Tonya and I see some things differently and she sometimes corrects what I write about the Firestorm Viewer. I appreciate the corrections. I’ve NEVER caught Tonya misleading or BS’ing me. Jessica is about as upfront and standup a person as one could hope to meet. I recommend taking them at their word.
At the last Third Party Developers’ meeting Jessica and others were talking about the difficulty of protecting the Firestorm name from those building copybot versions of the viewer. Basically, it is impossible. It is surprising how many will pick up and pass along slander and libel without a second thought.
- Then there is the SL Forum thread: Rumors about mass bannings and sim deletion? In this thread we get the claim the moderators are removing posts regarding the bans. zOMG!!! It’s gotta be a conspiracy! Well, Lindal Kidd filed a JIRA BUG- BUG-7298 – Answers Forum loses posts. Whirly Fizzel added to it. So, we can discard that claim. You do notice who makes these claims so you can know who not to believe in the future? Right? …yeah, well sometimes I do, depends…
Some of the other ‘out there’ claims show rumor and deduction has led some to decide the reason for the bans is California laws on bestiality. The California law was looked up by and thanks to Mona Eberhardt.
Penal Code 286.5 PC prohibits sexually assaulting an animal for the purpose of arousing or gratifying your sexual desire.
Comment: Also known as “bestiality” or “zoophilia”, the sexual “assault” of an animal doesn’t actually have to be what we typically think of as an assault. This means that the conduct doesn’t have to be forced or violent, as any sexual contact with an animal is sufficient to trigger criminal charges.
Sexually abusing an animal is a misdemeanor, subjecting you to a maximum of six months in a county jail and a maximum $1,000 fine.
I find this a way dubious reason for the Lab to take action. ISP’s, Communication Companies, and other hosting services are generally held harmless from what their users/subscribers do or post. The Obama/Democrat idea of Net Neutrality is changing that. It provides more control over what is said on the Internet and that will likely translate into is what we can do with the Internet. But, those issues are still in court. So, I can’t see this being a cause.
Also, virtual ‘anything’ is outside the scope of almost all written laws. Consider. The defense attorney claims there was no such animal and requires the prosecutor produce the animal and show it is the animal in question… a show what was abused challenge…
Or think of trying to prosecute the creator of Sylvester the Cat for assault on Tweetie Pie… Who is it that is the victim of these virtual assaults? Can you be prosecuted for imagining you beat someone up, drawing a cartoon of it? Well… if you have radical Muslims around, yes, but that is another issue. How is a virtual world different than the tools used to make cartoons? Not vary… do we prosecute pencil and crayon makers for what people draw using those tools?
The people that bought into the line of thinking it was California law that triggered the Lab’s bannings probably aren’t deep thinkers or they have been exposed to too much anti-free-speech propaganda. If they had gone down the path of a pornography problem, they would have made more sense.
Forging through the posts we arrive with the information the bans are related to images posted on products in the Marketplace. Another track is that there were age play issues. Also, there is a good probability a vigilante campaign precipitated the bannings.
Additional page links below…