The fact that a millionair who was sent through a popularity contest paid for by billionairs, makes a rule for a group of special interests, or based on his own moral judgment, does not make that "Rule of Law" right. Claiming that Virtual Child Porn harms kids has no basis in fact. There has been NO study on kids who weren't hurt because pedofiles looked at virtual porn, and there for no numbers by wich to judge the non-detrimental effects. "If they expose themselves to pictures of <<>> it tends to create the impression that such activity is somehow "normal" and maybe even acceptable." This has been the excuse for a "moral" minority to force their will over groups for ages. Almost the exact same wording was used to condem Rock and Roll, Liberalism and Conservitism, and just about every religion, or lifestyle ever created. There is a very fine line between prtotection and persicusion. This is just the latest in a pattern of trying to censor the free speech of Americans. If a childs picture is "Morphed" to make it appear that child is in a sexual situation a CHILD is still used for the picture. In my opinion that is STILL hurting a child. If an adult is morphed to look like a child, it's still a consenting adult. No one thinks Andy Serkis is actually an evil creature who eat's fish and is obsessed with a ring because he was MORPHED into Golum. If the content is ALL 3D, the only person insvolved is the artist. No one was harmed in the creation of the art in any way. It's STILL not illegal have thoughts. Even bad ones. It's action that should be illegal. One of the links you posted mentions the "Slippery Slope", and points out that it exists on both sides of the issue. However it misses one important part of the argument. While every child has 2 parents somewhere who should be protecting them, we have no protection FROM the Law. As is stands now there are so many laws that it is immpossible to enforce them all. When law in any way becomes selectable enforcable, it becomes unjust. This "LAW" has tried, convicted and sentanced all of us because something we MIGHT do, might be misused. It's all fine and good to claim that you're protecting children, but are you? And at what cost? We might very well live long safe lives if we were rendered incapable of having bad thoughts, but would it be a life worth living? All these modern laws to "Protect Children" are making a world where ALL OF US only have the rights afforded to children. "Protect the Children" is the new sound bite to make anything they want to shove down your throat sound acceptable. After who (besides possibly me) would take the side of "NOT protecting the children?" Politic has become a game of social engeneering disguised as "democracy", and the law is the tool used by the government to control the people they should be "by, of, and for." In R'osity's defence, I can see why they would have no choice but implement such a rule. THey simply can't afford to be attacked even if they were opposed to it. It's our fault this happened for letting elitist bastard run our lives and make these irresponsible laws in the first place.