Sex, murder, and children: A debatable topic of a nexus rule.

[themohawkninja]

DISCLAIMER: I in no way am interested in downloading the theoretical mods stated below. This discussion is only harbored out of confusion regarding a certain nexus ruling for mods.

 

 

 

Hello,

 

So, as my character in Skyrim is a devoute follower of Mephala, I felt that it would be sensible to go out and download both mods to increase the effect of mudering someone (which resulted in the Gore and Mutilation mod along with EBT), and sex (which briefly resulted in Animated Prostitution, until skeleton conflicts arose).

 

Now, when one goes through the AP mod's description, the modder explicitly states that rape is not allowed due to nexus rules, and pedophelia probably is as well (implied, but not explicitly stated).

 

Now, it got me wondering why these aren't allowed. If we can kill people, and mods are allowed to kill kids, and mods are allowed to have sex with people, why not just go the one step further with children? Morality clearly can't be the reason, as killing children surely wouldn't be allowed, and I doubt legality is either, because I can cite precident from a 2002 Supreme Court ruling that overturned a 1996 ban on possession of virtual pornography depicting underage children on the grounds of nobody actually getting harmed [1].

 

As for the explicitly known ruling of rape, I become more confused, as in the AP mod itself, you can use an intimidate check to have sex with someone. In many developed nations, sex by intimidation is defined as rape, so why (presumably) the "classical" definition of rape isn't allowed, and yet more... how one might say... "socially liberal" definitions of rape are allowed for mods is beyond me. Again, I would argue that morality can't be the cause, as I doubt the moderators would let intimidation-based sex (if not also possibly the whole concept of prostitution itself) be allowed if the reason was for morality, and as for legality, I once again point to the ruling of the aforementioned court case.

 

Therefore I inquire as to the logic being used to define these rules. While it may be easy for one to say "no rape or underage sex", as such a ban is commonplace in modern society. When one takes into account the fact that this is a video game where nobody is actually getting hurt, and certain aspects of mods seem to contradict the nexus ruiling, such a ruiling stops seeming intrinsically sensible.

 

SOURCES:

 

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

Edited July 28, 2015 by themohawkninja

[Lisnpuppy]

It is not just against the Nexus Rules showing rape, pedophilia, etc is against the LAW in both the UK and the US. So it isn't Nexus being silly it is the law.

[themohawkninja]

It is not just against the Nexus Rules showing rape, pedophilia, etc is against the LAW in both the UK and the US. So it isn't Nexus being silly it is the law.

 

I cited a ruiling that would say otherwise.

[TheVampireDante]

UK hosted site - US law is overruled.

 

Despite the legal issues of such content, common decency and morality should step in and make anyone question the creation and use of something like a mod that allows such a disgusting premise.

[themohawkninja]

UK hosted site - US law is overruled.

 

Despite the legal issues of such content, common decency and morality should step in and make anyone question the creation and use of something like a mod taht allows such.

 

Fair enough about the legality, but then why allow killable children if morality is of concern?

[TheVampireDante]

The majority of people I've spoken to directly that use a "killable children" style mod - use for so that kids have the same chance to die by the means the adults in the game do. To take Skyrim as an example: Dragon attacks.

 

Entire settlement gets torched and torn up by a Dragon - Adult NPC's lie dead everywhere - but right there, breaking your immersion in the scene, is a bunch of immortal kids. The use of such a mod sets a more believable scene, as it's unlikely a Dragon is going to spare anyone. Same goes for bandit raids, animal attacks, the vampire/undead attacks on towns and other likewise events.

 

Basically it's for creating a more immersive and exciting world - not for the player to go around on a child murder spree (but yes - there have been some that do this, law of averages).

 

I've had players explaining how they've been in the middle of a civil war battle, only to see a child NPC getting attacked, and having their character either take the blow themselves, or set about killing the attacker directly to stop it.

[LadyMilla]

The case is not so clear-cut as the OP would believe. I would also cite this article:

 

http://io9.com/5272107/manga-collection-ruled-child-pornography-by-us-court

 

And the related law:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A

 

Plus:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

 

So, in order to benefit from the Ashcoft vs Free Speech Colation ruling, the virtual depiction of children engaged in sexual activity should not be considered "obscene" (based on the Miller test).

[JimboUK]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prohibited_images_of_children/ UK law reguarding computer generated images.

[themohawkninja]

The case is not so clear-cut as the OP would believe. I would also cite this article:

 

http://io9.com/5272107/manga-collection-ruled-child-pornography-by-us-court

 

And the related law:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A

 

Plus:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

 

So, in order to benefit from the Ashcoft vs Free Speech Colation ruling, the virtual depiction of children engaged in sexual activity should not be considered "obscene" (based on the Miller test).

Really? I mean really?

 

Wow... that just pisses me off so much. Nobody is getting hurt. It's a drawing that a government has decided needs to be protected like a real child, yet nobody cares when those same art styles depict murder?

 

Seriously, what the heck?!

Edited July 29, 2015 by themohawkninja

[HeyYou]

The government doesn't mind that you are desensitized to violence in general, but, they draw the line and inflicting harm on underage pixels......... My guess is, it's a CYA thing. instead of defining each and every possible instance of "this is bad", (leaving out the "this is *OK*, but, makes us wonder about you....) they just blanket ban everything. Makes for shorter legislation, and we know how much them folks hate to read.