Because of another thread I decided to post this- This is the FINAL word beyond debate or action.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v.

FREE SPEECH COALITION et al.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

---

No. 00—795. Argued October 30, 2001–Decided April 16, 2002- - - - - -

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A), but also “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is “advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression” it depicts “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(D). Thus, §2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called “virtual child pornography,” that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology. Section 2256(8)(D) is aimed at preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography. Fearing that the CPPA threatened their activities, respondents, an adult-entertainment trade association and others, filed this suit alleging that the “appears to be” and “conveys the impression” provisions are overbroad and vague, chilling production of works protected by the First Amendment. The District Court disagreed and granted the Government summary judgment, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. Generally, pornography can be banned only if it is obscene under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, but pornography depicting actual children can be proscribed whether or not the images are obscene because of the State’s interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process, New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 758, and in prosecuting those who promote such sexual exploitation, id., at 761. The Ninth Circuit held the CPPA invalid on its face, finding it to be substantially overbroad because it bans materials that are neither obscene under Miller nor produced by the exploitation of real children as in Ferber.

Held: The prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional. Pp. 6—21.

    (a) Section 2256(8)(B) covers materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller, and the reasons the Government offers in support of limiting the freedom of speech have no justification in this Court’s precedents or First Amendment law. Pp. 6—19.

        (1) The CPPA is inconsistent with Miller. It extends to images that are not obscene under the Miller standard, which requires the Government to prove that the work in question, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, 413 U.S., at 24. Materials need not appeal to the prurient interest under the CPPA, which proscribes any depiction of sexually explicit activity, no matter how it is presented. It is not necessary, moreover, that the image be patently offensive. Pictures of what appear to be 17-year-olds engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards. The CPPA also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea–that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity–that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries. A number of acclaimed movies, filmed without any child actors, explore themes within the wide sweep of the statute’s prohibitions. If those movies contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, their possessor would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the literary value of the work. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: A work’s artistic merit does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene. See, e.g., Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Mass., 383 U.S. 413, 419. Under Miller, redeeming value is judged by considering the work as a whole. Where the scene is part of the narrative, the work itself does not for this reason become obscene, even though the scene in isolation might be offensive. See Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229, 231 (per curiam). The CPPA cannot be read to prohibit obscenity, because it lacks the required link between its prohibitions and the affront to community standards prohibited by the obscenity definition. Pp. 6—11.

        (2) The CPPA finds no support in Ferber. The Court rejects the Government’s argument that speech prohibited by the CPPA is virtually indistinguishable from material that may be banned under Ferber. That case upheld a prohibition on the distribution and sale of child pornography, as well as its production, because these acts were “intrinsically related” to the sexual abuse of children in two ways. 458 U.S., at 759. First, as a permanent record of a child’s abuse, the continued circulation itself would harm the child who had participated. See id., at 759, and n. 10. Second, because the traffic in child pornography was an economic motive for its production, the State had an interest in closing the distribution network. Id., at 760. Under either rationale, the speech had what the Court in effect held was a proximate link to the crime from which it came. In contrast to the speech in Ferber, speech that is itself the record of sexual abuse, the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not “intrinsically related” to the sexual abuse of children. While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts. The Government’s argument that these indirect harms are sufficient because, as Ferber acknowledged, child pornography rarely can be valuable speech, see id., at 762, suffers from two flaws. First, Ferber’s judgment about child pornography was based upon how it was made, not on what it communicated. The case reaffirmed that where the speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the First Amendment’s protection. See id., at 764—765. Second, Ferber did not hold that child pornography is by definition without value. It recognized some works in this category might have significant value, see id., at 761, but relied on virtual images–the very images prohibited by the CPPA–as an alternative and permissible means of expression, id., at 763. Because Ferber relied on the distinction between actual and virtual child pornography as supporting its holding, it provides no support for a statute that eliminates the distinction and makes the alternative mode criminal as well. Pp. 11—13.

        (3) The Court rejects other arguments offered by the Government to justify the CPPA’s prohibitions. The contention that the CPPA is necessary because pedophiles may use virtual child pornography to seduce children runs afoul of the principle that speech within the rights of adults to hear may not be silenced completely in an attempt to shield children from it. See, e.g., Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 130—131. That the evil in question depends upon the actor’s unlawful conduct, defined as criminal quite apart from any link to the speech in question, establishes that the speech ban is not narrowly drawn. The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles’ appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566, absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct, see, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (per curiam). The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all. Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited. The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612. The Government’s rejoinder that the CPPA should be read not as a prohibition on speech but as a measure shifting the burden to the accused to prove the speech is lawful raises serious constitutional difficulties. The Government misplaces its reliance on §2252A(c), which creates an affirmative defense allowing a defendant to avoid conviction for nonpossession offenses by showing that the materials were produced using only adults and were not otherwise distributed in a manner conveying the impression that they depicted real children. Even if an affirmative defense can save a statute from First Amendment challenge, here the defense is insufficient because it does not apply to possession or to images created by computer imaging, even where the defendant could demonstrate no children were harmed in producing the images. Thus, the defense leaves unprotected a substantial amount of speech not tied to the Government’s interest in distinguishing images produced using real children from virtual ones. Pp. 13—19.

    (b) Section 2256(8)(D) is also substantially overbroad. The Court disagrees with the Government’s view that the only difference between that provision and §2256(8)(B)’s “appears to be” provision is that §2256(8)(D) requires the jury to assess the material at issue in light of the manner in which it is promoted, but that the determination would still depend principally upon the prohibited work’s content. The “conveys the impression” provision requires little judgment about the image’s content; the work must be sexually explicit, but otherwise the content is irrelevant. Even if a film contains no sexually explicit scenes involving minors, it could be treated as child pornography if the title and trailers convey the impression that such scenes will be found in the movie. The determination turns on how the speech is presented, not on what is depicted. The Government’s other arguments in support of the CPPA do not bear on §2256(8)(D). The materials, for instance, are not likely to be confused for child pornography in a criminal trial. Pandering may be relevant, as an evidentiary matter, to the question whether particular materials are obscene. See Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 474. Where a defendant engages in the “commercial exploitation” of erotica solely for the sake of prurient appeal, id., at 466, the context created may be relevant to evaluating whether the materials are obscene. Section 2256(8)(D), however, prohibits a substantial amount of speech that falls outside Ginzburg’s rationale. Proscribed material is tainted and unlawful in the hands of all who receive it, though they bear no responsibility for how it was marketed, sold, or described. The statute, furthermore, does not require that the context be part of an effort at “commercial exploitation.” Thus, the CPPA does more than prohibit pandering. It bans possession of material pandered as child pornography by someone earlier in the distribution chain, as well as a sexually explicit film that contains no youthful actors but has been packaged to suggest a prohibited movie. Possession is a crime even when the possessor knows the movie was mislabeled. The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction. Pp. 19—20.

If you'd like to be some DA's first test case -- then feel free to open up a website catering to such material.

shrug

You might even be able to convince the ACLU to represent you.

Nothing is FINAL, all laws are subject to revision and also being completely rewritten.

In this SPECIFIC case this was the result in a similar case in 2 months time in another court with another judge may find conversely to this one.

If the law was not subject to interpretation and transmutation we would have no need of barristers, judges, juries or anything more than a summary kangaroo court.

Time and time cases are cited as test cases and utilised by barristers in subsequent legal trials that are of a similar enough content to their case to make them believe they can win.  You know what they don't always win because each case is tried on its own merits and under its own whims.

If you wish to take this as being engraved in stone then that is your right.  Hwoever, in specific refence to internet sites they havea legal and bound duty to operate within the law.  However, they are also free to enforce STRICTER guidelines than the laws of their country allow for.  That is their right and by opening an account with that site - even if it is free, gratis and for nothing, then you are entering into an agreement to abide by their Terms Of Use.

So long as the rules of the site do not break the laws of that sites country of origin then you either suck it up and get on with it within their tules OR you pack your bags and leave.

I co-run my own site and many of the images that I post here I could not post there as we have a way stricter Terms Of Use than is in force here at Renderosity.  I helped construct those rules and take full responsibility for them and you know what, I'm happy with the dichotomy that I cannot post some of my favourite images there that I can post here.  It is all part of the rich tapestry of life online.

Please anyone can resume the first post? I read technical english like a hell...

we're discussing a site rule and a site tos. though i posted an url as well to try and show what you meant do we really need to bring the rule down to the child pornography level again. whether lawfull or not i would be disgusted to see any image of a real childlike quality even if it was a fairy.

i've been beaten. it seems people want to discuss child porn as opposed to a mere rule within the confines of a community that has little or no basis for it's strictness other than to ease the workload of the mods. all i havve left to say is ....fuck it.

billy

valerian..if a precedence is set a judge is bound to accept it in most cases. whilst cases are indeed tried on merit.  once a precendence is set it affects any case that is similar in context.

billy

@billy423uk

I see. Thanks ;)

Nope, it can b ignored or deemed to be not relevant in the case, it does not have to be taken as down and dirty fact.  If that was the case every defence lawyer in the land would cite a precedent and get their client off scott free.  It doesn;t happen like that as each case is very individual and no two will be similar enough for any precedent to ever be wholly effective.  Also in trials that invole juries then you can site what the heck you want if it goes to the full length and the jury are sent to reach a verdict it is up to them what the result is and not up to the judge or the lawyers and, believe me, that often hinges on the courtroom performance of the witnesses and the defendant more than it does any previous precedent.

Judges are free to ignore or set aside a precedent that they believe to be either wrong or irrelevant/not applicable to their particular case. They do it a lot.

Nudity and porn or sexual acts are not the same thing.

The ruling posted at the top effectively means nothing in the UK, anyway.

I still say that someone who wants to posit by implication that it's a great idea to go all-out on allowing virtual kids to do virtual things in the galleries -- if they choose to open their own website for the purpose:  without a doubt, they'll have the opportunity to test the limits of the law -- up close & personal.

Quote - Judges are free to ignore or set aside a precedent that they believe to be either wrong or irrelevant/not applicable to their particular case. They do it a lot.

if the judge deems it relevent (similar or applicable) i doubt he'd refute it. and whilst judges deem some inapplicable many cases are thrown out because he thinks they are applicable. to say a precedent has no bearing sorta negates how the justice system was built........and i know thats not what your saying manhunter just saving myself a post to valerian lol

billy

Xeno- god I wish I was as smart as you. You knew what this says without even reading it!

2 post in under one minute, I bow to your in-site-fullness and knowledge.

To read the writeings of others is to acknowledge that others have a voice. Possibally even an opinion or idea that (may) even be valid.

Val- not set in stone- BUT IT IS THE LAW NOW here in the US, where the servers are and this business is.

There ARE points burried within this that do directly apply to 'fairy images'. Formost among them "The prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional. Pp. 6—21."

"It extends to images that are not obscene under the Miller standard, which requires the Government to prove that the work in question, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"

"The CPPA also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea.....that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries"

"This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: A work’s artistic merit does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene. See, e.g., Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Mass., 383 U.S. 413, 419. Under Miller, redeeming value is judged by considering the work as a whole. Where the scene is part of the narrative, the work itself does not for this reason become obscene, even though the scene in isolation might be offensive. See Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229, 231 (per curiam). "

And much much much more...........

Quote - Xeno- god I wish I was as smart as you. You knew what this says without even reading it!

2 post in under one minute, I bow to your in-site-fullness and knowledge.

To read the writeings of others is to acknowledge that others have a voice. Possibally even an opinion or idea that (may) even be valid.

 

Huh?  Who says that I haven't read it?  I happen to be quite familiar with that case, my friend.  And with its implications.

 

Quote - Val- not set in stone- BUT IT IS THE LAW NOW here in the US, where the servers are and this business is.

 

shrug  If anyone wants to test that hypothesis........but I'd seriously recommend against trying it.  In fact I'd say: don't do it.  For many, many reasons.

BTW -- I won't hesitate to say that the divided majority of the Supreme Court was wrong.

ok

can someone PLEASE tellme what the outcome was? in english not legalise? as in practical upshot?

The TOS was not put in place by the US government.  By far, yes, our TOS is stricter.  That was an admin decision, not a governmental decision. 
Posting the verbage of a Supreme Court ruling means little to nothing when it comes to the rules and Terms of Service of a Private site.  UNLESS said site is breaking the law.   I.E., Renderosity can have stricter rules, but not more lax rules, than the entity in which it resides, i.e. Tennessee, United States. 
For instance, when we run contests, they have to follow the Tennessee State Laws governing lottories and contests.  Prizes MUST be awarded on time, and participants can not be forced to make a purchase in order to participate and/or win.  Now, along with that, we can make things a little stricter, by our own site rules.  Our rules in no way reflect State or Federal laws, but must be within them.

MS

Quote - ok

can someone PLEASE tellme what the outcome was? in english not legalise? as in practical upshot?

 

Like most of these types of rulings, the interpretation really depends upon who you ask.

But esstentially, it says that so-called "virtual child porn" is allowable -- so long as no real children were involved in the making of it.  However, this ruling has yet to be tested in a real case.  It'll happen  -- and by that time, the makeup of the Supreme Court is likely to have changed.  The nine-member legislature that passes laws -- overruling Congress -- will perhaps change its mind with that change in membership.

Edited to add -- this also doesn't totally account for local & state laws.  Once again: it's yet to be tested.

I didn't read all the preceding, but I'm guessing that none of the participants (including me) is a lawyer. however, I'm also guessing that the "scotus" is totally unaware of the existence of poser :lol: o.k., maybe thomas, but not the others :lol:

Is there a "Cole's Notes" version of that?   Or at least a summary about what the core issue is?

i read it from top to bottom and as far as i'm concerned on a personal level the supreme court is morally talking out of it's courtly arse. anyone in their right mind would find any kind of child porn offensive...whatever the medium...even if it was a something scarted onto the back of a bog door with a rusty nail. sometimes the obvious has no bearing when it comes to waht the supreme or any other court declares. where i come from people get lynched and rightly so for any kind of child porn.

glad we agree on at least one thing morrigan lmao re what the discussion is about.

billy

 

 

yow..gonna havta crack a few Westlaw volumes to make sense of it.  Lots of precedents, verbiage..I felt my eyes glazing over about 2/3rds of the way down. I've never had any desire to do kids (1 pic out of 600..and that a joke one anyways..;), but that's me..

Ninth circut court is California. Not a conservative venue at all.

This still has one more level to go to be final. It still needs to be heard in the Supreme Court, if it hasn't already.

And let's not forget the little detail omited by the 9th Circut court. Even if  the Sickos kiddy image is "legal" to put out in the public eye, he(or she) ican still be criminally liable if someone uses that image as inspiration to do something against a live child.

I say, let's keep our nice strict TOS.

Yeah, that court is notorious for controversial decisions, like the pledge being unconstitutional among other things.

This IS (or rather was) a Supreme Court case.  It was mighty big in the news back then, when this ruling came down.

You can easily do a google on this.  But here's a link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

Frankly, it's old news.  And in spite of the ruling, I've yet to hear of any commercial sites being opened on that basis.  Except perhaps for in countries like Indonesia.  But they already had those types of sites operating out of that country, anyway.

It's......still yet to be well & truly resolved as to what this means.  So far, no one has been foolish enough to test it in a major way.  This decision was handed down -- and then for all intents and purposes it seemed to result in little-to-no actual change.

BTW - the makeup of the Court is already different today than what it was back when this.......ruling.......was made.  It might not fare so well, next time around.

Here's another link.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_9_54/ai_85410321

Here's another.  This article is much more recent than the other two -- which were both written at the time that the ruling came down.

She makes some excellent points -----

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202454,00.html

Khai-

It all means that if an image has ANY serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value it is legal as long as no real person is used to make it.

The arguement that some pedo 'may' get there jollies off it is not relevant because the law itself also limits many, many other unrelated art and stories types. It splashs over into other areas it was not ment to limit.  (like nude faries)

" The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process"

(paraphrase) speech that is itself "NOT" a record of sexual abuse, the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production

Actually SoCal- It has gone to the Supreme Court and and has been upheld. It is done. Unless you have 10 million dollars and 5 years to gamble that the court would even take it up for consideration.

Morgain- We all know that. We also know that any law that DOES go against this is not a valid law. So if you are going to use a specific LOCAL law that goes against the supreme court ruleing YOU would be in deep doodoo.

I just find it totally amazing that those of you who find it repugnant that the TOP court, whom your allways useing for law and order reasons, selectively want to pick and choose just which supreme court ruling you want to follow.

Allways say you are not allowing this or that to avoid breaking the law is pethic. If you wish I do have each and EVERY individual judges opinion I can post. You think this little summery is deep. Try again, lol

This thread is NOT in itself about the TOS. But it may be a good logical starting point. The differance between what is and what you wish it to be are seldom the same. This ruleing is the "what is" part. The TOS is the "what you want it to be part".

(lol, sometimes have a grownup conversation here is like asking Tony Snow a question about terrorist and CIA secret prisons interrogation techniques- your just plain not going to get a straight answer)

Khai- :)

Broken down even simpler is:

It is illegal to have ANY sexual contact with a minor.

Takeing a photo of it is a documentation of a crime against the minor

But 3d images have NO victim - thus no crime is commited

simple enought?

Well, The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft IS the law of the land in the U.S.  In it the Supreme Court held that the Child Pornography and Protection Act was unconstitutionally overbroad in prohibiting virtual images of explicit sexual acts involving minors because of 2 previous decisions.

(a) Miller proscribes only images that  (i) appeal to a purient interest, and (ii) patently offend community standards, **and **(iii) lack serious literart, artistic, political or scientific values.

(b) Ferber proscribes production and distribution of child pornography because they are intrinsically related to sexual abuse of real children.

So, because ther CCPA prohibits much more than Miller allows and virtual porn can't be shown to harm real kids as Ferber sets forth, the CCPA can't be enforced as to virtual images.

Finally, the question of whether something should  (or should not) be done and the question of whether something IS (or is not) being done are two entirely different questions.

 

Oh....its repugnant, alright.  Personally, it's not something that I would choose to crow about like a strutting rooster.  Most people would frankly find the things that this ruling at least cracks the door open for to be utterly disgusting.

As for grownups and conversations -- most grownups would find this particular conversation to be nauseating at its core.

The Supreme Court has made its ruling -- for now.  Nowhere does that ruling say that a website named Renderosity is hereby compelled to have fae creatures of any age in its galleries -- nude or otherwise.  That's an attempt to take a......twisted........definition of "free speech" -- and turn it into FORCED speech.  Which isn't free at all.

The warped suggestion that this Supreme Court case means that a website like Rendo is somehow compelled to allow the posting of underage-appearing figures is simply asinine at its base.

It'll be challenged.  And with different justices sitting on the Court this time.  There are plenty of people with plenty of money who will see to that.

After reading the ruling the thing that seems most pertinent is that Renderosity has nothing to fear on the legal front really. They are covered by both the virtual depiction verbage and the artistic merit verbage. The TOS clause, if solely a legal safeguard, from what I read above, is not necessary. I believe the TOS may have more to do with the value systems of the operators of this site dictate.  (which is well and good - it is thier blood, sweat and tears that created it) The above ruling, to me, is extremely smart as it sees clearly the abusive power it could hand over to the government.

I will say this though - you start down a slippery slope when you start putting restrictions on artists. An artist should never have to worry about creating in the form of the masters, at any rate, as that is an age old precedent and easily identified as having artistic merit - yeah and I mean cherubs too. Depiction of fantastical and mythological creatures should be exempt IMHO. If the artist did not set out to create a depiction of a pure human sexual nature what is the big deal? In fact unless the depiction seems wholly aimed at the sexual gratification of sickos I dont believe that it should be pulled. Though the admins are within thier rights by all means, as I stated above, to make what ever rule they want and  I personally will abide by them while they do not infringe on my artistic vision - that does not make them "right" by the law or ethically.  As a business venture that caters to a global audience I would be extremely extremely careful that my policies did not come off as racist or wholly determined by middle American standards.

Quote - After reading the ruling the thing that seems most pertinent is that Renderosity has nothing to fear on the legal front really. They are covered by both the virtual depiction verbage and the artistic merit verbage. The TOS clause, if solely a legal safeguard, from what I read above, is not necessary.

 

To say this is to miss the point of a test case.  If anyone wishes to be the legal guinea pig who ends up testing this ruling via a 3-or-4-year fun-filled ride through the courts: then be our guest.

But I kinda doubt that Rendo will volunteer to fall on such a legal sword for the sake of this particular cause.  Be it because of their "Middle-class American standards" -- or for any other reason.

I have not seen all pulled artwork - but the fairy images in one huge thread in this board would not even be close to putting anyone in a courtroom. They would have to redact god knows how many books if they were ruled pornographic.

Well......if you are only referring to the pulled Aiko image -- and not to the above referenced Supreme Court ruling in general -- then that's another matter.  There I think that reasonable people can disagree.  It's not my call, because I'm not a mod.

What I'm on about isn't that specific Aiko image.  My beef has a lot more to do with matters going well beyond that -- issues brought up by the insertion of this Supreme Court ruling.  In all of its "glory".

as long as the tos breaks no spreme court ruling which it doesn'y it can have whatever rules it deems fit. it isn't held to follow the miller or any other such guide. it can be as restrictive as it wishes. and no one whos a member can argue about it. they agreed to abide by them when they became members. xeno..i agree that any adult would find a discussion of this kind in a place like this disgusting. i already said to much here. and i won't besaying anything else. i've just been told not to post pics of 5 yr fairies in the other thread which i also find disgucting behaviour. i couldn't give a shit what the supreme court says i know whats right and whats wrong and thats enough for me for all i care the supreme court can shove it's ruling up it's arse.

billy

@ Billy --

The supreme court ruling dictates ONLY what can or cannot be illegal. It has no bearing on any site's TOS. Legally, you have the right to produce any images you want without legal consequences, but nobody is obligated to let you post it on their site. 

Well I thought, perhaps wrongly, that this thread had to do with the implications of said ruling on us the artists in the community and perhaps how Renderosity might want to give a second thought to the verbage in the TOS. I mentioned the Aiko image because I think this ruling reaffirms that the TOS clause is a bit overbroad in its scope, especially in that it does not consider the intent of the artist (the above image was a typical subject of the artist whose other artworks were permissable) and the classical subject of the piece.  Otherwise I am not interested in discussing judical rulings of any nature.

the ruling has no implications...the tos is personal rules of a site and as such cannot be be forced to amend said tos as it breaks no laws. the thread that tried to discuss the tos rule and it;s implimentation is now closed down i doubt it's worth carring it on here as the original post would overshadow anything constructively

billy

@ webmonster --

shrug

While the original posting of that other thread re: the famous Aiko image got this ball rolling in the first place -- the current debate/discussion/fight has traveled well beyond that.

I likely wouldn't have involved myself in this little contretemps if the Aiko image had remained as the central focus.  That issue alone probably wouldn't have gotten my attention.  So I won't argue with you on that score.  I have no doubt that the artist's intent was a sincere one.

But the outside implications of this Supreme Court ruling -- and other, similar matters -- THAT gets my attention.

billy - if the rationale behind the tos is actually fear of legal reprisal over the subject of a piece of art it does... else you are correct...

xenophonz - ok I will leave you to rage against the machine

 

laterz - monster

What machine?  A few would say that I at least represent the machine.  Perhaps that I'm an avatar. 

Some things are worth the effort.

I think that you could be one side of an intelligent conversation, monster.  And yes -- that's a compliment.

Thank you - sincerely. You strike me the same way.

You are right too... and I wholeheartedly am behind the motive to enact legislation to protect our kiddos. Just gotta be careful of what such legislation does when applied outside the scope of that motive. 

Mainly I just didnt want to open a discourse outside of the interest of this board which is poser - I didnt mean to come of as implying it was fruitless to discuss. Sorry if I did. 

Quote - Thank you - sincerely. You strike me the same way.

And thank you.  Civility is a rare thing to see in the forum.  I think that I can understand why you've not posted much -- even as a long-time member.

Quote - You are right too... and I wholeheartedly am behind the motive to enact legislation to protect our kiddos. Just gotta be careful of what such legislation does when applied outside the scope of that motive. 

I suspect that we largely agree here.  That sounds like a smart approach to me.

Quote - Mainly I just didnt want to open a discourse outside of the interest of this board which is poser - I didnt mean to come of as implying it was fruitless to discuss. Sorry if I did. 

No.....I haven't taken the slightest offence at anything that you've said.  You don't impress me as the type to attack on a personal level those with whom you disagree.  That's rare, too.

And as for discourses outside of Poser happening in this forum -- that's a battle long since lost, I fear.  You certainly wouldn't be the first. 

I'm going to have to go offline for a few hours.  Something about needing to sleep.

It's been a pleasure meeting you, monster.  And that's sincere also.

Simple but not. 3D erotic sites usually have stores or payzones. You need a bank to process credit cards. And if the bank is more restrictive than the law, you have no choice (or changing the bank and probably find a worse one). This is the matter because a lot of 3D sites don't allow child nudity including non-sexual contact pics. If you upload here a nude kid, you're acting against the private rules of this private site (and a private site can have rules more restrictive than laws - you have the choice of join or join not into the site, once you are in you need to follow the TOS

The sad thing is when a site has rules which change with the incoming of new laws (or politics, or moralism...). You could upload here a nude fairy with a child face; now not. Renderotica allowed rape and non-consensual pics; recently not. Erotic Illusions had a big restriction of members who posted violence pics. In all these site you can't upload a pic with bestiality althought you says ther aren't a sexual contact between a human being and an animal but a 3D image with 'no victims'. TOS is TOS, laws are laws, and the most of times TOS is very influenced by the bank which works with the site (the extremetely neomoralist Paypal for example)

Dura lex sed lex (hard law but is the law)  :(

Quote -
And thank you.  Civility is a rare thing to see in the forum.  I think that I can understand why you've not posted much -- even as a long-time member.

I have to say it is rather satisfying to have a conversation on this kind of topic without just getting flamed. I piped up because I get a bit touchy about censorship in the arts and the legaleeze seemed to be mystifying folks. > Quote - No.....I haven't taken the slightest offence at anything that you've said.  You don't impress me as the type to attack on a personal level those with whom you disagree.  That's rare, too. And as for discourses outside of Poser happening in this forum -- that's a battle long since lost, I fear.  You certainly wouldn't be the first. 

LOL.. I have read enough on here over the years to know your right on that. :D No, personal attacks don't make your point - unless your point is that you yourself are a cruel imbecile. I would hate to think someone out there would think that of me.

Well Needing sleep is yet another issue we agree on heh..

A pleasure meeting you too.  G'nite!
monster

Attached Link: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html

Phonzie, I assume you keep harping to refer to the ACLU's "official position." I'm still waiting for the citation. Please be more specific than suggesting we Google it. As far as I can tell, the ACLU's position is summarized in an excerpt of a letter they sent to Congress: "The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition." (ref. link) If you disagree with *that* position, fine, but don't try to imply that they support what they don't. I'm sure their real position is sufficiently repugnant to you to maintain your animus towards the organization. Anyone who defends Nazis, the Klan, people who make dirty pictures and a whole host of other undesirables is bound to make enemies. Hell, they'd even defend your kid's right to wear a "Hillary Sucks!" tee shirt to school :-) I agree that the question is far from settled and it may well change, depending no little on the result of the upcoming elections in November and in 2008. At the moment, the Bushies have bigger fish to fry with defining the legalities and virtues of torture, wiretapping, etc., give them time. At any rate, there seems to be far more real vs. Poser generated porn of any kind on the web - probably because most people (likely including pedophiles) find it rather boring. Of course, I'm talking about real pornography. If NVIATWAS causes you to run for the tissues and lotion then there's an ample selection.

Any chance of having the original post reposted in English for those of us who don't understand legal jargon (gibberish)?

Quote - "The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment.

Looks like a lot of people are missing the emphasized bit here.

It's not a question of supporting child PORNOGRAPHY, it's a question of allowing paintings/drawings/renders of nude children in totally innocent situations. Like on the beach or babies lying on a fluffy white rug.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would support child pornography, but child nudity is a whole other matter. Even if a lot of people seem to mix up those two...