"The government has announced plans to make the possession of violent porn punishable by three years in jail."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/5297600.stm

Over at Renderotica, questions must be arising regarding the content of their gallaries, many of which contain such images. The line between what is legal and illegal are yet again being called into question. While these images cause no offence to me, although I really can't see what others get out of them, our freedoms are now under another attack. The definitions of the present proposal are so unclear that 3D work could well fall under these new laws.

The whole issue to me is - telling people what they can look at, is very close to telling people what they can think, ie. thought crime. Has 1984 come a few decades late?

This is currently a UK issue, but considering the right wing, religious bent of the Bush mob, this may well become an American issue.

What do you think?

Isn't actual violent porn with real people already illegal (like rape images, etc.) I know that non of the adult stores around here sell it, not are they allowed to (no, I don't shop for it. I just know two people who own popular adult stores in my area, don't ask LOL). I don't see what the objection could be with poser images, it keeps it out of real life, but that's JMO. :-)

Sarah

actually under UK law (the Obscene Publications Act) most of Renderotica was already illegal to obtain or keep in the first place..
the Act forbids the erect male, ball gags, penetration etc from being shown... they just never actually use it that often. just the normal UK Gov 'Placebo' law...

What do you think?

It's great to finally see some goverment speak and making plans against this kind of junk. I'm hoping more goverments will start following their example. Please go for it Bush mob, since the US is on of the worlds largest polutors.

the trouble with the uk law is that it can only apply to uk sites and citizens. ...they have no jurisdiction over sites in other countries such as holland etc......the porn they talk about is already illegal in the uk....just looks like they're bringing in stiffer penilities....the premise of the new law whilst being correct, opens the door for prison sentences on any illegal porn...it also gives police the power to search your home and computer for content if they have reasonable suspision that you have it.....for instance if jane doe tells the police you into hard porn they can will be able to in theory get a search warrant and turn your house and office over....

billy

Oh shit!. was hoping to see some intelegent comments about the state of free speech in western society. NOT red-neck, knee jerks. Come on guys! Tell me the world does not who want us to confirm to these politicians'  plan!
OK! Let's all lock ourselves into littlle cages to protect ourselves from ourselves. SHIT! Has the US finally rolled over? The land of free speach etc, etc. etc. FUCK IT , if I said I was a Muslim, that would really complete the picture for you guys. Where is the America I used to love?

I thought you guys fought a war of independence to be free.  My mistake!

I'm sorry but imo there's huge difference between free speech and violent porn and releated items. I'm all for free speech, but that should now flow into harmfull, disturbing and disgusting pratices. Even free speech has it's limits, but criminal behaviour should be limited.

I support free speech. But when I think of violent porn, I think of UNWILLING porn. Girls being raped or tied up and videotaped, then sold black market. Consensual (how do you spell that? LOL) porn is A-OK with me. Even bondage porn, where the people are obviously willing participants. But that is not what I think of when "violent" porn is mentioned.

Sarah

Harmful, disturbing, disgustng  and violent = killing 200,000 women and children in Iraq since 2004. Or is it some porno 3D images? I think we need to get our lives into perspective here! Or does human life "have it's limits"?

For a nation that has every phone call, email and electronic communication monitored by its government, to say "free speech" is laughable. Get my drift?

the west hasn't had free speech since the declaration of independence and for the uk it was the magna carta. you can't have free speech in a state that is governed by laws. to think you can isn't logical. the slander law took away free speech. the racial discrimination laws took away free speech and so did many others. wars have never been fought for thr freedom of speech. you confuse that freedom with the freedom to go about ones daily life without let or hinderance. if you said you were a muslim it would make no difference.  free speech as far as free speech goes.....does not and never has, covered the right to make or buy hard porn in a state where hard porn is illegal

billy

ps.....if u say fuck it in post you're supposed to use a language tag...........and you thought speech was free lmao

Quote - The government has announced plans to make the possession of violent porn punishable by three years in jail."

Good.

And I agree with Elzoejam....when you mention violent porn, I think rape, torture, snuff....and I dont think thats what the world needs in order to be called 'free'....

Ya know, you cant even walk up to a person on the street here in Texas and curse at them without facing some jail time if they wanted to pursue it...

Freedom has limits, like it or not..it doesnt mean you can do anything you want.

Just because I don't like violent porn doesn't mean I approve of the war in Iraq. I think what is going on is shameful. Sorry if my view (also free speech) bothers you, but it is what it is. Don't bring up the free speech subject if you don't like viewpoints other than your own :-)

Sarah

you can....if you're old enough you have the right to vote. vote for the party that will allow hard porn if it gets elected.  you're government is there because theey were elected by the majority. though probably not proportionally lol.........you talk of 200.000 women and kids in the same breath as hard porn. they are two completely different arguements. ...me thinks you're trolling lol

billy

OMG. My apologies for my "FI" comment. Meanwhile, tell me that some porno pics on some obscure site stop people go about their "daily life" hindered? Tell me how your declaration of independence prevent free speech of its citizens. For a nation that sees no problem invading, occupying and killing the people other nations, I see real problem with a little 3D imaginary that never happened. Maybe it needs to be real on CNN for you to not really care.

Yes I'm trolling for some sort of IQ here. Hard core porno is rampent across the US. The vast majority of child porn originates from the US. Didn't you see your last elections rigged in critical states? The rest of the world did! Sticking a paper in a ballot box every three or four years does not absolve you of responsibility I'm afraid. If you are willing to give your freedoms away to keep you safe and warm, so be it.

Quote - OMG. My apologies for my "FI" comment. Meanwhile, tell me that some porno pics on some obscure site stop people go about their "daily life" hindered? Tell me how your declaration of independence prevent free speech of its citizens. quote]  

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

it gave those that rule the power to stop people from doing what was against the law...have you actuall read the independence speech btw.

billy

Some people obviously derive "happines" ffrom violent 3D porno images. Do you deny their right under the constitution? People see liberty as havig a right to go unhindered by governmental laws and snooping, do you deny their right? The "consent of the governed" had lead to hundreds of thousands of hard core porno sites being established in the US, the worst of which I have not seen outside US sites.

You really need to see the difference between what you stand for, freedom, tollerence, liberty etc. etc. from what you have become (just the opposite), to see how the world now views you. Come on America, I love you, Just grow up!

Alrighty then....Im a bit lost here...this thread started off with concerns over violent porn having heftier punishments in the UK, and now it has veered off into some sort of US ...killing,...invading... ....something....:blink:

Lets keep it on track folks.

Quote -
You really need to see the difference between what you stand for, freedom, tollerence, liberty etc. etc. from what you have become (just the opposite), to see how the world now views you. Come on America, I love you, Just grow up!

:-) Just give us a little time. We don't have thousands of years of experience with slavery, wars, and human cruelty on which to base our actions. After all, it didn't even take us a hundred years to figure out that slavery wasn't such a good thing.

Or maybe folks would rather judge us by the people who happen to have been elected recently.

Violent porn? Describe "EXACTLY" what they consider violent.....can they define those lines for the world? Personally what two consenting adults choose to do, or whatch for that matter concern me not in the least. What one considers violent another considers a turn on, and for the most part the dominant and the dominated are in those positions by choice.  If we are talking rape type stuff then that's another story altogether and is a crime already with or without images involved.

I would like to know why people find it okay for our governments to tell us what's safe (helmets, seatbelts) what's healthy (cigarettes) ext. These things have always bothered me that the government decides for us like children what is and isn't allowed in the way of our own personal lives. But hey what do I know I grew up without these laws and according to them I should be dead by now lol. I didn't wear helmets on my peddle bike (nor will I now I dont care what they say) I choose to wear one on the motor bike my choice and "gasp" god forbid I am a smoker!

Violent porn is a bit more touchy than helmets and such but it's the same old same old. I look forward to watching them define the lines between violent and erotic lol.

Yes , "killing," "invading" or don't you remember or care. It matters to a lot of me. Children dying from US bombs, never mind.
But lets get back to the POINT! Do you want your government to dictate to you what you can see, no real people, no real events, just 3D pixels. Do you hand over responsibility for your choises to a group that currently has <30% support of your people? How many of your decisions are you willing to hand over to them? It's an very easy path to let others make decisions for yourself. and just sit back, but every little erosion of your liberties is important.

" First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.............. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
*Pastor Martin Niemöller

Don't get me wrong, I have lived the US and loved the counrty and it 's people. It's just  incredibly sad tthat such a proud nation is giving away its frredom little by little. You should't care if  others like things which you find offencive.  Noboby is being hurt (in 3D art) and It's none of our business.

I hope I have not offended anybody. I still love the US I remember from 1980, its people and the land. I still have great hopes for the American people and what they are to become. Please don;t see my comments as anything but the ramblings of a tired and disolutioned  observer of 50 years of history. But someone who still cares enough to say something when things are going wrong.*

Quote -  I don't see what the objection could be with poser images, it keeps it out of real life, but that's JMO. :-)

Sarah

Actually, I never objected to the Poser images, just real life ones :-)

Sarah

I concur fixer. But are we to sit back and let it happen? Maybe when the Muslin phobia dies away to Asian phobia (like it used to be) or black fella phobia before this, or phobia phobia, or better still nobody phobia. Surely we don't have to let popuralist, shock jocks set the agenda. The UK used to be the home of tollerence and acceptance. My dad from Kent told me stories about how everyone was so accepting of others' strange habbits. I don't want to return to the past, just a better world. If we stop making enimies, maybe this can happen?

Under the current trend of constitutional interpretation, violent porn is constitutionally protected (unless actualviolence is involved and the models are physically injured). Digatal porn is pretty much unrestricted legally in the US.

Our "prudish" reputation is pretty much limited to the broadcast media, and other arts outsde of porn.

Thank you martian manhunter., you're right, and I'm going to bed, it's 2.25 am and the second day of Spring. The world will be little different tomorrow, but a little bit is enough for me.

couple quick things. as I understand it, over at Renderotica the decision to halt images of violence, bondage, forced sex, etc... was based on the company that manages the credit card purchases for the site said they would not provide the service at a low cost unless Rotica bent to their will. two: America is a dictomy of extremes, on TV every night (and I mean every night) you can see movies and shows that feature people being killed, murdered, injured, post rape, kidnapped, and more yet at the same time America is the most sexually repressed country in the free world (I don't count countries ruled by a religious theocracy as being free). Your video porn industry is worth billions, but it's a guilty secret, you don't want the world to know that you value sex as much as you value your SUV. You have fake violence (Pro Wrestling) real violence (COPS, Reality Police Chase Programs), manufactured violence (cop shows), but heaven forbid that you show skin. the difference between Porn and Pro Wrestling? well, Pro Wrestling has better production values and better music. Porn has better acting and more believable story lines ;-).

Quote - I have lived the US and loved the counrty and it 's people. It's just  incredibly sad tthat such a proud nation is giving away its frredom little by little. You should't care...

I'll stop quoting you there, because you've hit the nail on the head. We DON'T care. Much. About anything.

As one politically-aligned pundit, put it, America is a "TV NATION." Entertainment is all that occupies the thoughts of the average American. Politics is not entertaining, so we ignore it. Our news is produced by gigantic entertainment/defense corporations, and they tell us what they want us to "hear" (i.e. think) and most of us accept it without further processing because OMG Desperate Housewives/Monday Night Football/Surviror is on!

What happened? TV. People used to go to meetings, join lodges, talk to their neighbors, go get coffee with their friends, go bowling - you know, live their OWN lives. Now, the only activity most people regularly go to outside the home (besides school and work) is CHURCH. For those that attend, a church can comprise the whole circle of their non-work/school social life. For those that don't attend, there usually IS NO non-work/school social life. There's just the tube.

And guess what? Most curches aren't content to just let you believe whatever you want. Some even tell you that not only should you believe certain things, you should vote solely based on which politicians say they believe the same things. Since churches are the only large scale, non-business-related political organizing group here, their concerns tend to carry a lot of weight. They wouldn't if the non-church people cared, but the non-church people don't care... except about what's on TV.

If some of those pre-TV American were interested on politics because they wanted to... I don't know, protect their own freedom of speech, say... they would have found a much more open political process. Business interests have always lobbied government to get what they were after, but in years gone by, the corporations were smaller and less powerful, and so was the government they were lobbying. We haven't had anyting like the current corporate lock on our govenment since the 19th century. That was broken because captialism failed badly enough that middle-class people started to go hungry (for food, not low-cost consumer products) and because waves of immigrants disrupted the entrenched political process with the strength of their numbers. This time capitalism has its bases covered better. Anti-immigrant sentiment is a cause celebre among the middle-class, and they haven't crashed the economy so badly that John Q. Public can't afford to put McDonalds on his family's table. Yet.

American democracy has closed up like a flower in the night. Whether it will bloom again before the shears of tyranny come to cut it off remains to be seen.

BTW - I notice the proud tradition of saying "I'm all for free speech" just before you explain why you don't actually think free speech is a very good idea is alive and well in this thread. Just so I don't go toally OT, my question would be exactly what is illegal about creating violent, pornographic Poser images? No one is harmed in the process. There is no victim of the "crime." (People who are attacked by maniacs are not harmed by the production of whatever material the maniac might have been viewing at some point. They are harmed by the maniac actually attacking them, which is already illegal.) The only thing "criminal" about it is that it violates the "no violent porn" law. Shaky logic, at best.

One last thing - if there was a "no violent porn law" in the U.S. one of its most recent uses would certainly have been to prevent the circulation of the pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, which are certainly violent and sexual enough to fall under the category of "violent porn" no matter who is determining the criteria. Would that have been better for democracy? When considering what is to become law, I think one should alway assume the authorities will abuse the law to the best of their ability, and if you want to really be on the safe side, imagine you, or some cause you care about, are the one in their cross-hairs when they do so.

"First they came for Pluto, and I did not speak up because I didn't live on Pluto..."

It's the shear hypocrisy of the proposed new UK law that makes me laugh. On the one hand, you can't view or own violent sexual images but on the other hand you can go to the ciema and watch over the top violent films like Hostel for example.

Now where is the logic that says a still image of violence has more of an effect on someone than actually seeing that violence being carried out graphically in a film! Makes no sense at all!

Viewing violent and / or sexual imagery doesn't mean you will go out and act it out, you would have to have that tendency to begin with!

The whole thing is just crap!

I doubt such a law will have any effect on b-t-k enthusiasts. prosecutors may be able to use it as an add-on in cases, e.g. to augment the charges against suspects whose computers are seized during anti-terrorist sweeps. it might be more a feel-good measure by the politicians than an actual deterrent. or it might be used as a tool to force suspects to become informants in other investigations.

Any society has to review it's values every now and then. A lot of times this mechanism of review is driven by special interest pressure groups, but in reality (though those sort of people bug me) it's their democratic right to get things that offend them on the agenda - just as it is for people of the opposing view to get organised and block them (if they outnumber them or have smarter media skills - "moral highground" issues abound here also).

Any member of a democracy that doesn't actually get out there to protect their freedoms are complicit in the loss of them - signing online petitions or posting outrage to a silly forum isn't going to help - you have to go through all the boring, hard, frustrating and tedious processes of governmental representation to even begin to fight these sorts of fights.

At a guess I'd say that it would be likely that any extremist group would seek to ban ALL porn (and even sex outside the missionary position, with the lights off, then away to separate beds and guilt) - if the fight is actually about Violent Porn then that's where you focus your battle, to deliniate between stuff like bondage etc and actual rape etc porn.

From what the first poster quoted it looks like an attempt to target the owners of the nastier material as a way to get around the fact they can't stop off-shore suppliers. I agree that it opens up the possibility of all kinds of abuses by police and politicians under pressure around election time - but that comes back to that boring "organise a pressure group of your own" type of task, if only to deliniate the difference between Porn, Violence, Consensual Bondage and unpleasant 3D renders (or even the more extreme forms of Manga out there).

It shouldn't be down to a witchhunter to decide if a 3D render is violent porn or not - YOU should do that surely?

Cheers

Quote - > Quote - I have lived the US and loved the counrty and it 's people. It's just  incredibly sad tthat such a proud nation is giving away its frredom little by little. You should't care...

I'll stop quoting you there, because you've hit the nail on the head. We DON'T care. Much. About anything.

As one politically-aligned pundit, put it, America is a "TV NATION." Entertainment is all that occupies the thoughts of the average American. Politics is not entertaining, so we ignore it. Our news is produced by gigantic entertainment/defense corporations, and they tell us what they want us to "hear" (i.e. think) and most of us accept it without further processing because OMG Desperate Housewives/Monday Night Football/Surviror is on!

What happened? TV. People used to go to meetings, join lodges, talk to their neighbors, go get coffee with their friends, go bowling - you know, live their OWN lives. Now, the only activity most people regularly go to outside the home (besides school and work) is CHURCH. For those that attend, a church can comprise the whole circle of their non-work/school social life. For those that don't attend, there usually IS NO non-work/school social life. There's just the tube.

And guess what? Most curches aren't content to just let you believe whatever you want. Some even tell you that not only should you believe certain things, you should vote solely based on which politicians say they believe the same things. Since churches are the only large scale, non-business-related political organizing group here, their concerns tend to carry a lot of weight. They wouldn't if the non-church people cared, but the non-church people don't care... except about what's on TV.

If some of those pre-TV American were interested on politics because they wanted to... I don't know, protect their own freedom of speech, say... they would have found a much more open political process. Business interests have always lobbied government to get what they were after, but in years gone by, the corporations were smaller and less powerful, and so was the government they were lobbying. We haven't had anyting like the current corporate lock on our govenment since the 19th century. That was broken because captialism failed badly enough that middle-class people started to go hungry (for food, not low-cost consumer products) and because waves of immigrants disrupted the entrenched political process with the strength of their numbers. This time capitalism has its bases covered better. Anti-immigrant sentiment is a cause celebre among the middle-class, and they haven't crashed the economy so badly that John Q. Public can't afford to put McDonalds on his family's table. Yet.

American democracy has closed up like a flower in the night. Whether it will bloom again before the shears of tyranny come to cut it off remains to be seen.

BTW - I notice the proud tradition of saying "I'm all for free speech" just before you explain why you don't actually think free speech is a very good idea is alive and well in this thread. Just so I don't go toally OT, my question would be exactly what is illegal about creating violent, pornographic Poser images? No one is harmed in the process. There is no victim of the "crime." (People who are attacked by maniacs are not harmed by the production of whatever material the maniac might have been viewing at some point. They are harmed by the maniac actually attacking them, which is already illegal.) The only thing "criminal" about it is that it violates the "no violent porn" law. Shaky logic, at best.

One last thing - if there was a "no violent porn law" in the U.S. one of its most recent uses would certainly have been to prevent the circulation of the pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, which are certainly violent and sexual enough to fall under the category of "violent porn" no matter who is determining the criteria. Would that have been better for democracy? When considering what is to become law, I think one should alway assume the authorities will abuse the law to the best of their ability, and if you want to really be on the safe side, imagine you, or some cause you care about, are the one in their cross-hairs when they do so.

"First they came for Pluto, and I did not speak up because I didn't live on Pluto..."

Wow I like this because it's something I've been saying for years! Whatever happens to us it our own damn fault. We sit back and let a minority of rich old men and plutocrats tell the majority how they will live. They live better then we do at our expense but the American public doesn't do a damn thing about it but whine and lament about it. This is a nation of millions of people and has the power to hold their elected king's feet to the fire and demand government to answer to the people.

I don't know about other vets on this forum but you know what? It really pisses me off to know that I served this country with pride and lost brothers in the service of this country only to have the people of this land sit on their collective backsides and whine about what government is doing believe me this has been a hot issue at my VFW for months now. And all you people can stick your "we support the troops” as far as I'm concerned. Support my ass if you did you'd be as pissed as I am knowing that our service people are being treated like shit when they come home and even while they are deployed. Many of our wounded coming home are not receiving the proper care. Many deployed men and women's families are living on food stamps and other programs because the breadwinner has been taken away from their good paying civi jobs to serve. Yet those that sent them get police escorts to the ER if they get a paper cut!

They are people in this country that have to make a weekly decision whether they should eat or have medical care, our education system is a joke, violent crime is up in most major cities, jobs lost and all the while the people we have elected to over see these issues grow fatter and richer and continue to do as they please because they know Americans don't have ANY intention of doing anything about it. Politicians know as long as they give back enough to the average American to make him/her feel comfy then Americans will say nothing. There is no freedom of speech and as an above poster stated that is what happens when you live in a nation of laws. But even if there was absolute freedom of speech Americans wouldn't use it anyway we don't even exercise our full rights as it is. And if you think stuffing the ballot box every four years for the status quo is doing something then we really have fallen far. It amazes me still how people will get all up in arms about small, un-important issues yet stick their heads in the sand when it comes to the important stuff.

Im one of the if you dont like it then you dont have to go look at it crowd. There are a lot of things that I object to, over at Renderotica I have the gay pics filtered out, and 90% of the pics in the gallery I dont bother to look at. As for Poser porn in general whats the big deal ?! ITS NOT REAL, sure if youre good at it you can make it look real close to a photograph, but theyre not real people, tyhe models dont really even have a physical existance. Sure a lot of it is distasteful to most people, but its only pictures, theyre not of real people, and a most of the really rude ones arent even well done, there`s no way you could mistake them for real. As long as someone is not hurting anyone, stealing or damaging property, then the government should stay out of it. They control far to much of our lives as it is. 

Hit the nail on the head sekhet!

The way I see it is this potential new law is democratic as it can ever be, a woman is very upset that her daughter was tortured and killed by a man who had a collection of images based on torture and the like, obviously somewhere along the line she thinks the two are linked.  So she lobbied her MP and got up a petition and now she is in the first step of getting the law changed, now anybody who disagrees with it is welcome to lobby their MP or get up a petition to stop the law be changed.  Steve

Everyone obviously sympathises with this person but that type of connection cannot logically be made.

Ask yourself, how many people actually look at and or own this type of image and how many then go out and re-enact what they have seen, not many, if any at all.

To carry out this sort of attack, you must already be that way inclined, looking at the pictures didn't make him kill, more likely wanting to kill in the first place made him acquire the images as a way of satisfying that urge until one day the urge became too great and the images didn't do it for him anymore so he went out and did the real deal!

Amateur psychology hour over and steveshanks, this wasn't aimed at your post!

You may be right that that type of connection cannot logically be made, in fact I'm pretty sure you are right but it doesn't matter she went through the process of doing what she thought was the right thing. It's the democratic process, for me it's black and white, over and done with, that's how our system works and she use the system to do what she thought was right.  But you said "and the images didn't do it for him anymore so he went out and did the real deal!" So maybe if he'd been caught with the images the authorities may have realised that he had a problem and treated it.  Now I think its safe to say that both of us realise that in reality they would have locked him up for a few years, let him out again and the process will start all over, but well maybe not.  Steve

Well, since everybody has a different definition of what porn -- and violent porn -- actually is, this could cause problems for all art lovers, not just the hard core crowd.  I heard of one artist who had to pull all her renders because they were now illegal. The "violent smut" in question? Illustrations from Hamlet and Othello.

Under this new law, the Bard is Banned. Who knows what's next?

I think there are commonsense exceptions made for the classics, as an example the 1968 movie Romeo and Shakespeare directed by Franco Zeffirelli is strictly speaking illegal, but can be purchased on any high Street, Steve

There should be exceptions. Trouble is, a work by Zeferreli would be more likely to get past the judges and the censors than something by your average John/Jane Doe. :-)

Besides, who says there's any common sense left nowadays? I mean, when teachers get punished/fired for taking students to a museum "because there's :gasp: pictures with nekkid wimmen in there" ... :huh:

In terms of "violent porn," I have to say that, although I would personally find it very disturbing, I can't agree with making it illegal. At least, not unless the violent porn in question was made with unwilling participants. That is clearly illegal because it would be actual rape, assault, ect. If we're talking about staged photography or film, where people are playing parts and there's no real harm done, there's no victim and no reason to make it illegal.

A little closer to home, if we're talking about artwork, there's clearly no victim and no reason to make it illegal. I can't agree with any law that just about criminalizes thought. Just because you don't like the subject matter (and in this case, I don't!), that doesn't mean that it's wrong and it doesn't mean that it should be outlawed. Only when there are real victims should laws be made and exercised to discourage the acts from happening.

As for the political situation in the US, I agree with everything Sealtm2 had to say.

I know I'm coming late to the discussion (I've been gone for the weekend), but please keep the TOS in mind when you post.  While, yes, this is a political discussion, this has the potential to effect many of our members, so, if you could just remember to keep it completely civil, that would be great, thanks.

And, to add my opinion.....with rights come responsibilities.  I have the right to Free Speech, but I have the responsibility to make amends where I've breached anothers' right to anything else.  If you want to keep the right to make these images, you must actively fight to make sure you and those you work with keep clean.  Otherwise, it's going to be a fast downhill battle.  If many cases where someone is violently raped and/or murdered happen where the accused is a collector of snuff/violent porn, more and more stricter laws will come. 

The actions of the few deeply impact the many, time and time again.

Every week....this gets so old.

Quote - Every week....this gets so old.

Oh well. It's a bit like eating. You can't just do it once and get it over with.

I think a distinction that is constantly lost in these arguments is the difference between disapproving of certain kinds of porn and wanting the creators punished. It made enormous sense to me, even when I was a contentious teenager, that the people who should go to jail for prostitutions are the johns. If prostitution is so bad, punish the people who support it. Don't punish the whores and give a free ride to the hypocrites who visit them. And the fact that men won't stop fucking whores doesn't mean prostitution is Ok, either.

By the same token, I don't want Doom banned; I want to live in a community where children are not taught that exit wounds are entertaining, the solution to most problems is violence, and sex is almost as good as drugs. I don't want "adult" bookstores closed, I want to teach my children these places have nothing good to offer us. I don't want Tarantino's movies made illegal, I want to see them fail at the box office because people are tired of comic book dehumanization and don't go.

That's not censorship, contrary to the shrieks of "free speech" advocates. It's true freedom, freedom from the seductions of the marketplace. Let the video game shills pimp all they want, and keep your money. When a perfume company flirts with pedophilia, buy some other product. Let the pornographers speak and paint and make their offers. It's our shame that we listen, and no government will change that. We have the world we made, and we deserve it.

M

Quote - Harmful, disturbing, disgustng  and violent = killing 200,000 women and children in Iraq since 2004. Or is it some porno 3D images? I think we need to get our lives into perspective here! Or does human life "have it's limits"?

For a nation that has every phone call, email and electronic communication monitored by its government, to say "free speech" is laughable. Get my drift?

Sorry but I have to say something about this. Are you saying that  we the US have killed 200,000 women and children in iraq? THAT IS BULLSHIT  if you will look you will see that it is terrorist bombs that are killing more Iraquis than  the US military.

Also the banning of mesh porn of any type is just rediculous. its not real it doesnt hurt anything or anyone  since there is no victem. if you dont like some of it dont look at it its as simple as that.

Anyone who tries to associate  mesh porn of some type with some criminal activity fails to realize that if someone is going to commit a crime they are going to do it because they want to not because they saw some picture of that act and  decide to copy it.

All I'm going to say to that is that I don't believe in censorship.

So long as whatever it is that is involved is  between 2 consenting adults, it's  none of my business, nor anyone else's. 

All censorship does is take away the rights of one half  of the population. I don't like having someone impose their views based on their own morals and values onto me.

Do I enjoy looking at violent porn? No I don't, but I also don't begrudge those that do the right to do so.  All I have to do is close the book, turn the channel or walk away.  So long as it's between 2 consenting adults that's all that should matter.

Now on the other hand if it was forced or involved children, I'll be in your face with a very sharp instrument!!!!!!!!!!  That I have no tolerance for.

I have an amusing perspective on this whole discussion, because I just had a gallery item censored and my "record" tagged because there was a naked adolescent n the background. Never mind that there was nothing sexually exploitive about the picture, and never mind that when I posted the picture, it was not in violation of the TOS.

The justification for flagging me with a black mark is my violation of "U.S. Law." To which I could retort, if I thought retort was worth the trouble, that the original painting, which also has a naked adolescent in the background, must be subject to the same laws, laws which apparently Sun, the host, and Carol Gerten, a nice American housewife, choose to flaunt. This is hardly the place to be carrying on about censorship elsewhere.

And for the record, I have no objection to R'osity making rules for its own website. I simply find it nothing short of insane that I have been declared a criminal retroactively. So let's not pretend those rules are irrelevant to the discussion, neh?

M

mickmca,

Those rules went into effect last January, and we also stated that members would be responsible for going through their own galleries at that time.  As we come across violations, we remove them.  We feel that, if you haven't gone through your gallery in over a year to check for potential TOS violations, when we come across them, we will remove them and give you a warning. 

MS

The Justice Dept. has been determined to crack down on violent porn, for a while. I had lost track of their star case but I see that they were apparently slapped down. I seriously doubt that they have given up though. http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Business/story?id=433956&page=1

okay so a mesh is okay. a 3d image of hard porn is okay. what if those images involve kids. according to the majority of this thread, by their reckoning it would be okay to do so.  omg i hear you gasp...but thats kiddy porn....it would still be a mesh and by some standards in here it seems an acceptable form of art.

someone said charge the jhons and not the prostitutes. ....do we also let drug dealers go and just charge those who buy the drugs. i always thought the johns did get punished....they do in the uk anyway.

acadia said if it's between 2 consenting adults.....that would be impossible with a 3d image.

i don't agree with censorship i see someone said....fine...lets dump all the watersheds on tv and throw soft porn movies on during the day for housewives. the kids can play with their toys while she watches it......lets scrap the movie rating system and let 7 yr olds into to watch adult movies.

lets allow newspapers to print insitefull cartoons and spread them around the world......wake up people. censorship is one  of the things that hold a sociaty together. all laws are one kind of censorship or another. ...i take it if someone murders another person it's okay with the ones that don't agree with censorship.......but ...but...i hear you mumble......but nothing...the law that says murder is not allowed (a crime) is censorship at it's highst level.....break that censorship and you could forfit your very life.

someone else said...i have the right to free speech....sorry but you don't have that right....you're allowed to say certain things in certain ways and thats all you're allowed. call some one a liar in print or public and you break the censorship laws of liable or slander. start preaching that terrorism is good and you break numerous censorships.

a law is a censorship by it's very nature so please....when you talk about not agreeing with censorship think very carefully about what you're saying.

cry we want hard porn and let loose the dogs of war......these censorships erode the very fabric of our freedom.......why is that almost everyone to a person in this site (i bet no one jumps up and says there should be) would say no to kiddy porn on any site yet hard porn depicting rape or female degredation is A okay....(.i don't include fetish like bdsm or even sado masochistic stuff as hard or violent porn because it's usally done with free will) ......if you say kiddy porn in a 3d site isn't allowed then you're bound by that choice to say any viloent or degrading porn shouldn't be allowed.

now hands up those who think they're using a double standard re kiddy porn and any violent porn.

billy

p.s....personally i couldn't give a toss one way or another about someone getting 3 yrs or not for violent porn. just trying to calrify what everyones saying here. i've even watched so called snuff movies....that was a hoot......i think i saw one or the so called snuff movies released about 8 yrs after i saw for the first time...if you want to change the laws that much either lobby for hard porn or become a politician and get some bills passed alllowing it. either i feel public opinion is against you.

I saw some pretty sickening things in the mainstream film "The Bad Leutenant" staring Harvey Kietel which had the rape of a nun on the alter shot as a music video as just one item. Don't even go into the disgusting graphic "gore" in mainstream films. Then there are some art photography  books /you know the ones/ at Barn&Nobels that are really questionable in terms of consent. I once turned on the "Saprano's" TV show to see what all the buzz was about and in the first two minutes it had a scene about a man hurting a women in a sexual way that terrified me so much I never looked at the show again. Likewise I saw the movie "Pulp Fiction" to enjoy the "briliance" of its director and I would pay $5000 to have the memory erased from my head. Prime-time network TV in the US has several crime shows (CSI, etc.) each night that re-enact over and over fictional sexual crimes against women. So why is there this push against drawings and CGI?