{"id":540,"date":"2012-06-16T17:21:55","date_gmt":"2012-06-16T17:21:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/\/?p=540"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:26","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:26","slug":"just-age-playing-around-how-second-life-aids-and-abets-child-pornography","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/just-age-playing-around-how-second-life-aids-and-abets-child-pornography\/","title":{"rendered":"Just Age Playing Around? How Second Life Aids and Abets Child Pornography"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In 2002, <em>Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition<\/em> held that the possession, creation, or distribution of \u201cvirtual child pornography,\u201d pornography created entirely through computer graphics, was not a punishable offense because regualtion impermissibly infringed on the First Amendment right to free speech and did not harm real children. Only a few years after that decision, however, the Court\u2019s wisdom is being put to the test. A virtual world called Second Life, coupled with motion sensing technology, may provide a means for child pornographers to exploit real children while escaping detection. Second Life also provides a forum where users actively engage in sexual conduct with what appears to be a child. Thus, the Free Speech Coalition Court too narrowly construed \u201charm to a real child\u201d and failed to render a decision that would keep pace with evolving technology.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In 2002, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition held that the possession, creation, or distribution of \u201cvirtual child pornography,\u201d pornography created entirely through computer graphics, was not a punishable offense because regualtion impermissibly infringed on the First Amendment right to free speech and did not harm real children. Only a few years after that decision, however, <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/just-age-playing-around-how-second-life-aids-and-abets-child-pornography\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,25,28],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/540"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=540"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/540\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7818,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/540\/revisions\/7818"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=540"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=540"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=540"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}