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

[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

-->
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.

Ok. if you insist.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

Ok. if you insist.

You never answered my first question.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Na. Not at all. It just gos to show that SCOTUS fucks up worse shit then who can give whom money. If law makers dont like a ruling, then they need to fix it with a law. The rest is just USMB bs.

 

[Steelplate]

Ok... cool. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. sorry bout that.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Unions support 1 party. Corporations support both parties. I'm not worried though cause unions are losing their power.

 

[Susan45]

Firstly, it's a tad stupid to ask a specific question and provide no link to show where it comes from.

Secondly, there is no need to bold your every word.... again, it makes you look stupid.

So, the question is.... is it true that you are, in fact, stupid?

Personally, I think it's pretty stupid to just interrupt a subject because you are so partisan you can't think straight. In fact, your post is one of the dumbest posts of the day.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

No. The same limitations have always been applied to both. Citizen's United just made it easier for both unions and corporations to give nearly unlimited amounts.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

I guess the OP could send a letter to there Rep. to get it fixed. Again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No, he is saying that anyone that thinks the court is right wing is an idiot.

 

[jillian]

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

welcome to the obscene campaign finance laws post-citizens united.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

welcome to the obscene campaign finance laws post-citizens united.

Welcome to absolute proof that you are a partisan hack that does not care about truth.