StaceyG opened this issue on Mar 21, 2005 ยท 174 posts
pentamiter_beastmete posted Wed, 23 March 2005 at 7:18 AM
Just goes to show, you can't please all of the people all of the time. You want my tppence on the subject, here goes. Firstly being in the UK, we have different ideas about what constitutes what, take for instance David Hamilton's collection of Photographs, "the age of innocence" lots of sexily posed very young girls, but not pronographic, hence the allowability of such imagery. Also UK law interprets "inappropriate" images of children to be real images. If you made a child porn movie in CGi, it would be perfectly legal, just as it's legal to murder a and mame a dummy animal on a film set, but not a real one. The great idea that is often taken into account when things are placed for the public to view weter they seek to or not (ie advertising) is, would the average person believe it is real. Of course this a national policy issue which doesn't apply to rosity (being US) but I think the ideals can still be applied where they do not contraveine law. I can understand wanting to tone down on images of kiddies, but I can't understand the need to tone down the renders. Who cares if you post a naked child faerie, or alien, or whatever else. I honestly believe that "synthetic" imagery needs to be fully free of any such restrictions, otherwise a great many things could be taken in the same light. So I can't post renders of naked children, which have involved no child in their making, but a render (or probably even a photo) of a mutilated copse with blood and guts, that's ok. Basically, I think that when guidelines or policies of this nature and instigated within any community/society, they need to be formed from a view point of actual human decency, and not from issues that create general "knee-jerk" reactions from people.