>> Some guy in a different country can post a borderline image and cause him legal problems or jail time.

I'm not debating that. I realize the policy is there. But in all of this, has anyone really asked the core question of why it's necessary?

We have this strange little vague fear that perverts are trolling the galleries at FW or Rosity or here looking to get their jollies off by pictures of little boys and girls. There probably are, just as there are pervs tearing through the catalogues from Sears to see all those little boys in their tidy-whities. But y'know, here's the thing: if the PTB knew anything about child porn, they'd know that whether or not the kid is naked is immaterial -- all the child molester is interested in is seeing the kid, period. Child molestation isnt about sexuality so much as it is about power, and power doesnt care about the kid's genitalia, just that the kid is underage and therefore pliable to the will of some perv. So does that mean we should eliminate all images of children? After all, a child molester is gonna be just as excited by Sadie in a rainjacket as Sadie buck-ass nekkid... probably even more so, because that rainjacket just allows his imagination to run wild.

Where does it stop, folks? Just asking the question, because IMHO it deserves more than just "well, if you feel so passionately about it, open your own site!" I'm not saying let's just open the floodgates and let any- and everything go. But a little common sense seems to be lacking in all of this.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider