(Personally, if I had Asperger’s myself, I’d want to play that condition very close to the vest. But that’s just me.)

And, at any rate, Tateru did clarify her position…perhaps acknowledging that she’d inadvertently hit a wrong note in her initial post.

The issue of moral boundaries is a strong one…for an example in history of what happens when boundaries erode, Kim du Toit cites the Ptolemaic Dynasty of Egypt here (see also the followup here). He’s talking mainly about gay marriage in these posts, but it could equally apply to the discussion at hand as well…

Hell, no. I argue very persuasively that the stark insensitivity to the concerns around this issue that Tateru, a very public and influential figure, brought to this inconsiderate and intemperate posting in the highly-visible AOL-sponsored blog, could be directly attributable to her condition. And I think that’s more than fine to raise. In general, it’s a point that needs raising because there’s a tendency to give anybody who waves the Aspberger’s flag, true or false, a huge pass in Second Life and I’m for ending that impunity.

No, you don’t get to publicly wield a disability and then garner immunity from criticism, nor immunity from queries about whether your leadership role, especially on a controversial issue, is inappropriate.

I don’t believe in allowing people to get away with emotional blackmail. I think it’s more than appropriate to raise everthing to do with public figures who are powerful and have a powerful effect on shaping the incoming impressions of newbies in particular.

Solzhenitsyn had a very simple form of this U.S. military oath you cite, as a coping strategy for dealing with Stalinism. “Live not by the lie.”

To me, Tateru, and her apologists, and apologists on this issue, are engaging in a very big lie. They should know exactly the emotional toll involved on people, the implications for enabling the crossing of moral boundaries, the ramifications of RL social commentary and possibly legal action. And if they can’t grasp it, and they are hobbled by some condition that prevents that, it needs to be called. No, they don’t get to hijack the whole world of SL with their point of view on this matter.

Anyway, enough yakking, lol, here is what was posted. (The link to the text of the decision is in there).

Quote:

On the issue of virtual child pornography, this is what the United States Supreme Court wrote in the landmark case ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION, when it delivered its opinion, considering and rejecting the US government’s arguments and evidence, and overwhelmingly affirming free speech freedoms that all United States citizens are extremely lucky to enjoy:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
“Virtual child pornography is not ‘intrinsically related’ to the sexual abuse of children. While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts.”
…
“The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles’ appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it [..] absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct [..]. The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all. Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited. The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process.”

I’ve commented elsewhere that there just isn’t the same broad-based opposition among the community to various other practices that there is to sexualized ageplay in SL. Not even to the Goreans, who are right up there in terms of “extremes.” (I wouldn’t engage in Gorean roleplay, nor would I recommend it to anyone, but I don’t have the same kind of visceral objections to it that I have to simulated pedophilia.) So I don’t think you have to worry about them “coming for you…and there was no one left to speak up.”

I am by no means a fan of virtual child molestation (or any form of SL “sex” for that matter), but that notecard LL is passing out worries me. Many of the things that take place in SL are illegal in some areas, even fairly innocent things like weapons possession, and in a “your world, your imagination” scenario I’m not sure it should matter if other people like what you’ve dreamed up or not.

“Your world, your imagination, so long as everyone else approves,” heh. Not so good.

Here’s another.. “First they came for the child molestors, but I was not a child molestor so I remained silent…”