L I think it'sbecause emoticon's don't have cheeks... hmm... :^(P) that doesn't work. Ahh well. 'If the final result was put to use to have you in a sex act with an animal or a president or something truly despicable would that be ok too?' Actually, I'd probably laugh my arse off and put it up on my website if I found that someone did that. Especially if it was a small rodent. But I've been told I have a twisted sense of humour. 'if you were very anti-drugs and it showed you with a bong would you be ok with that' Doubly so, and it would behoove the art community to poke fun at me ni such circumstances, at least if I were in the pubilc eye. Such are the fortunes of fame. I'm sure Renderosity wouldn't allow it up, but someone would somewhere. 'Womens rights activist and the image portrayed you raping someone' That's illegal for an entirely different reason, if I'm not mistaken. If it was done in a nonpornographic way, then it wuold probably be okay. But then, having a POV like mine makes it rather impossible that I could be a women's rights activist or an anti-drug activist. Government thing... I see the US government in the following light: You order a bowl of soup at a restaurant. It comes with not just one, but twelve flies in various stages of death walliging about in it. You tell the waiter you don't want it and he informs you that it's the soup everyone gets and you stil have to pay for it. You say, 'screw this, I'm not paying for something I didn't order' so they lock you in the walk-in until you agree to not only pay for the soup, but also for the meals (and a Budweiser) of a welfare mother with seventeen kids sitting over in the smoking section. If you agree and finally get let out of the walk-in, you're asked for ID every time you get up to use the john whether or not you've ordered anything alcoholic to drink. IF you drop your fork, you can't have another one. Why not just go to another restaurant? Because there are only three restaurants on this island, and since you accidentally went to this one first, one of the others won't have you and the other will abuse you because you were here. 'Waiter, this government is not what I ordered, I'd like you to take it back and either fix it or take it off my bill.' Yeah, you could say that in a perfect world. The US Constitution -- that was this piece of paper with soe words written on it that was once used to determine the rest of the laws, long, long ago -- provides no one with the right to privacy. It's not in there. The closest there is is that you can't have your home, your person, or a locked metal box searched without a judge first deciding that there's a good enough excuse. The very fact that we have laws that protect the average Joe is a privilege, and one that I don't feel is consistent with fame. Now, there is a circumstance in which smeone famous should be entitled to the privilege of privacy, I think -- washed-up stars should be allowed to resume a normal, private life. People should be allowed to reject celebrity status if they stumble into it, too. If you save someone from a burning building you should have the right to refuse interviews and avoid the public eye. But someone who deliberately bases their career around being famous should take the good with the bad, even if that means digitally manipulated photos of them in a cmopromising situation with aCassowary and the president. It should be noted that in the US it goes both ways -- not only should being famous put you in the clear to be ridiculed by people making pictures of you having sex with the president, but having sex with the president apparently will also make you famous.