Occasionally, the decisions of Linden Lab make you scratch your head. For example, take the decision by Iridium Linden that a huge statue of a naked woman wasn't allowed in a PG sim because it had nipples.
This simply shows how the catch-all definition of PG in the Second Life terms of service is silly -
"Content, communication, or behavior which involves intense language or expletives, nudity or sexual content, the depiction of sex or violence, or anything else broadly offensive must be contained within private land in areas rated Mature (M). Names of Residents, objects, places and groups are broadly viewable in Second Life directories and on the Second Life website, and must adhere to PG guidelines."
From my office window, I can see a nude statue of a naked woman. It happens to be situated in one of the most heavily-visited areas of London, and is seen by thousands of children under the age of 16 every day.
Yet, were a model of it to be displayed in Second Life, it could not be placed in a zone which is only seen by people over 18 - for, let's not forget, PG zones on the main grid are still only accessible by over 18's. Anyone younger should be on the teen grid - something that the person appointed by Linden Lab to organise Burning Life should know, given that evidence points to him having been on the main grid for the past two years, despite being under age for much of that time.
This situation - something perfectly legal in real life everywhere outside of Iran being illegal in Second Life - is, of course, irrational and absurd. While Linden Lab is desperately trying to avoid giving people hard and fast rules over their conduct (hence the catch-all "broadly offensive"), it is sticking to hard and fast rules about nudity in PG sims.
Clearly, the "nudity" clause is intended to cover avatar behaviour, rather than statues. In failing to take this into account, Linden Lab is turning its law into an ass.
