Is This True? If yes then something needs to be done damn fast

[mmmjvpssm]

The same laws have always applied to unions and corporations, in terms of political donations.

Citizen's United didn't change that.

Have these same laws always said that corporations can give as much as they want but not unions?

 

[Missourian]

A huge part of the problem is that the Republicans have gotten what they'd been damanding for years, a "balanced unbiased Supreme Court" which sounds good except that when Republicans say "balanced and unbiased" what they really mean is far right and totally biased toward the far right

Coporations tend to donte more to Republicans then Democrats, so of course the lackies on the court want them to be able to give as much as they want

The REAL problem is that this is only a problem for you BECAUSE it benefits Republicans. If it benefited Democrats, you would defend it tooth and nail.

 

[uscitizen]

ahh so many so eager to sell their government to the highest bidders both foreign and domestic.
Then whine about their government.
We already have the best government that money can buy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Corporations can contribute to candidates with no restrictions but there are limits on what unions can give?

No.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Still not seeing the rulings you are talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A huge part of the problem is that the Republicans have gotten what they'd been damanding for years, a "balanced unbiased Supreme Court" which sounds good except that when Republicans say "balanced and unbiased" what they really mean is far right and totally biased toward the far right

Coporations tend to donte more to Republicans then Democrats, so of course the lackies on the court want them to be able to give as much as they want

You started this thread in ignorance, and jumped headfirst into idiocy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Still not seeing the rulings you are talking about.

They do not exist.

The only restrictions on unions is that they have cannot require members to contribute to political causes they disagree with like they could years ago. For some reason Democrats made a big stink about that when it changed.

 

[Missourian]

ahh so many so eager to sell their government to the highest bidders both foreign and domestic.
Then whine about their government.
We already have the best government that money can buy.

The question is, how do we extricate the money from the political process WITHOUT impinging on free speech?

 

[Kuros]

As many have stated, and as a quick look at the wiki on Citizens United would reveal, when it comes to election law, corporations and unions are treated THE SAME under the Constitution. This is how the holding is reported under wiki:

A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.

I think the confusion stems from the following distinction:

Laws limiting the amount of money that a person/group may contribute to a political candidate are valid.

Laws limiting the amount that an individual of group may spend on a political campaign are invalid.

Before Citizens United, there was an exception to the latter, namely, corporations and unions (and NGOs) could be limited in the amount they gave to a political campaign. After Citizens United, corporations and unions (and NGOs) became equal to individuals. But all groups: individuals, corporations, unions, and NGOs may have their contribution to a political candidate limited under election laws.

 

[Steelplate]

Corporations can contribute to candidates with no restrictions but there are limits on what unions can give?

And Obama running for President received millions from overseas donors,foreign donors who
knew just the right amount of money to send so as to keep their identity secret....

No one on the left complained about that...

You need to prove your assertions Butthead.

 

[Steelplate]

B]That doesn't address the topic[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, it does. Ya see, many of you liberals didn't have a problem with Obama reneging on his campaign financing, as he pulled in millions from wallstreet, the soon to be bailed out banks, and unions.
Now that many of these institutions are bailing on the democrats, you've suddenly got a problem with it.
It's called hypocrisy, and you liberals seem to have plenty of it.

No, it doesn't

You're right... it doesn't... What's worse is Brono is using the typical revisionist history ploy that The Shiite Republicans use all the time. Bush bailed out the banks on Oct 3, 2008. a full MONTH before Obama was even elected. It's called lying and you Conservatives do it so well.

 

[Steelplate]

Which rulings have been in favor of the right ? The one ware you can depict and possess children being molested or having sex as long as it is just a cartoon ? As for the rest, you can look it up here.

Citizens' Guide

WTF? You're a sick fucker, aren't you?

 

[Robert]

Corporations can contribute to candidates with no restrictions but there are limits on what unions can give?

Its not true you may now go back to sleep

 

[Steelplate]

they all get monies from all types of donors, how dumb it is to point fingers, when they are all guilty.

No, they do NOT. Democrats get more from the unions then Republicans do, at least in cases where unions are allowed to give, because Republicans hate the working man and unions tend to not like that

Sure Unions give more to Democrats... Republicans hate labor. Why would they throw good money after bad? Besides... Union PAC's are a drop in the bucket when compared to the Conglomerate. Sure... you may find somewhere that SEIU or AFSCME donated this huge amount... but that was their wad.

 

[zzzz]

Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission : SCOTUSblog

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Which rulings have been in favor of the right ? The one ware you can depict and possess children being molested or having sex as long as it is just a cartoon ? As for the rest, you can look it up here.

Citizens' Guide

WTF? You're a sick fucker, aren't you?

Hey, thats our supreme court. You should watch C-span instead some time instead of playing WOW man. And it is YOUR president who is trying to save the life of a murderer and rapist. But yeah, it went to the supreme court because cops were busting folks for looking at cartoons of children being raped. They ruled that it was protected by the first amendment. Now fuck off you fucktard and get back to WOW.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Which rulings have been in favor of the right ? The one ware you can depict and possess children being molested or having sex as long as it is just a cartoon ? As for the rest, you can look it up here.

Citizens' Guide

WTF? You're a sick fucker, aren't you?

SCOTUS also protects video of dog fights, as well as video depicting animal cruelty is protected under the first amendment. They sound like a liberals dream judge.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

New Supreme Court Opinion Discusses Virtual Child Pornography Law; Linden Lab’s 2007 Ban Clarified | Virtually Blind | Virtual Law | Benjamin Duranske

New Supreme Court Opinion Discusses Virtual Child Pornography Law; Linden Lab’s 2007 Ban Clarified

May 23rd, 2008 by Benjamin Duranske

Last year Linden Lab, the company that runs the virtual world of Second Life, banned sexual ageplay in its world. The policy specifically prohibited “depictions of or engagement in sexualized conduct with avatars that resemble children,” and clarified an earlier statement that was widely seen as overbroad. This hit VB’s radar screen because although “virtual child pornography” is illegal in most countries, a law attempting to make it illegal in the U.S. had actually been struck down by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

Build of U.S. House of Representatives in Second LifeAfter the Ashcroft decision, Congress went back to the drawing board and passed a new law, 2003′s PROTECT Act. Part of that law prohibits certain (though not all) types of virtual child pornography, and another part specifically prohibits obscene virtual child pornography. This law likely influenced Linden Lab’s ban.

From the statute:

Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

Basically, the law limits legal “virtual child pornography” to material that either doesn’t depict explicit sexual acts (under Section 2) or isn’t “obscene” (under Section 1). It appears that the drafters built this law so that even if Section 2 were to be held unconstitutional (under the well-known Miller test, “obscenity” is determined based on contemporary community standards, which makes specific prohibitions somewhat suspect) Section 1 could be left intact — and thus “obscene” virtual child pornography would remain prohibited even if the more explicit provision was found unconstitutional.

It may not matter anyway. While this is admittedly speculative, it seems that most of what Section 2 prohibits would also be found “obscene” even under the relatively lax “contemporary community standards” of an adult-based virtual world like Second Life, and certainly under the contemporary community standards of most real life U.S. communities.

A recent Supreme Court opinion addressed this new law, albeit somewhat tangentially, and appeared to at least tacitly endorse the provisions regarding virtual child pornography. The case, U.S. v. Williams (.pdf), isn’t directly about virtual child pornography — it is largely about whether Congress can make the act of merely offering to provide real child pornography illegal, which the Court held it could — but it does refer to the provision.

From the 7-2 majority opinion, by Justice Scalia:

[T]he dissent accuses us of silently overruling our prior decisions in Ferber and Free Speech Coalition. According to the dissent, Congress has made an end-run around the First Amendment’s protection of virtual child pornography by prohibiting proposals to transact in such images rather than prohibiting the images themselves. But an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means “a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed.” Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever, so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography.

The opinion does not directly support this statute’s provisions prohibiting “obscene” virtual child pornography and simulated depictions of specific acts, but it doesn’t fire any warning shots indicating the provisions might be held unconstitutional either. It seems, both in light of this holding and the recent negative press regarding user-generated adult content in Second Life, that Linden Lab was smart to move as it did to explicitly ban specific acts that arguably violate this law last November.
Email This Post Email This Post
Print This Post (Printer Friendly Formatting) Print This Post (Printer Friendly Formatting)

Posted in Constitutional Law, Linden Lab, Providers, Second Life, Virtual Law, Virtual Worlds & Games |

Related Posts on Virtually Blind

Second Life Child Pornography Allegations Draw International Press Attention: "Allegations of simulated and actual child pornography in Second Life..." (17 comments)

The Legality of the Virtual World’s Oldest Profession: "The Second Life Herald has an article up that beat me to some..." (16 comments)

Quicklinks: French Lawsuit, German Investigation, and the Bluebird Cafe: " Virtually Blind periodically runs “quicklinks” — items that are not..." (0 comments)

7 Responses to “New Supreme Court Opinion Discusses Virtual Child Pornography Law; Linden Lab’s 2007 Ban Clarified”

on 23 May 2008 at 12:57 pm1 Benjamin Duranske

Thanks to reader Suzanne Edwards for the heads-up on the Supreme Court decision.
on 24 May 2008 at 3:48 pm2 Jessica Holyoke

I double checked the wording of the statute and here’s why I think it will be eventually struck down, or at least altered.

Intent to distribute does not modify knowingly produces. The obscenity laws, and one of the reasons why obscenity is allowed as a crime in a country with a First Amendment, only prosecute distribution, not creation. With no children involved with the production, I think the parts of this law that relates to production without distribution will fall.
on 26 May 2008 at 1:26 pm3 Patent Baristas » Blawg Review #161

[...] We also have to look at how free is free. Ben Duranske at Virtually Blind discusses the new Supreme Court Opinion on Virtual Child Pornography Law. [...]
on 27 May 2008 at 8:52 pm4 Tomorrow Museum » Archive » Synthetic Performances: Sylvere Lotringer, Second Life, and the Politics of Perversions

[...] could potentially be policed, as graphic images are prohibited under “obscenity” laws. (Virtual Bind explains the subtitles of this [...]
on 27 Jul 2008 at 10:53 am5 Looking for copyright-related news « Media in Second Life

[...] the ban, children avatars are no longer allowed in SL nor it is to interact with any of them, known within [...]
on 21 Sep 2009 at 5:50 am6 Douglas

It seems this law had permanent fixed images in mind, rather than ephemeral, impermanent in-world encounters. Would an in-world sexual encounter between 2 avatars constitute a “visual depiction” if no permanent image is created? And, for purposes of determining whether it is obscene, what would be considered the work as a whole? Would it be from the moment the avatars began the animation in question until they stopped, or would it be from the time they each logged on and then logged off for for the session that included the encounter, or is it the whole of their online existence? And what would the applicable community be?
on 08 Aug 2010 at 8:49 am7 Newman

I sentence all law makers to 6 months in second life so they can grasp just how lame it is. They should just worry about protecting actual kids in the real world. It’s mind-blowing how much law makers suck at the internets. Get with the program people, it’s out of beta and it’s not slowing down. props for trying I guess, I’m all for protecting the children.

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

Leave a Reply

Notes on Comments: Your first comment must be manually approved, but after it is you'll be able to post freely with the same name and email. You can use some HTML (<a> <b> <i> <blockquote> etc.) but know that VB's spam blocker holds posts with five or more <a> links. VB supports gravatars. Got a gravatar? Use the associated email and it'll show with your comment. Need one? Set it up for free here.

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Benjamin Duranske's Virtual Law

It took Republicans to go back and make it illegal. You libs were pissed about it.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

And another victory for libs,

Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Animal Cruelty, Dog Fighting Videos - ABC News

Supreme Court Overturns Law Banning Depictions of Animal Cruelty
Share
164 Comments
Print
Single Page
Text Size
- / +

By ARIANE de VOGUE
April 20, 2010

The Supreme Court today invalidated a federal law that had criminalized the sale of certain depictions of animal cruelty, including violent dogfighting videos.

An 8-1 majority on the Court said that the law was "substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment," affirming the right of free speech in the face of some government-imposed restrictions.

 

[Steelplate]

New Supreme Court Opinion Discusses Virtual Child Pornography Law; Linden Lab’s 2007 Ban Clarified | Virtually Blind | Virtual Law | Benjamin Duranske

New Supreme Court Opinion Discusses Virtual Child Pornography Law; Linden Lab’s 2007 Ban Clarified

May 23rd, 2008 by Benjamin Duranske

Last year Linden Lab, the company that runs the virtual world of Second Life, banned sexual ageplay in its world. The policy specifically prohibited “depictions of or engagement in sexualized conduct with avatars that resemble children,” and clarified an earlier statement that was widely seen as overbroad. This hit VB’s radar screen because although “virtual child pornography” is illegal in most countries, a law attempting to make it illegal in the U.S. had actually been struck down by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

Build of U.S. House of Representatives in Second LifeAfter the Ashcroft decision, Congress went back to the drawing board and passed a new law, 2003&#8242;s PROTECT Act. Part of that law prohibits certain (though not all) types of virtual child pornography, and another part specifically prohibits obscene virtual child pornography. This law likely influenced Linden Lab’s ban.

From the statute:

Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

Basically, the law limits legal “virtual child pornography” to material that either doesn’t depict explicit sexual acts (under Section 2) or isn’t “obscene” (under Section 1). It appears that the drafters built this law so that even if Section 2 were to be held unconstitutional (under the well-known Miller test, “obscenity” is determined based on contemporary community standards, which makes specific prohibitions somewhat suspect) Section 1 could be left intact — and thus “obscene” virtual child pornography would remain prohibited even if the more explicit provision was found unconstitutional.

It may not matter anyway. While this is admittedly speculative, it seems that most of what Section 2 prohibits would also be found “obscene” even under the relatively lax “contemporary community standards” of an adult-based virtual world like Second Life, and certainly under the contemporary community standards of most real life U.S. communities.

A recent Supreme Court opinion addressed this new law, albeit somewhat tangentially, and appeared to at least tacitly endorse the provisions regarding virtual child pornography. The case, U.S. v. Williams (.pdf), isn’t directly about virtual child pornography — it is largely about whether Congress can make the act of merely offering to provide real child pornography illegal, which the Court held it could — but it does refer to the provision.

From the 7-2 majority opinion, by Justice Scalia:

[T]he dissent accuses us of silently overruling our prior decisions in Ferber and Free Speech Coalition. According to the dissent, Congress has made an end-run around the First Amendment’s protection of virtual child pornography by prohibiting proposals to transact in such images rather than prohibiting the images themselves. But an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means “a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed.” Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever, so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography.

The opinion does not directly support this statute’s provisions prohibiting “obscene” virtual child pornography and simulated depictions of specific acts, but it doesn’t fire any warning shots indicating the provisions might be held unconstitutional either. It seems, both in light of this holding and the recent negative press regarding user-generated adult content in Second Life, that Linden Lab was smart to move as it did to explicitly ban specific acts that arguably violate this law last November.
Email This Post Email This Post
Print This Post (Printer Friendly Formatting) Print This Post (Printer Friendly Formatting)

Posted in Constitutional Law, Linden Lab, Providers, Second Life, Virtual Law, Virtual Worlds & Games |

Related Posts on Virtually Blind

Second Life Child Pornography Allegations Draw International Press Attention: "Allegations of simulated and actual child pornography in Second Life..." (17 comments)

The Legality of the Virtual World’s Oldest Profession: "The Second Life Herald has an article up that beat me to some..." (16 comments)

Quicklinks: French Lawsuit, German Investigation, and the Bluebird Cafe: " Virtually Blind periodically runs “quicklinks” — items that are not..." (0 comments)

7 Responses to “New Supreme Court Opinion Discusses Virtual Child Pornography Law; Linden Lab’s 2007 Ban Clarified”

on 23 May 2008 at 12:57 pm1 Benjamin Duranske

Thanks to reader Suzanne Edwards for the heads-up on the Supreme Court decision.
on 24 May 2008 at 3:48 pm2 Jessica Holyoke

I double checked the wording of the statute and here’s why I think it will be eventually struck down, or at least altered.

Intent to distribute does not modify knowingly produces. The obscenity laws, and one of the reasons why obscenity is allowed as a crime in a country with a First Amendment, only prosecute distribution, not creation. With no children involved with the production, I think the parts of this law that relates to production without distribution will fall.
on 26 May 2008 at 1:26 pm3 Patent Baristas » Blawg Review #161

[...] We also have to look at how free is free. Ben Duranske at Virtually Blind discusses the new Supreme Court Opinion on Virtual Child Pornography Law. [...]
on 27 May 2008 at 8:52 pm4 Tomorrow Museum » Archive » Synthetic Performances: Sylvere Lotringer, Second Life, and the Politics of Perversions

[...] could potentially be policed, as graphic images are prohibited under “obscenity” laws. (Virtual Bind explains the subtitles of this [...]
on 27 Jul 2008 at 10:53 am5 Looking for copyright-related news « Media in Second Life

[...] the ban, children avatars are no longer allowed in SL nor it is to interact with any of them, known within [...]
on 21 Sep 2009 at 5:50 am6 Douglas

It seems this law had permanent fixed images in mind, rather than ephemeral, impermanent in-world encounters. Would an in-world sexual encounter between 2 avatars constitute a “visual depiction” if no permanent image is created? And, for purposes of determining whether it is obscene, what would be considered the work as a whole? Would it be from the moment the avatars began the animation in question until they stopped, or would it be from the time they each logged on and then logged off for for the session that included the encounter, or is it the whole of their online existence? And what would the applicable community be?
on 08 Aug 2010 at 8:49 am7 Newman

I sentence all law makers to 6 months in second life so they can grasp just how lame it is. They should just worry about protecting actual kids in the real world. It’s mind-blowing how much law makers suck at the internets. Get with the program people, it’s out of beta and it’s not slowing down. props for trying I guess, I’m all for protecting the children.

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

Leave a Reply

Notes on Comments: Your first comment must be manually approved, but after it is you'll be able to post freely with the same name and email. You can use some HTML (<a> <b> <i> <blockquote> etc.) but know that VB's spam blocker holds posts with five or more <a> links. VB supports gravatars. Got a gravatar? Use the associated email and it'll show with your comment. Need one? Set it up for free here.

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Benjamin Duranske's Virtual Law

-->
About Virtually Blind

From early 2007 to late 2008, Virtually Blind covered legal news, issues, and events that impact virtual worlds, video games, and the 3D internet. The site is no longer updated, though it remains online as a research resource.

Posts and comments on VB were and are not offered as legal advice, and are not confidential attorney-client communication. Posts and comments reflect only the opinion of the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of VB's editor, other contributors, sponsors, or any author's employer.

About Benjamin Duranske

Benjamin Duranske is the author of Virtual Law: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Virtual Worlds and numerous mainstream and trade articles on virtual law. Also see Benjamin Duranske on LinkedIn.

-->
More About VB

Welcome to VB (First Post)
Avatar Names in VB Articles
Are Games Virtual Worlds?
VB on Live Cases and Issues

Search


Web Virtually Blind

Articles by Category

3D Internet (22)
Clippings (26)
Content Creators (37)
Aimee Weber Studio (1)
Anshe Chung Studios (1)
DE Designs (5)
Electric Sheep (3)
Eros (16)
Green Grotto (1)
Le Cadre (5)
Millions of Us (1)
Nomine (5)
Peregrine Salon (1)
Pixel Dolls (5)
RH Designs (5)
Rivers Run Red (2)
DMCA (13)
Hardware (3)
Lawsuits (88)
Blizz. v. Peons4Hire (1)
Bragg v. Linden Lab (12)
Debonneville v. Pierce (8)
Eros et al v. Simon (3)
Eros v. John Doe (13)
Founder v. Blizzard (1)
Hernandez v. IGE (14)
MDY v. Blizzard (14)
Minsky v. Linden Lab (8)
Pyramid v. Giant (1)
SLART Cancellation (2)
Providers (149)
Activeworlds, Inc. (3)
Blizzard (33)
Central Grid (0)
Electronic Arts (2)
Giant Interactive (1)
Google (1)
HiPiHi Co. (1)
IMVU Inc. (4)
Linden Lab (107)
Makena Technologies (7)
Mindark (5)
NCsoft (1)
OpenSim (0)
Shanda (1)
Sulake Corporation (1)
The9 (2)
RMT/RCE (43)
VB Administration (16)
VB Features (93)
Commentary (57)
Interviews (11)
Quicklinks (19)
Reading Room (6)
VB Series (11)
Click to Agree (2)
Ginko Financial (9)
Virtual ADR (4)
Virtual Government (22)
Virtual Law (324)
Civil Procedure (49)
Constitutional Law (16)
Contract Law (99)
Copyright Law (63)
Criminal Law (47)
Disability Law (1)
Employment Law (4)
International Law (19)
Patent Law (12)
Privacy Law (4)
Property Law (39)
Publicity Law (3)
Securities Law (18)
Tax Law (12)
Tort Law (13)
Trade Secret Law (3)
Trademark Law (51)
Virtual Law Libraries (12)
Virtual Law Practice (60)
Virtual Legal Education (52)
Virtual Legal Orgs. (15)
Virtual Pro Bono (3)
Virtual Worlds & Games (276)
Active Worlds (2)
City of Heroes (1)
Club Penguin (1)
Entropia Universe (5)
Everquest II (1)
GoPets (1)
Guild Wars (1)
Habbo Hotel (1)
HiPiHi (1)
IMVU (4)
Lineage (1)
Lively (1)
MapleStory (1)
Runescape (1)
Second Life (216)
SmallWorlds (1)
Spore (1)
The Sims Online (2)
The World of Legend (1)
There (7)
Ultima Online (3)
World of Warcraft (49)
ZT Online (2)

Archives

December 2008 (2)
November 2008 (9)
October 2008 (11)
September 2008 (17)
August 2008 (16)
July 2008 (18)
June 2008 (11)
May 2008 (16)
April 2008 (16)
March 2008 (11)
February 2008 (12)
January 2008 (19)
December 2007 (15)
November 2007 (14)
October 2007 (19)
September 2007 (26)
August 2007 (29)
July 2007 (24)
June 2007 (8)
May 2007 (13)
April 2007 (16)
March 2007 (6)
February 2007 (10)
January 2007 (9)

-->

So what you're saying is that the Left are a bunch of child molesters? We'll be sure to let the Vatican know that they have lefties in their ranks. How do you consider this a ruling in favor of the left? If anything... it's in favor of Libertarians.