4 comments

• 

  Disappointed

  1 year ago

  It is disappointing that in their hunt for a sensationalist story, Sky has neglected a rather important issue, namely that of civil liberties and "thought policing." As distasteful as we may find this, I really don't the state has any business sticking its nose into virtual or fictional activity by consenting adults, nor does it have the right to judge people based on what they *might* do. As the saying goes, "I may not like what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it."
  
  Protecting real kids is indeed extremely important - but insofar as we are in the realm of thoughts and not acts, so are civil liberties.
  
  p.s. Shouldn't limited UK police resources be spent on protecting and helping *real* kids?
  reply
• 

  Bliss Crimson

  1 year ago

  Well I think this is a slippery slope. Going after people for PRETENDING to be doing something, role playing, or simulated things that offend others or are illegal in "real life" What with games like Grand Theft Auto and the like where people are "pretending" and "simulating" gun play and violence left and right in your basic video/computer games, what next, hauling in somebody for murder because their avatar goes about shooting or slashing their way through rivers of pixel created flesh and gore?
  
  No real children are harmed or are even involved in age play between consenting ADULTS, so I think this is just a lot of sensationalized hogwash used to drum up hysterial and witch hunt style persecutions so certain peoples can get gains either by selling news bites or get political brownie points by making themselves "tough on" whatever is the pet sensation of the week.
  
  If people want to go after people who abuse REAL children, go do that. Nosing into private activities between consenting ADULTS, even if they are pretending to be anything from muppets to moppets is just a control freak streak by those who'd rather waste time on persecuting FANTASY role play than doing real stuff about real life problems. Better thier time be spent fighting poverty and real life children in need who could use food, education, health care, and futures, instead of untold dollars spent trying to keep Jonnie Q from poking his pixel privates from Susie Q's pixel naughty places, when the players of both Joniee and Susie are real life grown adults.
  
  Is Second Life now gonna arrest and ban avatars who decide to wear a "fantasy school girl" style costume, a' la pleated plaid skirts, mary jane shoes and knee socks, etc, to strip in or play sex games together in? Just how much thought control and elimination of creation and freedom of expression will Second Life patrons be subject to by the new "Big Brother" mindset that is rising? If I want my avi to wear pigtails and go "Oooo Daddy, give it to me" while bouncing up and down on my love interests avatar, is that going to be grounds for getting kicked out of SL? Or will it be okay if my character is obviously "grown up" because she has breasts the size of watermelons?
  
  Bliss
  reply
• 

  Nietzsche

  1 year ago

  Obvious nonsense. How can it be child pornography when it is between adults? Only an idiot would think that it is child pornography, even if it is ageplay.
  reply
• 

  Annabel

  1 year ago

  People should just mind their own business. I think all the trouble in this world is caused by the corporate governmedia and people who can't help but stick their noses into other people's private lives.
  reply