I don't know a whole lot about this issue just yet, but apparently Congress is passing new laws regarding nudity on websites, to include cartoons and digitally altered images, and tho the brief paragraph about it that I'm including here seems to pertain more to adult websites, where does Renderosity (and sites like it) fall into it? R'osity is still considered adult by certain people. "The U.S. Department of Justice and the adult entertainment industry reached an agreement Thursday that gives many Internet sites more time to comply with strict federal guidelines over record-keeping on adult images. According to the Free Speech Coalition (FSC), which represents many adult sites, the broad record-keeping law, known as 18 U.S.C. 2257, will not be fully enforced until Sept. 7. The agreement applies to all members of the FSC, which filed suit to block enforcement of the law last week. A preliminary injunction hearing has been scheduled for Aug. 8 in a U.S. District Court in Denver. The Justice Department, however, reserves the right to inspect and prosecute any site that is not a plaintiff in the case or a member of the FSC." Not trying to start a ruccus, just wondering if anyone knows any more about it. E.D.

What exactly is this new law. Are the US trying to ban ALL nudity on ALL wesbites? How on earth are they going to apply that across borders?

Attached Link: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

Record keeping??? Are they trying to start a database of subscribers to porn sites? Here is a link on the details of the law

Message edited on: 06/27/2005 16:05

gad..that would only leave sports and Star Trek sites..;) The paragraph doesn't really say much in the way of what they mean. Most of those sites, as I understand, just pass you on to other sites that pass you on to other sites..that oughta keep them confused enough..;)

What the link says is that you gotta keep records that prove that your performers are of legal age.

It's not going to affect this website at all. It specifically states in the documentation, "images depicting sexually explicit conduct". This means, basically, porn. This website only shows nudity at best (and nothing explicit), and most of it is CG rendered, and that law only applies to photographs. It requires anyone showing images of a sexually explicit nature to have identification (proof of age) of the models on record, which could possibly become subjected to inspection by the Justice Department. Rosity has nothing to worry about with this law. Perhaps there are some nude photos here, but tasteful artistic nudity doesn't fall under those guidlines it seems.

It seems like this law is really just ensuring that everybody who's 'depicted' in nude images has proof that they're adults. but there are parts that seem to lead away from '18 u.s.c. 2257' where even digital images and cartoons need proof of identity that they're legal adult cartoon people....????? E.D.

It's not about simple nude pics. It's about actual sexually explicit activity. Nowhere does it state simple nudity.

"...Perhaps there are some nude photos here, but tasteful artistic nudity doesn't fall under those guidlines it seems." it depends on whose looking at them patrick. that's the problem. E.D.

gad..that would only leave sports and Star Trek sites..;)

Depends upon the sport ... and whether the Trek site featured green Orion slave girls, 7 of 9, or Catholic High School Vulcans In Trouble.

"Sexually explicit' is a definition with a LOT of leeway. It depends a lot on the beholder and the 'political/religious' perspective of the society of the day. "Simple nudity' in some cases will fall into the forbidden class if some politions/religious extremists get their way :( So don't think it's not something to worry about, that it doesn't effect you..it COULD in the future.
"A NAKED Vicky in a Temple with a SWORD ??? .... Oooooo...THAT just HAS to have sexualy explicit overtones..Ban it, quick !"

Message edited on: 06/27/2005 16:50

Message edited on: 06/27/2005 16:51

That's true (about sexual explicit in the eye of beholder).

Simply put, for now, if you have nude images of someone on your website you better make damn sure you have the proper paperwork in order (proving their age) and a record custodian who can be reached easily. The responsibility for those records falls on the "producer" of the content, those who actually made it (took the pics, shot the movie, etc). A contact number/address for that record custodian must be provided on the website. How it will (if at all) affect 3D erotic art or rendered images depicting "simple nude" characters remains to be seen. As long as the erotic 3D art communities continue to police themselves as effectively as they do now there should be no problems, but you know how that goes. As long as nude characters look of legal age (over the age of 18 for content on U.S. servers) I can't see that the issue could even be challenged. The courts: Do you have a birth certificate or proof of identity for her? The webmaster or artist: Why yes, it's stored at Daz, the creator of the Victoria 3 character in question. Here's their 800 number.... ;)

The nudity thing isn't a problem....................... yet. But here's something even more obsurd to take it's place: Late last week. The US government, in it's wisdome, declared that the local town or city governments can take your land away from you. Even if you own it outright. They are required to buy you out(at a significantly reduced price) before booting your *ss out into the street. So if a developer comes along and promises they can build on your land and generate more tax revenue than your home does...You're history. And the home........of the......Brave......................... Play ball!

I hear you Scott, that law sucks and scares the hell out of me. Marque

Ben_Dover, whose name leads to certain assumptions, you seem to know your stuff about this. Yes, a record custodian with records pertaining to age (etc.) and explicit means of contact is a requirement for this stuff. I haven't worked in the industry directly, only as a consultant in creating titling, intro video, and print packaging for such an endeavor.

Ok, Before everybody dons their tin-foil hat, 18 U.S.C. 2257 is in reference to commercial porn sites. Porn actors and actresses are supposed to sign a modeling/acting agreement stating that they are at least 18 years old, thus legal to be photographed/protrayed in a sexual manner here in the US. What it seems the article is trying to state, is that there is going to be more stringent record-keeping for these sites to cover their a$$es, to prevent underage performers from being depicted. This is good, as I have seen several "barely 18" sites that look suspiciously like a cover for underage models in the 14-18 range. NO, I DO NOT GET OFF ON THAT!! I just happened to stumble upon a few of the teenie sites while surfing for pics of real, large-breasted naked women in a temple with a sword or other war implements. -The Starkdog

ScottA,

I'd give Bush/Republicans/lobbyists/Oil-magnates another, ohhhh, three years to completely demolish the Democratic Republic of the United States of America. They're off to a wolloping good start.

Let's make a list of changes since G.W.Bush took office in 2001 that impact our Constitutional guarantees and the BofR.

Hints:

1 Faith-based anything (the US Government has no right supporting or not any or all religions).

2 The PATRIOT Act (that's about twenty right there).

3 The Terri Shiavo law - I have no more to say on this farce.

4 Display of religious tenets or icons (T.C.) - see 1.

5 "In God We Trust" and "under God" challenge brouhaha - see 1.

6 Secured pipeline through Afghanistan and control of Iraqi oil fields - Bush wealth grows as the masses pay two to three times the cost for oil and gasoline.

7 Local, state, and federal land grabs for private enterprise.

8 Opening of protected lands to drilling.

9 There are no signs of global warming (to the government officials, only to scientists around the world studying it).

10 Leave no child behind by cutting public school funding, offering religious(see 1. again)/private school vouchers, and going to war.

11 Anything that Ashcroft did.

1. "Defense of Marriage Amendment"

2. Law against burning flag (we'll see about this one - it has been proposed many times in the House but has never passed the Senate).

...

Even if Japan were still under the God Emperor, Feudal, and had Samurai classes, I'd opt for that other than this deceiptful crap. They're pulling the wools over your eyes. The US government, except in exceptional "national security" instances, is supposed to be transparent and fully accountable to the people. This is no longer the case - very bad things to come.

Message edited on: 06/27/2005 17:42

That's pretty much always been the case Scott. At least around here. But they usually use more community-friendly tactics. Not too long ago the county next to mine took a woman's house and land to build a school, even tho there are already too many schools in the area. Most people interviewed by the paper were against it. But they did it anyway. Government has always been able to take your land if they deem it necessary to build something like military bases, housing, or a new highway. They offer to buy it from you but if you decline they just take it anyway. Allowing commercial businesses to do the same thing sounds like republicans at their best. My parents have said for years this is becoming a "little russia."
Oh, and Ronald Regan was just deemed the Greatest Amerikan in history.

(I don't like democrats either, fyi)

E.D. Dang, the edits

Message edited on: 06/27/2005 17:47

Message edited on: 06/27/2005 17:47

Message edited on: 06/27/2005 17:50

Bookmarking this one. 8 ) Tom

"Late last week. The US government, in it's wisdome, declared that the local town or city governments can take your land away from you. Even if you own it outright. They are required to buy you out(at a significantly reduced price) before booting your *ss out into the street." Ever wonder how the Native Americans felt? Now's yr chance to find out....that new superhighway might lead to yr new life on a reservation. Unless, of course, yr a Bush.

ED, I have to take it that there was some B.S. going on. Reagan better than George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Benjamin Franklin (the greatest - he did more for this country than they even started to list, but then most of these young people today are idiots who have no knowledge of history)? Not even in my worst nightmare!

Here's a link to a quick overview of Ben's Accomplishments

Name one other person in ALL of history with this list and he/she can be the Greatest American instead (no matter time period or nationality).

ETA: Not to mention that he sat on the Continental Congress and helped draft the "Declaration of Independence" and was part of the delegation drafting the "Articles of Confederation" and "Constitution"! ;)

Message edited on: 06/27/2005 18:29

Attached Link: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

Requirement for Record Keeping doesn't seem to apply to illustration and animation, unless you used photos of real people (for maps for example maybe?)

---

"Record keeping requirements"
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > 2257 (h)(3)

" does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted;"

• USC citings from from Cornell Univ. Law School site:
  http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

---

Wording also appears to exclude "Distributors" (as opposed to "Producers") and therefore site operators would only seem to be responsibe for record keeping on content they themselves have produced.

Bookmarking to see how long until it's locked...

Quoted by ExistentialDisorder: "Government has always been able to take your land if they deem it necessary to build something like military bases, housing, or a new highway."

You're absolutely correct. It's called the "Law of Eminent Domain" and has been exercised extensively in the US for many years. The bad part also is that county Governments can also use it and it's been used in underhanded ways by developers with deep pockets.

Here is a description and the link...

"In United States law, eminent domain is the power of the state to appropriate private property for its own use without the owner's consent. In England and Wales, and other jurisdictions that follow the principles of English law, the related term compulsory purchase is used. Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale. In many jurisdictions the power of eminent domain is tempered with a right that just compensation be made for the appropriation.

In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and requires that "public purpose" of the property be demonstrated. Over the years the definition of "public purpose" has expanded to include economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of generating more tax revenue for the local government. [1] (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/civil_rights/public_use_corporate_abuse.php) Critics contend this perverts the intent of eminent domain law and tramples personal property rights. On Thursday June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 ruling against Connecticut residents, that local governments may seize private property for economic development."

As for the policing of websites they hsve been trying to control the internet for years. Unfortunately, I see it happening to a degree and I'm not too surprised by anything they do. Those who aren't commercial but depict underage nudes, bestiality and BDSM will be scrutinized also. They had better have their i's dotted and their t's crossed. How it will work for sites hosted outside of the US-I suspect they will have no control over that. We don't own the world. :-) But I see more control coming in a variety of ways. It's been in the works for a long time and while we have been fiddling, Rome (example) has been warming up if not burning. The really sad part is the internet policing is just a drop in the bucket I'm afraid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

Edited for spelling

Message edited on: 06/27/2005 18:54

Message edited on: 06/27/2005 18:55

and making a surprise reappearance, the OT Forum..;) Hmm.. to be honest, Angelique Pettyjohn (the girl in the TOS episode about the Gamesters of Triskelion) wound up in 'the business'. T'pol posed for one of thoese 'lads' magazines. Aside from that..I don't think it got much heavier than 'decontamination gel'..;) ah well..;)

"We don't own the world. :-)" True, but I've heard it said -- and have yet to see the theory contradicted -- America suffers from the weird delusion that they own the Internet, hence, it's their God-given Right to control anything & everything on it. Sad, wot? Now who wants popcorn?

Would still rather live here than any other country. Marque

Here's a hypothetical for ya. Renderosity isn't an "adult" site a.f.a.i.k. In fact direct links to adult sites are forbidden in the Renderosity forums. Does that paragraph (in the first post in this thread, if you can remember back that far) mean that Renderosity could be designated an adult site, and would that mean that the site could have no links to itself? OK...kidding ;)

Anything is possible - in America.

Technically speaking, r'osity could in fact be deemed an adult site because of its content. Any site that displays nudity in any form could technically be considered an adult site, and therefore be subjected to laws passed by congress to censor nudity. Can you browse the galleries here in a high school library or in your office without risking getting caught and questioned? Yes, anything IS possible in Amerika. E.D.

In the last election (remember it?), 80% of voters between the ages 18 and 25 said they would not vote for George Bush, while 80% of voters over the age of 65 said they would vote for George Bush. Unfortunately, only 17% of voters between the ages 18 and 25 bothered to vote, while almost 100% of those over 65 did vote. You get the government you deserve!

I have to envy you guys. If I had said any of these things I see in the above messages, I would have been banned by now, due to the arbitrary and capricious way they go after members here ;-) (Hey, just kidding - I know all the mods bend over backwards to be fair and tolerant). But I'm not aware of any photos of nude men/women here. Maybe there are some, but I doubt it. So I seriously doubt this law can have any effect on this site. So I hope they don't lose any sleep over this.

Last night when Bush was named #6 in the 50 greatest americans list (which I too feel was a biased list for the most part), you could hear most everyone in the audience booing him. Does anyone remember the commercial that ran a few years back about censorship where the guy -proly a college kid - walks up to the librarian's desk to check out a book, and when she sees the title she just gives him this cold 'you should know better' stare and calls in the guards who haul the kid off in handcuffs while he's trying to explain his reasoning for wanting that book. As absurd as that whole scenario seems it is exactly what this country is coming to. The seizing of our homes and land ties into all of it as well. Take their homes to build our business complexes, force them to live crammed in high-rise acropolises that the average citizen can't afford, which in tern causes them to become homeless. We can feed off the homeless by offering them jobs in our factories that sit on the land they use to own, and let them live in low-income housing that breeds little more than crime and disease. Have any of you ever read 1984, or the Animal Farm? Its all coming, and most of us are young enough to see it happen in our very near future. But we do nothing to stop it because we're too busy worrying about who britney spears is bangin this week. ...And to think, we actually have the nerve to invade other countries with weak-assed attempts at establishing government all under the guise of liberation. Who exactly is it liberating? Anyway... It was not my itention to start all of this. I just wanted more info on the law issue. I'm sure someone will be coming along to lock this soon. E.D.

Here is another little tid-bit Back in the 1800's when the goverment was taking the Native Americans land, they were kind enough to send blankets to a group of Native Americans (I don't remember where Utah, Nevada ??) the blankets were laced with small pox. I once heard a poem I realkly liked The white man came with the bible To touch the heathen hand Now the redmans got the bible And he white mans got his land

Folks really, really need to read up on things before they panic.

• xxxlaw - J. D. Obenberger and Associates
• Free Speech Coalition Newsletter 1-16-04

 Title 18, section 2257 sucks and is bad law - but it isn't "new" and it certainly isn't as draconian as some are making it sound. Read the analysis for yourself, because I am not a lawyer, but here is the gist:

• Real humans depicted in real, sexually explicit acts need to be backed by a fairly extensive record keeping program
• The same records must be kepr by "primary" and "secondary" producers. That means even if you didn't take the pictures / video but only publish it on a web site, you need all the same info as the photographer.
• "simple distribution" isn't covered (so fedex and UPS are not part of this)
• Simple nudity is >not< covered.
• Cartoons, text, 3D images and so on are >not< covered.
• Simulated sex is >specifically not< covered. This is here specifically so that R-Rated motion pictures are nto involved. You can pretend to be doing the nasty (moving about under covers, or hidden by camera angles.

Now on to some specific comments...

"The responsibility for those records falls on the "producer" of the content, those who actually made it (took the pics, shot the movie, etc). A contact number/address for that record custodian must be provided on the website."

This is kind of misleading. It is currently NOT sufficient to refer the record issues to the original producer. Secondary producers must keep duplicate records on their own premises.

"How it will (if at all) affect 3D erotic art or rendered images depicting "simple nude" characters remains to be seen."

The AG guidelines (what changed) for Title 18, section 2257 >specifically< limits itself to actual humans.

"It imposes no obligations on producers of material that does not include actual, sexually explicit conduct. Thus, there is no obligation under this provision regarding graphic representations of mere erotic nudity or of simulated sex. But it does cover the waterfront of actual, sexual conduct: It includes all varieties of sexual intercourse, vaginal, anal, or oral, straight or gay, and bestiality, masturbation, and sadistic or masochistic abuse. The determination of whether the act applies to images that do not clearly display penetration or the other covered activities is simple: If it was really going on, the Section applies, even if the actual sexual conduct can't be seen in the image, due to obscuring, covering, or any other reason. (There are compelling and eminently practical reasons why that the wise content provider should harvest identity documents and information in every graphic depiction of erotic nudity whether, strictly speaking, required by the Statute, or not, and should maintain them as though covered by the Statute.)" - qouting from XXXLaw.net

Another common error...

"Wording also appears to exclude "Distributors" (as opposed to "Producers") and therefore site operators would only seem to be responsibe for record keeping on content they themselves have produced."

I suggest you read up on the "secondary producers" component... taken as a whole with the other definition in the statute it absolutely does include people who do not take the images but do arrange to display them. Don't take too much heart from the "commercial distribution" aspect, it is often interpreted in an extremely broad way.

" (2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for
commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual
sexually explicit conduct" - quote from the law

On other topics...

*"Late last week. The US government, in it's wisdome, declared that the local town or city governments can take your land away from you. Even if you own it outright. They are required to buy you out(at a significantly reduced price) before booting your ss out into the street."

This has been true for a long, long time. The recent ruling only >slightly< expanded these powers.

"Here is another little tid-bit.. (insert Native America sob story here"

Why, exactly, should this be something I need to consider? I didn't do it. No one alive today (that I know of) did it, and the sane among us refuse to carry the guilt of the sins of our fathers.

"But I'm not aware of any photos of nude men/women here. Maybe there are some, but I doubt it." There are many in the Photography gallery here. Some are quite well done I might add. Tom

Why, exactly, should this be something I need to consider? I didn't do it. No one alive today (that I know of) did it, and the sane among us refuse to carry the guilt of the sins of our fathers. And do you also refuse to do or say anything about today's atrocities? It isn't just about doing. It's also about not doing. It isn't just about then. It's about now. (But all this free expression -- er, I mean irresponsible expression -- has got to end soon ... where's the padlock?)

Someone said "tasteful artistic nudity" Too funny. Awful lot of untasteful stuff here too, don't kid yourself, look around. Looks like the internet is finally getting a work over and a swift boot by more laws and lots of restrictions. Last great frontier of freedom gone. Who do we blame for it all getting so out of hand but just one too many big boobs. LOL!

Of course America owns the Internet. Don't all of you remember ex VP Al Gore stating that he "invented the Internet"? At least I got in before this thread's locked... -scara

And do you also refuse to do or say anything about today's atrocities?

Nope, I comment on them fairly often. I jsut doubt we agree on what they are, or who is responsible :)

no comment that's a first

The law is not new, it's just not being enforced until recently. It is a 2 edged sword, it will protect the legitimate adult porn sites who are doing the correct record keeping by having the records on hand and it will discourage other porn sites that steal other peoples porn (you down wit O.P.P.?) from being in business. 10 years in prison per offense if you can't prove the documentation. The problem is not the law, and most legitimate porn sites are not concerned about this law, what they are concerned about is this: The government is putting the squeeze on the credit card companies who are in turn putting the squeeze on merchant processing companies to re-evaluate their clients and to not accept new porn sites. Being the owner of an erotic art site myself, the company that I deal with has been told that their merchant processing processing company was pulling down several of the sites under their umbrella. So, there it is. Try getting a mechant company to do your credit card processing for an adult site, you'll be in a world of hurt. Davo "been there, done that" Rama

As the initial poster saw how this law might affect Renderosity and other sites like it, I'm not locking this thread. HOWEVER, no personal attacks, no attacks on political parties, religions, etc, etc....you all know the drill. Basically, play nice, and the thread can stay, as the original poster obviously saw something that could affect us, even if it's down the road. MorriganShadow Poser Moderator

Don't all of you remember ex VP Al Gore stating that he "invented the Internet"? Only thing is, he never really said that.

Thanks Morrigan. I have no problem with any laws that require adult sites to furnish solid proof of legal age for all the models in their site content. Nor do I have any problem with another issue that's recently been addressed (or readdressed, as it may or may not have come up before) regarding all adult-oriented web sites to switch to .xxx domains. I think it could be a good thing for everbody involved. Just on the surface I can see where it would take some of the pressure off those who run adult sites, and it would make blocking those domains from children a lot easier. Its a whole lot easier to block an address that ends in .xxx than it is to try and filter every bit of wording and content for the slight possibility that it might have something remotely adult hidden in it somewhere, not to mention trying to filter all the clever respellings and hyphonating of words that could suggest adult content. What I have a problem with tho is that these laws are being passed left and right regarding adult content when what IS and what is NOT adult content has never truly been 100% determined and agreed on by everybody. So as it stands currently, the claim is it doesn't affect digital art and tasteful nudity, etc etc. Maybe not at the moment. But let somebody like Tipper Gore log onto a site like R'osity and browse just a few images in wolf359's gallery (no offense wolf), and they'd be wanting the entire place shut down and/or moved to one of those .xxx domains yesterday. Then you have the concept of child nudity vs art, in an era where anime is extremely popular and in the face most all anime characters look no older than 15. My earlier comments, about mid-way up the thread were more in regards to other issues posters here brought up. When you see a wasp's nest hanging in the tree in your neighbors yard, big enough to see from your porch do you say, "not in my yard, not my problem."? E.D.

Attached Link: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet. Status: False. Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part): During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. ---------------------- More at the link provided. Al Gore did make a joke of the "invented the internet" thing later, though, particularly in an interview he did for Slashdot, of all places. bonni

Eh, I don't think I'll have any problem, my 3D "performer", AltaWoman(the mystic superheroine from the Alta dimension) is over two centuries old!!! But of course she doesn't look a day over 100 ;) Let 'em try and nail me on THAT one! Big Brother is becoming a paranoid delusional wimp!

Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet. > Status: False. Good for you, bonni. And anyone who's looked into it will tell you Gore most definitely was one of the primary movers in Washington when it came to the Internet. He was supporting the funding and the commercialization of the Internet when the majority of Americans didn't know there was such a thing. And, in fact, as we know it today, there wasn't. Gore was once the most visible, most prominent and most outspoken leader in Congress on Internet issues like data transmission and computing power, and those efforts certainly played a very important role in helping to create the Internet we know today. Now if we could just get certain unspecified folks to recognize all the other lies they're being told on a daily basis ...

Here is another little tid-bit Back in the 1800's when the goverment was taking the Native Americans land, they were kind enough to send blankets to a group of Native Americans (I don't remember where Utah, Nevada ??) the blankets were laced with small pox. I couldn't resist jumping into the fray... It was in the 1760s and it was the British who did it to the Cherokee of the lower Tennessee towns. It was done after that as well, but this was probably the first use of the method. Sorry...History nut....

Sorry, History Nut, you have to give some proof of that for I've recently learned that that is a myth started in the early '90's by none other than Ward Churchill. People wanted to believe it so they did and managed to 'discover' many cases through conjecture. Google it. And I'd just like to point out that all citizens in America, that includes Bush supporters and Bush haters, are upset with the latest eminent domain issue. It's a totally bi-partisan reaction. However, I also must point out, that the decision has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush or anyone in our elected government. It was the liberal judges on the Supreme Court. One can 'blame' a lot of things on Bush, but this isn't one of them.

Message edited on: 06/28/2005 00:54