For those interested in the evolving legal stance on virtual images, this might be of interest.

Today I heard about this on the radio and thought people might be interested in this ruling last week from the Ohio Supreme Court exempting virtual characters from standard child pornography laws.

Ohio SupremeCourt Ruling 

Another article

Always good to keep up on the higher courts and such since this topic comes up in the forums now and then. I am sure there are better articles. I just google'd these two quickly.

So...?

The federal government has shown that one way or another, they're going to make this kind of imagery illegal.  That Ohio Supreme Court ruling, when you look at the entire text of it, applies to a very specific chunk of Ohio state law and has nothing to do with the current Federal law on a the same topic:

Quote -   1466A.      Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children. 

Additionally:

Quote - SEC. 502. IMPROVEMENTS TO PROHIBITION ON VIRTUAL
2 CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
3 (a) Section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code,
4 is amended—
5 (1) so that subparagraph (B) reads as follows:
6 ‘‘(B) such visual depiction is a digital
7 image, computer image, or computer-generated
8 image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that
9 of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or’’:
11 (2) by striking ‘‘; or’’ at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting a period; and
13 (3) by striking subparagraph (D).
14 (b) Section 2256(2) of title 18, United States Code,

The Ohio newspaper article greatly misinterprets the significance of the Ohio Supreme Court ruling:

Quote - It's illegal to create realistic child pornography by digitally grafting images of children and adults, but there's no law against making "virtual" child pornography from scratch, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

That's simply wrong.  Considering the good Mr. Dwight Whorley remains a guest of the Federal penal system, if you're in the United States, you'd be safer not having anything to do with any of the offenses listed in the current Federal laws on "virtual child pornography" (specifically, Sections 1466a and 2256 of Title 18 of the United States Code).

I have no commentary on the ruling or the topic. That is, after all, what courts are for. I am aware of the federal and local laws, which is why this recent ruling in Ohio is interesting.

On a side note, there was another article that was interesting. It was an older US Supreme Court ruling. I think that article is gone now. I think this was the topic.

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

Here in the UK, the government has made no secret of the fact that they intend to bring in legislation that will effectively ban any imagery, however done that is either of an excessively violent and/or sexual  nature!!
And we're not just talking child porn here which I'm sure we all agree needs to be stamped on!, we're talking "ALL" imagery!

It will also be an offence punishable by law to either "have in your posession" or "view" or "make" such images!

Any artwork, photography etc. is in the firing line!

It's not law yet, but it's coming!

As opposed to where the law has been, here is where it is and where it's going:  The November 2006 United States Attorney's Bulletin, published by the US Department of Justice.

Quote - Conclusion
The successful prosecution of Dwight Whorley demonstrates how innovative employment of obscenity statutes, in conjunction with a thorough computer forensic analysis, can be used to contain a dangerous individual and help ensure the safety of the children in our communities. Section 1466A allows federal prosecutors to pursue all cases involving visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct regardless of how those visual depictions
were produced. Accordingly, not only should federal prosecutors use the statute to prosecute
cases involving cartoons, as in Dwight Whorley's case, but they should also consider using the
statute to prosecute cases that may be difficult to prosecute under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252 and 2252A, for example, where it may be difficult to establish that the children depicted in the images are real.

This law is current, applies to the entire US, and is actively enforced - feel free to write your legislator, or consult your local FBI office (I did). 

I said years ago Jesus Blair was bringing in a law to ban all imagery of art of violence in UK, or especially England as the scottish govt of england  will let Scotland decide.
Now the funny thing is the government wants to ban this art but changed the law, if say apart from a kid a 21 year old goes into a shop, kicks the shopkeepers head in, jumps on his head.
The police will give the perp options go to jail or pay £500 fine and 60 hours community service, we have the highest gun and knife crime in western world but government wont do any thing about it, only ban violent art and drawings, give ya a laugh near friends shop at bus stop 14 kids from age 8 to 10 smoking drugs and bottle whisky, shouting and screaming abuse at people.
Police 2 of em turned up and 1, 8 year old told em where to get off and another pulled a knife out and said he will give the police woman a new sex hole, police stood their and kids walked off laughing and joking.
The police went away and our government don't arrest child molesters just gives em a warning and let them go.
Renderosity and renderotica will be banned in UK as a block will be put on all ISP'S from allowing this and other sites to be accessed, as talking to a  friend's brother who has worked at Westminster.
Has said that renderotica and renderosity are on a government list of sites to be banned. and funny thing a government wanting ban violent images, teaches children as young as 3 the joys of gay and lesbian sex.
You should see some of the gay and lesbian children's books taught in most schools now, if shown in yank schools the teachers would be burnt at the stake.

I said years ago Jesus Blair was bringing in a law to ban all imagery of art of violence in UK, or especially England as the scottish govt of england  will let Scotland decide.

Interesting you didn't include my Country in this statement, maybe the Welsh Government will have differing views on this also!
Wales isn't part of "England"

Alright, that'll do. We must have said this a hundred times: this isn't the forum to discuss politics, especially if people start reporting sweeping bigoted statements and conspiracy theories as if they were fact :rolleyes: