What is the legal outcome of the "Pandering" element? Is that limited to Obscene/Victim imagery or anything that a perv would get "inspiration" from (which of course could extend to anything)?

Away from the Porn question - what are the boundaries of allowable "victimless" images on Rendo and other sites? Does this extend to SciFi shoot-outs or horror scenes or is it only within a sexual context? I haven't done any gory action scenes myself, but you never know - a big shoot-out inevitably ends up with some poor sod riddled with holes...

Cheers

Quote -
The nine-member legislature that passes laws -- overruling Congress -- will perhaps change its mind with that change in membership.

This is the kind of neocon crap that passes for politics these days. The Constitutional purpose of the court is to see to it that the Congress and the President do not just drag the country wherever their whims take us but adhere to the Constutition. The Constitution DOES NOT prohibit pornography, so the Court must interprete how pornography should be handled. They make that interpretation based on their knowledge of American law, not whether the folks in Southie will boot dem out if dey side wit perverts. That may not be your brand of democracy, but I can live with it when it isn't being perverted by baby killers and war profiteers.

Like the "liberal media" (which died with Edward R Murrow) neocons love to trot out the "activitist" court every time the Court (which they have stacked to such imbalance that no one their right mind would call one of them "liberal") tells them something they want to do is unconstitutional. For all their "patriotism," neocons are contemptuous of our political system, because it gets in their way. Bush has been using the Constitution for a butt wipe, and Congress has hysterics when the Court rules that they can't pass a specific law governing a specific case (Schiavo).

Sure, Bush and his totalitarian henchboys will persecute the "low-hanging fruit" -- powerless individuals who create erotic images of children. And the cases will lead to convictions where we will hear about. Like the hundreds of "convictions" of "terrorists"... mostly for credit card fraud to giving false information on Federal documents. WHile bin Laden rests peacefully somewhere with his dialysis machine. Have they gone after one distributor or manufacturer of this stuff? No, because they want lynch candidates who can't fight back. Lynch 'em, burn 'em, THEN try 'em. Oh an' Lemmy Bob, lookit here what the colored girl is doin' in this one. We gotta burn these too?

What this establishes for me is that there is no "law" handing over the TOS. We knew that was righteous baloney; here's the proof.

M

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

Let me give this translation a crack - a good writing exercise if nothing else. I am going to boil each paragraph down to the core human readable facts. Keep in mind this my attempt at a translation - not what I believe to be true in all parts!!! Thier decision not mine!!!

PG1

The Child Pornography Prevention act (CPPA) is basically wanting to outlaw anything that appears to be child porn wheter it involves a child in making it or not. It also wants to specifically prevent people from faking child porn with non-child actors. An adult entertainment union(of sorts) filed a lawsuit because they felt the law was overbroad and vague - it did not define what it was making illegal well enough. The government won a lower court decision on this but on appeal lost due to the fact that the court of appeals agreed that the law was not clear and could be possibly used to make illegal things not really meant to be addressed by the new law that are currently legal - things (visual media) that are not legally meeting the definiton of obscene and do not envolve a real child in other words. It also reinforces that any porn envolving real children is illegal wheter or not it is determined to be legally obscene or not.

PG2
In a nutshell the Supreme Court says the appeals court was correct and deems the CPPA offically too broad and illegal as it was presented to them.

PG3
Basically there is no reason to overturn past legal decisions (precedent) and/or restrict freedom of speech as stated in the First Amendment.

PG4

The CPPA makes it to where the government does not have to prove that a thing, in it's whole form, is actually legally obscene in order to ban/prosecute it. The CPAA applies to things without any consideration to the redeeming value of the the thing or community standards - anything inferring any underage sex would be illegal. It gives the example the CPAA could make owning a movie that deals with or has scene involving underage sex illegal (sex between two teenagers for example) and you could be serving some hard time for just owning it even though underage sex is part of the reality we live in daily. Furthermore one such scene that is offensive by itself does not make an entire work legally obscene. The last sentence is a tough one to grok - I beleive that they state that the CPAA does not define "lacks the required link" what is obscene about what it makes a thing illegal "it's prohibitions" and that the the thing in question is deemed illegal wheter or not it is actually offensive to the community (the average folks in america) and/or are not obscene under the standing legal definition of what obscene is.

Whew...

PG5
Basically this tells of the case where child porn and its sale became illegal and relates that the reason behind that ruling was that child porn was a form of child sexual abuse and the sale for profit of it encouraged people to abuse children to make money. The CPAA makes things that have nothing to do with the sexual abuse of children illegal. The ruling that made child porn illegal did not deal with the content but with how the content is made, did not rule that all depictions had no value and that nonobscene and nonchild abusing content was protected under the First Amendment. In fact the original ruling literally encouraged the substitution of virtual or adult alternatives in work of such nature. The supreme court also states here that the availability of simulated child porn as a subsititute can not be proven to increase child abuse and hence is not illegal. (kinda like video games and violence here)

PG6
The CPPA says that simulated child porn might somehow be used to seduce children (i dont understand that myself) but current laws state that speech(read things) that are determined suitable for adults can not be made illegal outright just to keep it from kids. Again the court states that speech (read things) can not be made illegal because the might incite an unlawful act - at least without defining proof. The government argues that the since real porn is illegal the virtual must be as well - the court says this is illogical because few porn companies would risk hurting a child if they could use a virtual one. Furthermore even if this was applied to try to get rid of the market for child porn it can not be justified because the production of such content does not break any laws. I am not exactly sure what the statement about the First Amendment being turned upside down implies but they do say that the difficulty for law enforcement (I am guessing) in determining what is virtual and what is not does not factor in this. Current law states that the government cant ban a thing if a substantial amount of it is legal by definiton. First Amendment issues aside the CPPA is illegal because it makes even things that can be proven as virtual (and thus not the product of child abuse) illegal. The CPPA does not protect the average person who might have a virtually created image.(which is not child abuse by the courts ruling)

PG7

Creating the impression of child porn with what is actually not child porn can not be called illegal. The thing in question must be sexually explicit. This part is human readable - "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."

Vocab lesson time...
Main Entry: pan·der·ing
Function: noun
1 : the act or crime of recruiting prostitutes or of arranging a situation for another to practice prostitution —compare PIMP
2 : the act or crime of selling or distributing visual or print media (as magazines) designed to appeal to the recipient's sexual interest

I think this part is saying that in cases where this material like other erotic material is used somehow in connection of the commercialization of sex (pandering) courts should consider the material when determining what is legally obscene. (just cause it is virtual does not mean it is not porn). The court says that the CPPA makes anyone who has touched the stuff in question guilty even if they had nothing to with producing it. (think a store that unknowningly sells something illegal facing the same punishment as the people who made it - I think..)  When a movie is labeled to look like child porn but obviously isnt (probably the school girl thing here I imagine) the CPAA makes the person who has it a criminal even though that person had no intent of viewing child porn. In the end the first ammendment (which is primary in the concern of the court in this issue) requires the government to be more precise than the CPPA - hence the CPPA is unconstitutional.

There's kind of an apples and oranges thing here. This particular ruling was a question of whether virtual images of children can fall under the tough child porn laws and the Supreme Court said, "no". Those laws are extremely harsh for good reason, but the Court decided that they should not be applied to situations where no children were harmed. Such images can and probably will be deemed obscene even if they are only of virtual characters. Such images are a violation of Visa's censorship rules (which can be more restrictive than the law, as can any site TOS) and would jeapordize the marketplace here.

This ruling did not legalize virtual images in any fashion or provide them any free speech protection. It just stopped them from being added to a more severe law. I seem to recall that another law had a rider that made such images illegal and cannot recall which one, but it seems to have been done in a way that did not contest the earlier Supreme Court ruling.

I just don't have the time to get back into this at the moment -- I'm a bit preoccupied with drawing up a lighting layout for a new university communcations center building -- complete with TV studios.  So this post will, of necessity, have to be short.  Perhaps I can get into more detail several hours from now.

Others are making excellent points & contributions anyway.

@lmckenzie -- re: the ACLU position on KP - for now I'll just refer you to my responses in the other thread.  A Clintion-esque non-denial denial is not a denial.  Saying that "we don't support KP" -- and then going on to effectively say that it should be made legal......that's nothing more than a great example of how oiling oneself well prior to squeezing through a sewer manhole might help to keep the......dirt......off.  While, of course -- denying that the dirt is dirty.

But I have to give you credit, mckenzie:  you don't use the tactic of going for the personal-level attack.  At least I haven't seen you do that.  Perhaps we can discuss something.

@mickma --  I don't have the time to deal with your obessive black-helicopter-style fantasies in regards to conspiratorial "neocons" at the moment.  No doubt, when you sleep you have recurring nightmares about leering, moustache-twirling neocons in the neighborhood -- hiding behind your bushes, peeking into your windows, trying to figure out how best to ruin all of your fun.  Don't worry -- there isn't a neocon boogeyman hiding in your closet at midnight.  There's no need to hide under the covers -- or under the bed.  Besides -- getting under the bed is potentially dangerous in and of itself.  There might be a neocon lurking there in the darkness.

Quote - rreynolds -- I seem to recall that another law had a rider that made such images illegal and cannot recall which one, but it seems to have been done in a way that did not contest the earlier Supreme Court ruling.

If that's true, then it's news to me.  I haven't heard of any mollifying legislation actually being passed.  And even if it has -- it has yet to be tested by the courts sigh.

Well -- back to the communications center.  Y'all have fun without me.

It is dangerous to interpret law with broad application only in the narrow.   Rules against sex and/or violence can backfire.   There is no conclusive evidence that any form of art or literature inevitably leads to harm.   It may be slanderous, libelous, incenting to riot, but each much be proved to some degree of certitude in each case, based on the evidence relevant and competent to that case.  

It is the harm done to the child in child porn that is the harm, not the possession of the image except as can be proved as an accessory after thefact to the act of the child's abuse but in accordance with the law for such accessory action.

If one accepts the notion that mere possession or production of a particular form of expression, without relevant and competant proof in the specific case, the the "community" can ban anything for any reason.   If a suburb of Detroit went fundamentalist Muslim, that community could ban any article or image that offended the Sharia.   

Those who place faith in their Bible should note that it can be banished or censured under current law as overt portrayal of an execution which the Left deems offensive to child development.  Certainly the Holy Eucharist is virtual cannibalism and likewise unfit to be exposed to children.  At least the Bible could be XXX rated. 

Since the US Constitution guarantees a "republican form of government",  under the Patriot Act, those who plot to establish a Kingdom of God are thinking about plotting an overthrow of the Constitution.    Likewise,  those who congregate to conduct unlawful activities such as virtual cannibalism can be arrested, tried and convicted for conspiracy and their properties seized under the RICO anti-crime legislation.

He who preaches from a glass pulpit should avoid throwing rocks.  

Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you say,  but I will defend your right to say it,"

Quote - Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you say,  but I will defend your right to say it," 

Oh......that high-sounding idea died about the time that Ann Coulter was physically assaulted while speaking on a college campus.

Or everytime any other conservative speaker is protested or attempted to be shouted down while speaking on those same campuses. 

BTW - the converse rarely -- if ever -- happens.  "Free speech" is all relative, I suppose.  Free speech is only allowed so long as the left agrees with it.

"Free speech" is a concept which covers many things.  But in the opinion of the vast majority of us (I suspect), virtual kids doing virtual things doesn't fall under the rubric of "free speech".  But apparently the Supreme Court -- or at least the Court of 4 years ago -- didn't agree.

Webmonster-

Thank you- someone who actually gets it :)

The discussion is more important then the content.

*"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."*****Using sarcasm and promoting fear as argument is far to common around here. One line sound bites faulter against those who do try to think deeper and understand.

But I suppose it does scare some away who would otherwise challenge them.

Thank you again for your insiteful analyst

I wear my official warning as a badge of honor over this subject!

Geo

Well when I read that I pretty much instantly saw the point in terms of the TOS. Supreme Court basically nuked a national TOS similar to the one in force here. This topic is only partisan if you really try and make it partisan. Most of the Supreme Court ruling is developed out of logic rather than opinion or politics as I read it  - that is what should be gleaned from this more than anything.

Your welcome -I normally write strictly scifi/fantasy so the "translation" really was a good writing exercise - plus it made me think hard on the intent behind that verbage. Basically they mean to protect us - even if some of us dont see that. Sounds to me, my opinion which I can not qualify, that this CPPA was an exercise in crappy kneejerk bipartisan politics - probably tinged with hopes of gaining votes at home in the ranks of both parties else something so obviously flawed would have never made it into law. This CPPA should be rewritten with much more thought to protecting innocent people from undue persecution.

With that I think I am done here... I want to do some art now.
monster

PS - Geo your mag covers are way cool - I want a subscription! ;)

This has been a very interesting discussion. But I have always been, and still am, perplexed as to exactly what is a pornographic image of a child. As far as I can determine there has not been a universal hard and fast rule established. Is an image pornographic if it shows: A nude child from the rear? A frontal view of a nude child? Or does it become pornographic only when the genitals are blatantly featured. I don't think there is any doubt that both real life and artistically created images portraying sexual interaction are pornographic, but, the big question is, are the artificially created images to be considered harmless legal entertainment for adults or not????

"Saying that "we don't support KP" -- and then going on to effectively say that it should be made legal ..."

Phonz, twas you who highlighted the 'not otherwise obscene' caveat. You know as well as I that any such images depicting explixit sexual acts would be held obscene, even by most Blue state juries. Hell, you can't even buy an such a video featuring featuring ADULTS in my county. Now perhaps in its dark heart (as you imagine it), the ACLU really feels that such images are not obscene but to parse that from their statement is an even more tortuous exercise than wending one's way through a sewer - (be careful using that one around a Freudian :-) - it's down right clairvoiyant.

The problem, as oft stated, it what is over the "line." In that, R'osity is simply a microcosm of the larger society. The Court sentences us to endless wrangling with the ridiculously subjective Miller ruling. Speeding is going fast enough to give a reasonable person goosebumps? R'osity could have avoided the problem by simply saying render what ou want as long as it's not grabbing it's crotch, fellating the MilDoggie, yada yada. Those are fairly objective standards. Even the notorious breast coverage formula might be if someone would write a boob calculator script. They chose a standard which at lease some "reasonable" people feel is far too subject inconsistent application - fine, it wasn't the first time and won't be the last, their call. The only people who benefit are those who get off on how far they can tug ght baby in one direction or the other - let's see if I can sneak this one past vs. let's see if I can get this one pulled.

As I suggested before, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. In years of looking for everything Poser related on the web, I've run across exactly one, uno site that featured Poser kiddies doing the nasty along with 2D versions of same - which BTW showed far more talent than the Poser variety. Hint, it's on a super secret part of the ACLU server, along with the secret pics of Osama's cave and the upskirt shots of Ann Coulter - though I get the last two confused. Damn, Phonz, I wanted to be the first to mention the venemous righ-wing pin-up girl. I read the account of her being attacked - with pies no less - by "Al Pieda." According to the local press, she wasn't hit directly by either of the missiles. For someone who delights in tossing bombs like:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

I'd say that getting pied comes with the job and the paycheck. If Bill Gates and countless others can take a pie in the kisser and not deem it the end of Western Civilization, please. For a group that controls every political organ sight and has, claiming victimhood at the hands of a mythical left-wing juggernaut really does ring a bit hollow. Still, bring Annie over and I'll lick the whipped cream off her tortured tushie if she pays me enough - but I will not have sex with that woman.

On the subject of real, as opposed to slapstick violence though, I would suggest that a perusal of the news of the past decade or so would show that it is the far right which has the greater penchant for voting with real, as opposed to rhetorical explosives here in the US. With rare exceptions like the ELF (who I'm not sure have killed anyone yet), where are the violent leftists? The Islamists IMO are simply extreme rightists who disagree over what to call God. We have Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, violent gay bashers, those 82nd Airborne troopies who decided that interracial couples made good target practice ... Remember, even Sadam's judge said, 'You weren't a dictator, it was the people around you who made you look like one.'  I admit, it must be all that navel gazing and ungodly moral relativism. Liberals just can't seem to believe in too many things with the fundamentalist zeal required to justify TNT.

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

That's an important point. As I understand the US system (and I Am Not A Lawyer), this Supreme Court ruling pretty well kills dead the legislation it decided on. It doesn't stop a later law being enacted which has the same ban on "virtual" child porn if it was worded to take into account the ruling. British law on child porn is pretty close in effect to the US law the USSC ruled against. If it looks like a photograph of a child, it doesn't matter that it's CGI or somebody who just looks young. Which means that possession is illegal. For computer users it also means that, under the basic legislation dating back to the 1950s, downloading such an image will be considered to be "making" the image, attracting a higher penalty than mere possession. Add in the incompetence and dishonesty apparent in "Operation Ore" (Wikipedia is not wildly wrong on this affair), and it would be insane for a site to carry such material, or for a British resident to use such a site. That, alas, is the shabby reality. Photographs of people old enough to marry and fuck each other's minds out are dreadfully illegal. And even if you can be 100% certain it's not real, the cost and effort of defending against an accusation is a punishment in itself. So, while it may be legal, it's also incredibly stupid to fake child porn.

Attached Link: Wikipedia - Protect Act

As I mentioned in an earlier post (and there's a whole lot to read, so there's nothing wrong with missing it), the US Supreme Court never said child porn was legal. They only said that a depiction, that did not involve harming actual children, did not deserve the more draconian punishments that were reserved for laws meant to protect real children from real physical sexual abuse. It's always dangerous to turn a decision 180 degrees and believe that the turn is true. It's akin to "not guilty" prouncements, in criminal cases, being equated to "innocence"--when lack of a guilty verdict only means that there was insufficent evidence to return a guilty verdict. Lack of guilt does not equal innocent. The defendent may still be guilty of a crime, but the court didn't prove it. Similarly, here, the Supreme Court only said that virtual depictions did not belong under the law they struck down. That is very different from saying that such images are legal.

If you look at the Wikipedia link, there's a link to the 2003 Protect Act law that criminalizes virtual child porn. Basically, a new law was created to criminalize virtual child porn rather than try to tack on the virtual stuff to existing child porn laws that the Supreme Court struck down. So far, the Supreme Court has not gone after the new law, probably because it does not have the precedences of the previous law. The previous law was designed to protect children, not computer similations. The new law creates new criminal penalties instead of tacking them onto a different law.

I found this info by doing Google searches, starting with
    law virtual child porn
    adding "amber alert" from the info the first search provided
That got me to the Protect Act which I looked up in Wikipedia for a summarization and a link to the actual text of the law.

It's always better looking up the facts than arguing about emotional things. Although the 2002 Supreme Court decision was old news, so was the 2003 Protect Act that flew under the radar of public perception. Similarly, other laws have had the same lack of public scrutiny and are quietly eroding our choices.

Hi- I tried to find the actual law mentioned (Protect act of 2003) but could not.

I hate posting links to news articles cause they can be so bias.

It seems this one also is working it's way through the courts and from what I've been able to gather it sound like it will also get struck down completely at the S.C. too.

It's already been partly over turned.

http://www.freespeechonline.org/FSCview.asp?coid=271&keywords=PROTECT+Act+of+2003

Why is KP singled out for so much venom, including a five year sentence for mere possession, in the light of considerably more venomous vile is utterly ignored, even protected, such as the tender lyrics of the super cute kiddies of Prussian Blue, a white separatist hate group?  Or the hateful bilge of Al Qaieda's webniks?  If there is a near certain connection between KP and Child Abuse, then sites openly advocating negative social values such as holocaust, genocide, and negative affirmative action should be as dangerous and subject to the same strictures of law as CPPA.

The people most upset by KP are the victims of Child Abuse, and they tend to pass it on down through the generations, one after another.    Some of the abused hate KP because it reminds them of what happened to them,  some hate KP because they don't want you to know what it looks like ....or that it is even possible as many can't even imagine what happens.   Or the telltale look in the eye.   In short, it's a cover up.

Out here in the Bush, the politicians most vociferously against pornography of any kind, are the same who insist that children taken by the state from abusive families be returned forthwith.  After all, family values means that incest belongs in the home, not on the telly.

OBTW:  The TOS of this or any site can, by virtue of the right of free speech can ban whatever they want ... such as posting renders with blue in it.  No BS.

Quote - Why is KP singled out for so much venom...?

Because normal adults consider child porn one of the most reprehensible acts any adult can force on a child. Is there any reason to not have strong animosity against the kind of people that sexually exploit children?

My only concern with child protection laws is that they are often being used as a screen to go after adult entertainment products that have nothing to do with exploiting children. The recently passed Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 has a rider being used to fund 12-16 teams of FBI agents going across the country to check paperwork of adult production companies to ensure that they have copies of drivers licenses to document the ages of all their performers. Instead of those dozens of agents protecting children from real predators, they're busy scanning documents, trying to catch somebody who didn't keep good documentation on their adult performers. It's very unlikely that child pornographers are checking for drivers licenses, and maintaining records, of their underaged victims.

hi all, hi geo!

imo this kids-nudity-poser-problem isn´t that complicated.

(should the next sentence sound like a violation of TOS to you, pls tell me, i´m ready and willing to rewrite it.)
look, the most famous "kids with tits"-dealer is VOM.

that means:

• it is ok to create kids with tits.

• it is ok to sell kids with tits.

• it is ok to buy kids with tits.

• it is ok to play with kids with tits.

now TOS say:

• it is ok to show the kids,

• but it is not ok to show the tits.

you see, it´s simple! ; )

A.

ps: i wonder why the VOM does never take an active part in discussions like this...

Child abuse, not money, is the root of all evil.   Hitler, Saddam,  Stalin,  all had abusive fathers and doting mothers.   Hitler was so mad at his half Jewish father that his gravesite was made into an artillery range so that he would recieve Hell on earth ... the Hell of the trenches of WW1.  It is estimated that 70% of all prostitutes and convicts were sexually abused as children.

Current estimates of the numbers of children who have suffered directly from or indirectly through transmitted the behavioral effects of abuse in earlier generations is around a third of everyone.   Boys show it through anger, girls through overly sexualized behavior.   While the image of a male father figure abusing a girl is most well known,  the evidence suggests that as many boys are sexually abused by their mothers. 

While all manner of crime can be portrayed in literature, art, and other forms of expression,  the same is not true of the single most destructive behavior there is, but only if it is expliciet is it the third rail of art.    The public is obsessed with the subject, however.  but in the tease not the strip. The Jon Benet Ramsey case is good for headlines at any time.  "Law and Order, SVU", the TV series feeds on that subject.  

That level of concern is perfectly normal as the prime directive of any species is to protect the young.   The survival of the species and the gene pool is dependent on that.   It's a really bad idea to get in the way of a Momma Bear and her cub. 

Rather than deal with the problem itself, however, the body politic treats the image of abuse as if it were the real thing and cuts the budgets of those agencies charged with dealing with the real thing.   It's as if burning Guy Fawkes on November the 5th really does dispel treason, and gunpowder plot.  

It's alsoan ancient ploy to substitute the image of the real thing for the real thing.    Rituals are founded on that.   The priests of ancient civilizations managed to control the lives of whole populations for millenia just by pretending they could control the weather by ritual sacrifices and mumbo jumbo.    And the Maya used to toss kiddies into the pit to assuage the Gods. 

Freedom of the press is pointless without the right of the people to know is as free.   There are lows and in the Common Law,  remedies for lies and harmful expression that can be proved to the false, malicious, and causal.    Practically none  of history's previous repressions of the possession of proscribed expressions, including the Catholic codex of proscribed works, were as harsh as the punishment of KP.   The author or artist might have been locked up.   That still goes on here and there as in Austria and Turkey,  but the recipients of banned manterials usually got a slap on the wrist.   

Even the possession of classified material is not proscribed if the possessor didn't take it.  As in classified material,  the danger lies with the exposure of the truth.  It's as if the whole KP thing is an instinctive cover up,  by those who don't want the public to know what's going on behind the white picket fence,  or why their children are over sexualized or overly angry

Child abuse, not money, is the root of all evil.   Hitler, Saddam,  Stalin,  all had abusive fathers and doting mothers.   Hitler was so mad at his half Jewish father that his gravesite was made into an artillery range so that he would recieve Hell on earth ... the Hell of the trenches of WW1.  It is estimated that 70% of all prostitutes and convicts were sexually abused as children.

Current estimates of the numbers of children who have suffered directly from or indirectly through transmitted the behavioral effects of abuse in earlier generations is around a third of everyone.   Boys show it through anger, girls through overly sexualized behavior.   While the image of a male father figure abusing a girl is most well known,  the evidence suggests that as many boys are sexually abused by their mothers. 

While all manner of crime can be portrayed in literature, art, and other forms of expression,  the same is not true of the single most destructive behavior there is, but only if it is expliciet is it the third rail of art.    The public is obsessed with the subject, however.  but in the tease not the strip. The Jon Benet Ramsey case is good for headlines at any time.  "Law and Order, SVU", the TV series feeds on that subject.  

That level of concern is perfectly normal as the prime directive of any species is to protect the young.   The survival of the species and the gene pool is dependent on that.   It's a really bad idea to get in the way of a Momma Bear and her cub. 

Rather than deal with the problem itself, however, the body politic treats the image of abuse as if it were the real thing and cuts the budgets of those agencies charged with dealing with the real thing.   It's as if burning Guy Fawkes on November the 5th really does dispel treason, and gunpowder plot.  

It's alsoan ancient ploy to substitute the image of the real thing for the real thing.    Rituals are founded on that.   The priests of ancient civilizations managed to control the lives of whole populations for millenia just by pretending they could control the weather by ritual sacrifices and mumbo jumbo.    And the Maya used to toss kiddies into the pit to assuage the Gods. 

Freedom of the press is pointless without the right of the people to know is as free.   There are lows and in the Common Law,  remedies for lies and harmful expression that can be proved to the false, malicious, and causal.    Practically none  of history's previous repressions of the possession of proscribed expressions, including the Catholic codex of proscribed works, were as harsh as the punishment of KP.   The author or artist might have been locked up.   That still goes on here and there as in Austria and Turkey,  but the recipients of banned manterials usually got a slap on the wrist.   

Even the possession of classified material is not proscribed if the possessor didn't take it.  As in classified material,  the danger lies with the exposure of the truth.  It's as if the whole KP thing is an instinctive cover up,  by those who don't want the public to know what's going on behind the white picket fence,  or why their children are over sexualized or overly angry

First of all, we've already discussed to death that physical development (i.e. young women growing breasts) is happening to girls younger and younger. 
Second, it's not Thorne's responsibility for any customers' neglecting to put clothing on their characters that they render and place in the gallery.  When he's selling young-looking characters, he's very courteous and clothes his characters.  He is a very big selling merchant, and for very good reasons.  He creates quality, which brings customers back. 
And, finally, I really wish everyone would leave Thorne out of these discussions.  Until he, himself, comes in here and speaks.  Because, as I have said before, it's not his fault for anyone else's neglecting to clothe their characters. 

MS

huh? Your the only one who mentioned he who will not be named!

amacord mentioned the VOM.  We only have one.  And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who it is, geogress, so don't play stupid. 

ok- I'm not playing stupid

I don't know what VOM is?

Good night sleep tight.

VOM = Vendor Of The Month

As this has turned into yet another non-productive thread, we've decided to lock it.

MorriganShadow
Poser Moderator