trade warez on irc.
But, are you implying that you expected child pornography in a game? If so, you yourself are one sick puppy.
Something like this would never enter 99.9% of peoples minds. -
#3.2 Posted by roadwarrior on 09 May 2007 - 11:45
- Quote - (Yakkob said @ #3.1)Quote - (8-n-1 said @ #3)Next they'll be saying that people are trading warez on IRC...
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're implying???
Yes, people do trade warez on irc.
But, are you implying that you expected child pornography in a game? If so, you yourself are one sick puppy.
Something like this would never enter 99.9% of peoples minds.
Second Life isn't so much a game as it is the next evolution of chat programs. All segments of society are represented there, which unfortunately means that there will be pedos there as well. -
#3.3 Posted by Jugalator on 09 May 2007 - 12:46
- Quote -But, are you implying that you expected child pornography in a game? If so, you yourself are one sick puppy.
Not sick, just used to the online world and what it implies.
Not sick, just not so damn naïve.
First, Second Life isn't a game, but a virtual community.
Suddenly, illegal activities become so much more reasonable to see.
Next up someone will call a person "sick" for thinking it makes real life prostitutiona service... :p -
#3.4 Posted by Joshie on 09 May 2007 - 12:48
- Quote - (Yakkob said @ #3.1)Something like this would never enter 99.9% of peoples minds.
You might be surprised to know the number of people who think about this stuff is many, maaaany times higher than you believe. Just because you think something is sick doesn't mean it automatically only afflicts a tiny fraction of people.
And here we have what is truly dangerous when it comes to pedophilia: people marginalize the behavior. Alienating any group of people is the worst possible thing society could ever do.
Unless, I mean, you want to encourage them to be anti-social and introverted.
-
(7 replies)
#4 Posted by leesmithg on 09 May 2007 - 10:58
- I think it's about time the human rights act is ripped up and paedophiles (both male and female) are subjected to castration
-
#4.1 Posted by obsolete_power on 09 May 2007 - 11:10
- How do you suppose someone can castrate a female?
-
#4.2 Posted by leesmithg on 09 May 2007 - 11:14
- Quote - (obsolete_power said @ #4.1)How do you suppose someone can castrate a female?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q...ation&meta=
Enjoy your read. -
#4.3 Posted by Davebo on 09 May 2007 - 12:06
- Quote - (obsolete_power said @ #4.1)How do you suppose someone can castrate a female?
You've lived quite a sheltered life, haven't you? -
#4.4 Posted by TurboTuna on 09 May 2007 - 12:24
- Quote - (leesmithg said @ #4.2)Quote - (obsolete_power said @ #4.1)How do you suppose someone can castrate a female?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q...ation&meta=
Enjoy your read.
Not exactly what i wanted to click after eating a fish and chips lunch! -
#4.5 Posted by gadean on 09 May 2007 - 12:26
- Quote - (obsolete_power said @ #2)How do you suppose someone can castrate a female?
Some call it a female circumcision but I think it's more accurate to call it "genital mutilation". -
#4.6 Posted by Jugalator on 09 May 2007 - 12:54
- Quote - (gadean said @ #4.5)Quote - (obsolete_power said @ #2)How do you suppose someone can castrate a female?
Some call it a female circumcision but I think it's more accurate to call it "genital mutilation".
Huh?? One reply is weirder than the next here...
First, castration is the act of removing the ability to have/make kids. It has nothing to do with female circumcision (removal of the clitoris), that some call mutilation. It is a disturbing, but unrelated, act, because a clitoris is not related to the ability to have kids, although it sure helps to have a normal sex life and enjoy the act. For that matter, castration has nothing do with male circumcision either.
Castration in a male as well as female can be done chemically as well as more "physically". It's a surgically simple enough matter of just cutting the spermatic ducts or ovulary pathways, depending on gender. I don't see the "complexity" in this -- anyone with a basic course in biology should be able to figure out how. :p
Next, castration for pedophilia isn't even against human rights, so no need to involve that like the OP did. It has been proposed here in Sweden for example, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's already in effect as a penalty in some "civilized" countries in good terms with the UN. As for the US, there's already been at least one bill introduced already, for a while ago. http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/29/castration/
-
(10 replies)
#5 Posted by Turion on 09 May 2007 - 11:03
- Although child porn is wrong, what is actually wrong with virtual images of sex with childern? NO childern are involved. It is sick, but I fail to see how anyone could prosecute someone for a fantasy that involves no other living beings. That is wrong.
BTW I do not support having sex with childern and nor do I engage in any of the above activities. Just posing a question. -
#5.1 Posted by MrCobra on 09 May 2007 - 11:33
- If Bob down the street likes to watch virtual sex with kids then Bob more than likely either has sex with kids or wants to.
Even implying sex with a child is nasty and those that agree with it, promote it, or do it needs to be taken out of the world. -
#5.2 Posted by Jugalator on 09 May 2007 - 12:59
- Quote -If Bob down the street likes to watch virtual sex with kids then Bob more than likely either has sex with kids or wants to.
Like people who gun down others on a street after playing Counterstrike?
Please, are we really heading this way again?
I'm in no way defending them, but I agree it all sounds a bit silly. I think the more psychologically correct thing that's taking place here is that they're choosing a virtual world to fulfill weird fantasies. If they were pedophiles, they wouldn't waste their time in front of their computers and they'd be masturbating to *actual* child porn instead of doing this kind of stupidity with virtual characters. They need to be bound to actual crimes to be prosecuted, although this kind of trading of course is a weird thing to do.
Edit: AFAIK, it is not even against the law in many countries (perhaps US included, I'm unsure) to watch cartoon or virtual porn of "children". It's especially common in e.g. Japan with anime porn and schoolgirls, etc.
Last edited by Jugalator on 09 May 2007 - 13:06 -
#5.3 Posted by +Skwerl on 09 May 2007 - 14:25
- In addition, I fail to see a victim involved, so I don't really know what the big deal is. As long as they're fantasizing and not doing the real thing...
-
#5.4 Posted by Esvandiary on 09 May 2007 - 15:11
- Quote - (Skwerl said @ #5.3)In addition, I fail to see a victim involved, so I don't really know what the big deal is. As long as they're fantasizing and not doing the real thing...
Precisely. Similarly to the above posters, I'm not defending this sort of behaviour, but surely this is better than actual child porn, or even worse, someone actually doing something like this to kids themselves.
As far as I'm concerned, if people want to do stuff in Second Life to fulfil their weird fantasies, that's fine by me - I'd much rather have that than them doing something similar in real life. -
#5.5 Posted by +Lt-DavidW on 09 May 2007 - 17:30
- Quote - (MrCobra said @ #5.1)If Bob down the street likes to watch virtual sex with kids then Bob more than likely either has sex with kids or wants to.
Even implying sex with a child is nasty and those that agree with it, promote it, or do it needs to be taken out of the world.
There's a word for this type of behaviour: thoughtcrime. -
#5.6 Posted by +Lt-DavidW on 09 May 2007 - 17:43
- Quote - (Esvandiary said @ #5.4)Quote - (Skwerl said @ #5.3)In addition, I fail to see a victim involved, so I don't really know what the big deal is. As long as they're fantasizing and not doing the real thing...
Precisely. Similarly to the above posters, I'm not defending this sort of behaviour, but surely this is better than actual child porn, or even worse, someone actually doing something like this to kids themselves.
As far as I'm concerned, if people want to do stuff in Second Life to fulfil their weird fantasies, that's fine by me - I'd much rather have that than them doing something similar in real life.
What annoys me is how the media and government abuse people's paranoia of things they do not understand (e.g. child porn/paedophilia/terrorism) and use it to rile people up in order to justify making victimless crimes illegal (as in this example).
More examples of these laws include making it illegal to: burn flags, insult kings, read certain books, etc.
Unfortunately this type of brainwashing is nothing new, and there are so many people too lazy to do anything but be spoon-fed this garbage.
Rant over. -
#5.7 Posted by Turion on 09 May 2007 - 19:18
- Quote - (Jugalator said @ #5.2)Quote -If Bob down the street likes to watch virtual sex with kids then Bob more than likely either has sex with kids or wants to.
Like people who gun down others on a street after playing Counterstrike?
Please, are we really heading this way again?
I'm in no way defending them, but I agree it all sounds a bit silly. I think the more psychologically correct thing that's taking place here is that they're choosing a virtual world to fulfill weird fantasies. If they were pedophiles, they wouldn't waste their time in front of their computers and they'd be masturbating to *actual* child porn instead of doing this kind of stupidity with virtual characters. They need to be bound to actual crimes to be prosecuted, although this kind of trading of course is a weird thing to do.
Edit: AFAIK, it is not even against the law in many countries (perhaps US included, I'm unsure) to watch cartoon or virtual porn of "children". It's especially common in e.g. Japan with anime porn and schoolgirls, etc.
I have to agree with you. Especially inregard to the Japan connection. Japanese anime often depicts underaged school girls having sex with family, strangers, older men, women, and whoever or whatever else. AND it is stilll legal and shown in the US and other countries. -
#5.8 Posted by NightmarE D on 09 May 2007 - 21:41
- How do you all know that the pictures weren't taken by the people who put them on Second Life in the first place?
Let's say you were in a chatroom one night. Someone posts links to pictures and you're curious as to what it is. You click the link to see mass pictures of child porn and in those pictures you see some that have your kid in it. Would you actually sit there and think "Oh, it's just a picture. No harm done". If you could honestly sit there and say something like that, then you might want to go get your head examined.
First of all, these are PHOTOS OF NUDE CHILDREN. That right there alone is pretty sick. Saying there's nothing wrong with child porn so long as they're only pictures and nothing is actually being done to the children is just complete BS. You're completely forgetting that SOMEONE took those pictures and who knows what was done to the kids in these pictures before, during or after they were taken.
I'm surprised at the amount of people who wouldn't have a problem with this. You should all get your heads examined. -
#5.9 Posted by Esvandiary on 09 May 2007 - 23:34
- @NightmarE D: With regards to real child porn - i.e. pictures/videos/whatever of kids, then I consider that sickening and believe it should be stopped - surely this is one of the few times the "think of the children" tag is all too appropriate?
But... although the article does mention that the group were offering links to real child porn, it was mostly referring to "virtual" children, within the game. This, I have much less of a problem with, because no real child or indeed person is being harmed. Also, those who say that this makes people "more likely to do it in real life" is quite flawed, because being able to fulfil those (distinctly unsavoury imo) fantasies in a virtual world might actually stop the person in question from doing it in the real world. And wouldn't it be better if some "virtual" - i.e. not real - child porn gets passed down the interweb than if some kid potentially gets messed up for the rest of their life? -
#5.10 Posted by MindCrime1 on 10 May 2007 - 01:20
- Quote - (Lt-DavidW said @ #5.5)Quote - (MrCobra said @ #5.1)If Bob down the street likes to watch virtual sex with kids then Bob more than likely either has sex with kids or wants to.
Even implying sex with a child is nasty and those that agree with it, promote it, or do it needs to be taken out of the world.
There's a word for this type of behaviour: thoughtcrime.
Operation MindCrime
-
(1 reply)
#7 Posted by funkymunky on 09 May 2007 - 11:07
- I don't understand this??
It's graphical images not photos??
They should be tagged as if they get off on this it won't be long before they turn to real life Sickos -
#7.1 Posted by NightmarE D on 09 May 2007 - 21:42
- Images with GRAPHIC content. The word graphic doensn't imply that it's a drawing or something. It's implying that it's a disturbing photo.
Last edited by NightmarE D on 09 May 2007 - 21:51
-
#8 Posted by Twisted Vista on 09 May 2007 - 11:15
- Sick ...
-
(6 replies)
#9 Posted by Quick Reply on 09 May 2007 - 11:24
- I do think that is disgusting to be sexually attracted to children, but wait a moment here. Pedophiles are always going to be out there, they are still going to be attracted to children no matter what we tell them they should be attracted to, and they have no way to relieve themselves of this sexual tension other than masturbation.
I would much rather that they masturbate than for any of them to abuse a child. Viewing child pornography is just as bad as the child abuse, because the child still gets exploited. Now when it comes to virtual child pornography, there are no children being exploited. No lives destroyed. And it sure as hell gives them an alternative to abusing children in real life or looking at real child porn as this is a victimless/harmless way to help them masturbate if they are having trouble getting themselves off with fantasies alone. -
#9.2 Posted by Quick Reply on 09 May 2007 - 11:46
- and video games made me blow everyone's head off
-
#9.3 Posted by excalpius on 09 May 2007 - 15:44
- Mr Cobra...it's not "promoting" a goddamn thing.
Last edited by excalpius on 09 May 2007 - 15:52 -
#9.4 Posted by PureLegend on 09 May 2007 - 16:06
- I was just discussing this with my mum...she thought that any exposure to a world where child pr0n is acceptable makes them have these ideas that they can do it. I then said that newspapaers, media etc...already give them these ideas, so why get rid of it? She said it was in a way that made it look acceptable.
I then posed the question: How many cases of abuse has virtual child pornography stopped? Nobody knows...
I then came to the conclusion that a collective mind is not a good one, as it thinks as one, and any bad ideas with enough voice expand and become good ideas. She said I should take Philosophy. -
#9.5 Posted by MrCobra on 10 May 2007 - 01:52
- Quote - (excalpius said @ #9.3)Mr Cobra...it's not "promoting" a goddamn thing.
No need to get all bent out of shape. It does promote it. Whether it's real or virtual, it still promotes the sick behavior of having sex with kids. Those people that take part in this virtual world of sex with kids are fcuking sick bastards and those that defend it are even worse. -
#9.6 Posted by Quick Reply on 10 May 2007 - 11:35
- Quote - (MrCobra said @ #9.5)Quote - (excalpius said @ #9.3)Mr Cobra...it's not "promoting" a goddamn thing.
No need to get all bent out of shape. It does promote it. Whether it's real or virtual, it still promotes the sick behavior of having sex with kids. Those people that take part in this virtual world of sex with kids are fcuking sick bastards and those that defend it are even worse.
but there is no sex with kids! those that think that virtual child porn is a better alternative than real child porn are worse than those that actually do it? what the hell!
-
#10 Posted by DomZ on 09 May 2007 - 11:30
- If you read the article, they were trading real child porn as well as virtual.
-
(2 replies)
#11 Posted by MrCobra on 09 May 2007 - 11:38
- It needs to be shut down. No if, ands, or buts.
-
#11.1 Posted by Justin- on 09 May 2007 - 11:56
- Haha, I think a lot of users would agree with that ... for the entire "virtual world".
-
#12 Posted by +aniv on 09 May 2007 - 11:52
- good thing I never register for these crap services. Im sure lot of innocent ppl will be harrased along with the sickos.
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by jwjw1 on 09 May 2007 - 12:23
- I find it ironic that this comes right after the recent article posted...doesn't help much for the perception.
Research firm comScore has found that throughout March, 61% of active Second Life residents were from Europe,
With nearly 800,000 active residents in Europe, Second Life is proving to be popular on an international scale. It's especially fascinating to note that the number of active German residents exceeds the number of active residents in the entire US.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2189326/...ers-come-europe
-
#14 Posted by Minirostat on 09 May 2007 - 12:27
- Second Life.
Oh yes, I've played it..Got recommended by a friend to atleast try it.
...
I highly regret it.
I mean, the place is like what.. a mecca for Cybersex.
Ive been flaming "Cyber" in games for quite some time now and I always get told that im immature..
But watching some Polygon/Pixel characters "perform" sexual intercourse (Or whatever you may call all the different things) is more Mature?..Geez.
The "GooD" thing for "cybererers" in Second Life is that...THERE IS NO ONE STOPPING THEM and you can do alot of things that you cant do with other games..
(Fur-sex(a.k.a Yiff), Tentacle Rape or whatever..the list is long).
The developers of Second Life needs to get a grip of their community.
and same is it for the creators of several other MMO's..
-Dao
-
(3 replies)
#15 Posted by RazorEye on 09 May 2007 - 12:54
- Castration solves absolutely nothing. As most any source will tell you, rape and molestation, although sexual in nature, is not done for the sex itself. It's done to instill fear and excerpt control over another through terror. If you castrate someone, you simply remove their ability to to use their own organs in the process, but it does nothing to remove the desire in their own mind. They simply escalate to using foreign objects in their assaults on others.
As for it "just being pictures" idea, it is another area of debate. Although one can argue that virtual sex with a "created" minor is not in itself against the law, it could easily be a violation of their EULA for playing the game. It's also irresponsible to believe that it would just stop with the imagined act, as in reality it is merely an evolutionary step in a predator's progression to the actual event. They think it for years, then they act it out in a virtual environment, but eventually they need something more to fulfill themselves to so they end up looking for the real thing. -
#15.1 Posted by Richteralan on 09 May 2007 - 14:27
- Golly, no wonder how many campus shootings now....
Should we ban all FPS games? -
#15.2 Posted by RazorEye on 09 May 2007 - 16:17
- These are hardly comparable situations. Trying to use the evolution of a child predator's behavior as the basis for violence from video games is completely without merit. As I stated previously, these people are in it for the control and domination of others which has no other point to vent to other than the actual event. This course of action for them is so ingrained to them that few are ever able to safely find a way out of their cycle.
Violent video games on the other hand are merely an escape mechanism for most people to vent out frustrations or to simulate life threatening situations without actually placing themselves in any real danger. I would freely admit that there is a VERY minor group that can not separate the aggression of video games from real life. However, these people are prone to violence no matter what, and in the absence of video games they would merely find something else that would escalate their aggression levels further. -
#15.3 Posted by EJocys on 09 May 2007 - 16:37
- Quote - (Richteralan said @ #15.1)Golly, no wonder how many campus shootings now....
Should we ban all FPS games?
Yeah, Bin-Laden's and Taliban fighters' childhoods were ruined by FPS games and as we all know Hitler very liked his copy of Doom. Let's blame games, because parents, poor education, military and president actions have nothing to do with that.
-
(1 reply)
#16 Posted by Croquant on 09 May 2007 - 13:15
- Golly... child porn on the internet. Who'd 'a thunk it?
Yes it's a sick sick thing and everyone wants it to stop, but did you really think Second Life was immune to these pedophiles? These kind of guys have been going electronic since the '80s. To them, Second Life is just one more way for them to trade their sick crap. -
#16.1 Posted by NightmarE D on 09 May 2007 - 21:46
- It's not just men. You'd be surprised to see how many women are out there doing this as well.
-
(1 reply)
#17 Posted by +Skwerl on 09 May 2007 - 14:26
- Is anyone else shocked that Germany is all up in arms about this? If you run across a sick sex video, what are the chances it's from Germany?
-
(7 replies)
#18 Posted by EJocys on 09 May 2007 - 16:11
- I think that most of us (hypocrites) would agree that it's perfectly ok to butcher other human beings with BFG and Doom chainsaw in virtual worlds, but virtual paedophiles are sick.
-
#18.1 Posted by RazorEye on 09 May 2007 - 16:20
- Except that the first is an act of escapism while the other is an act of substitution. I seriously doubt any of use would actually want to cause real people to explode in front of use with rocket launchers or dissolve from a plasma round.
-
#18.2 Posted by +Skwerl on 09 May 2007 - 16:20
- Actually, I think that's pretty sick and disgusting. You won't catch me playing ultra violent trash like that.
-
#18.3 Posted by +Skwerl on 09 May 2007 - 16:21
- Quote - (RazorEye said @ #18.1)Except that the first is an act of escapism while the other is an act of substitution. I seriously doubt any of use would actually want to cause real people to explode in front of use with rocket launchers or dissolve from a plasma round.
You don't work with the doofuses I do! -
#18.4 Posted by EJocys on 09 May 2007 - 16:57
- Quote - (RazorEye said @ #18.1)Except that the first is an act of escapism while the other is an act of substitution.
So if soldier plays Doom then it can be called an act of substitution?Quote - (RazorEye said @ #18.1)I seriously doubt any of use would actually want to cause real people to explode in front of use with rocket launchers or dissolve from a plasma round.
You are right, but I think that some non-geeks who have 72 virgins in mind would disagree with you. -
#18.5 Posted by EJocys on 09 May 2007 - 17:13
- Quote - (Skwerl said @ #18.2)Actually, I think that's pretty sick and disgusting. You won't catch me playing ultra violent trash like that.
Some games are missing moral choices. If possible then I am trying not to use violence in games. Game developers can add respect or fear points depending on ation type. I remember mission of GTA San Andreas where you need to acquire Photo Camera from some bloke on the street. I thought that it would be enough to punch him into face and he will drop camera, but probably GTA programmers had no time for that so there was only one quick way to get what you need – kill. -
#18.6 Posted by Magallanes on 09 May 2007 - 19:29
- Quote - (EJocys said @ #1
I think that most of us (hypocrites) would agree that it's perfectly ok to butcher other human beings with BFG and Doom chainsaw in virtual worlds, but virtual paedophiles are sick.
BFG and Doom chainsaw in virtual worlds, but real paedophiles are sick -
#18.7 Posted by That 70s Guy on 11 May 2007 - 03:34
- Quote - (RazorEye said @ #18.1)
Except that the first is an act of escapism while the other is an act of substitution.
-------------------------------
I almost never post comments on any site anywhere, but I do tend to hesitate when someone paints a black and white picture to defend their personal stance on a subject. You are espousing a common misconception with the escapism/substitution debate. The published research into deviant behaviour has never proved, and probably will never prove, who engages in these activities for the purposes of escapism and who does it as substitution. Until someone actually offends in real life, there is no "proof" for either. While I do suspect that there probably are a higher number of pedophiles that use these virtual worlds as substitution, it is very likely not as clear cut as you suggest.
Just recently in California for instance, 3 young men died by gunfire as a direct result of a fight over a Playstation. I'd be very curious to see the game titles they were playing. You cannot assume that killing and destruction in a virtual world is pure escapism.
Just as there are serious mental health issues with pedophiles (I refuse to call anyone a "sicko ******" as some people in this comment chain have), there are also serious mental health issues with "some" players of violent games. For some of these troubled people, it doesn't matter what their vice is - if they partake in virtual expression of their fantasies, they will eventually act out in real life. For others, this virtual world need only be as far as they go.
Please take no offense as none was intended, but as I get older, I'm learning to see the "greyness" of many current hot topics. I have been surprised at some of my own "knee-jerk" reactions at times, but am slowly learning that it is not my place to pass judgment on anyone. Indeed, I'm certain there is an element of society that sees those who play violent video games as just as "sick" as those who engage in some sort of virtual child pornography. People have a tendency to view their own morals and ideals in a way that makes them acceptable, or at least comfortable, to themselves. (This *is* generally accepted as a result of psychological research.) I think we could all benefit from acknowledging this and perhaps engage in some personal reflection whenever we come across a topic that at first glance appears to be cut-and-dry.
Last edited by That 70s Guy on 11 May 2007 - 03:48
-
#19 Posted by SimplyPotatoes on 09 May 2007 - 16:53
- grats they figured it out. this has been going on since second life came out. 4chan is still around?! oh wow this internet place is gross mom help.
-
#20 Posted by +Lt-DavidW on 09 May 2007 - 17:57
- Rather than focusing our attention on the image traders, shouldn't we really be going after the avatars who virtually abuse these bot kids?
Then perhaps lock these characters up in a virtual prison?
-
(1 reply)
#21 Posted by mircleman on 09 May 2007 - 17:58
- ok here is my question for you guys. playing devils advocate. we all agree its sick. however how can you be held accountable for what you do IN a virtual world. example you rape or kill someone in virtual world its ok . true in child porn some child was abused but the pics being exchanged to others. my point here is. now they prosecute you for things in a virtual world , say in 10 years they can find a way to determine gentically or by some other means you are or have potiental to be a perv will they prosecute you etc. interesting question.
-
#21.1 Posted by +Lt-DavidW on 09 May 2007 - 20:42
- Quote - (mircleman said @ #21)ok here is my question for you guys. playing devils advocate. we all agree its sick. however how can you be held accountable for what you do IN a virtual world. example you rape or kill someone in virtual world its ok . true in child porn some child was abused but the pics being exchanged to others. my point here is. now they prosecute you for things in a virtual world , say in 10 years they can find a way to determine gentically or by some other means you are or have potiental to be a perv will they prosecute you etc. interesting question.
No offence to you, but that's such a stupid statement for so many reasons:
Do you really think it would be justifiable to prosecute someone based on their genetic traits?
Would you prosecute someone for having the 'potential' to do something wrong? In that case we should all be locked up.
What constitutes being a 'perv' and where is the line drawn?
-
(4 replies)
#22 Posted by black_death on 09 May 2007 - 20:05
- EDIT: ok nvm I misread the post, I didnt know thye were trading actual child porn I thought it said they were like RPG raping kids or something....
Last edited by black_death on 10 May 2007 - 02:27 -
#22.1 Posted by NightmarE D on 09 May 2007 - 21:49
- Like I said before. You're assuming that these people who posted the pictures didn't actually take the picures themselves. How do you know they don't have kids who they're sexually abusing and taking pictures of the whole thing and putting them out on the internet?
I'd like to know why exactly soo many people are assuming these pictures jsut came out of nowhere. SOMEONE took the pictures. SOMEONE sexually abused the children to take those pictures. -
#22.2 Posted by mircleman on 10 May 2007 - 01:30
- my point exactly, where does it stop? they prosecute for photos in a virtual world whats to say the slippery slope in 10 years doesn't say oh well we know from your dna your a child rapist so we are going to punish for what you may or may not do.
-
#22.3 Posted by MrCobra on 10 May 2007 - 02:01
- Quote - (black_death said @ #22)um wtf are they prosecuting them for exactly? ya its sick but they never actually touched the children or saw any of thier body parts, theyre gonna get a real life prison sentence for "virtual rape"? Maybe I should be on death row for the thosuands of people Ive killed in Unreal Tournament......
People that get busted in chat rooms for soliciting 16 year old girls that are actually 50 year old bald FBI agents should then be wrong by your statement. -
#22.4 Posted by mircleman on 10 May 2007 - 16:43
- Quote - (MrCobra said @ #22.3)Quote - (black_death said @ #22)um wtf are they prosecuting them for exactly? ya its sick but they never actually touched the children or saw any of thier body parts, theyre gonna get a real life prison sentence for "virtual rape"? Maybe I should be on death row for the thosuands of people Ive killed in Unreal Tournament......
People that get busted in chat rooms for soliciting 16 year old girls that are actually 50 year old bald FBI agents should then be wrong by your statement.
exactly. first off its entrapment second the 16 year old is really 30 working for the police. then they arrest him for meeting an imaginary 16 year old and the 50 year old doesnt do anything but he has the intent to case closed
-
#23 Posted by Dashel on 09 May 2007 - 20:10
- I think they should investigate anyone who is playing this tripe.
-
#24 Posted by Buttus on 09 May 2007 - 23:21
- They'll just have to put them in virtual prisons...
and if someone is playing a "child" on the game, how do they know how old the "child" is... they could be on there and tell one person they're 50 and one person that they're 8... it's not like real life where people have real ages...
would be interesting to have a character that had gray hair and wrinkles, walked all hunched over with a cane, and told people they were 8 years old and offered sex to people...
-
#25 Posted by jmeeker on 10 May 2007 - 14:01
- As is the case so often, people try to sidetrack the issue by tying it to something else. Video game violence is not being debated here. The point is that:
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.
We are NOT just dealing with virtual images, as many people have implied. Somewhere REAL children were photographed and REAL children were abused. Those that are trafficking in it continue to promote it, whether they themselves took the pictures or not.
The idea that having them in front of their computer is keeping them off of the streets doesn't cut it, either. Again, yes, THEY are not doing the filming, but it is STILL taking place for THEM to view and encourage.
The DNA issue and the idea of someone that was predisposed to commit a crime was covered well in the movie The Minority Report and needs to stay in the realm of movie fiction.
The investigation follows a report by a German TV news programme which uncovered the trading group and members who pay for sex with virtual children.
The police are now trying to identify the Second Life members involved.
Linden Lab, the creator of Second Life, said it would help identify users and pass on details to prosecutors.
Second Life, as its name implies, is a virtual world in which members create an avatar and then use that character to live out a separate existence.