Attorney General Ashcroft was unhappy with the Supremes' opinion. Apparently he's alarmed by the realism of characters generated by programs like Poser, and the potential for abuse. What was alarming to me was his stated desire to go after software, as opposed to individuals who use it to commit crimes. I doubt if he would succeed in anything so fascistic as trying to make art software illegal or restricted. I've seen images made with Poser that made me uncomfortable, usually the result of differences between acceptable ages of depiction between other countries and my own, but what I haven't seen is what I would consider to be actual Poser-generated kid porn. Perhaps it's out there, but I doubt if you'd come across it without actually looking for it. I'm not crazy about artists who obsessively depict topless "faeries" that appear to be children, but I don't think that most of them intend to be grotesque or abusive at all. Just a difference of values. (I hope.) That sort of not-sexual-but-naked thing is all about perceptions, for which there will never be a perfect consensus. The debate about what's porn and what isn't goes 'round and 'round, and I for one don't pretend to have the answers. However, I have great faith in common sense. In other words, if you aren't fully confident that something you render or something you look at isn't abusive or pornographic in the morally and legally wrong sorts of ways, then stay the heck away. Most of us "know porn when we see it." Yes, that's exceedingly fuzzy, but again, common sense. In my opinion standards like those right here at Rosity are a good guide, especially as regards what is put out for public viewing. Staying away from the "gray areas," if you're inclined to venture there, could only be prudent.