Quote - it doesn't require any testicular fortitude to tell a bunch of prudes on a porno site to
fuck off, as they've got no business there in the first place, but try telling that to a copper who
just seized one's computer full of what he considers to be computer-generated kiddie porn.

Yes and no, and it depends on why the "copper" is grabbing your computer.

More often than not, computers are seized as part of investigating actual crimes (that is, they don't go trolling websites and hunting down artists, as the current hysteria would have it). Folks who have come up against the wrong end of these cases had a metric shitload of real (photographic) child porn on their machinery, which leaves the chump no room at all for disputing the nature of the animated/fake/CG/drawn/whatever porn.

OTOH, until/unless a jury is presented with someone who only has the CG variety of 'maybe' images, we don't/won't know how it would turn out, and prosecutors are smart enough to know that taking stabs in the dark would get them nailed just as hard as the defendant they're trying to nail on just that basis.

(and as a Nota Bene, in the case of some prosecutors like Eliot Spitzer, it comes back to bite 'em in the ass even harder than they could have estimated... google his name sometime ;) ).

As for whether or not someone should be there? Hey - we've seen our fair share of zealots (not like they lasted very long, but...) Also, you don't include the condition of someone building their own website with mixed media subject matter, eh? :)

There is one type of person that IIRC we do give consideration to: If a content creator is repulsed at what someone has done with their sold creations, they can show up and complain all they want to... and have every right to do so. Whether they'll be listened to or not depends on the nature of the argument, as well as actual licensing issues and conditions at the store and for the product(s) sold.

--

Quote - Thorne at Faeriewylde had this problem for some time. He finally was forced to buckle under those same crusaders and changed his TOS. You might want to talk to him. He is really cool about this.

Different story - Thorne's deal was (as PJ mentioned) that there were too many dumbasses who were posting improper (for his site's TOS) material and refused to stop doing so. He didn't feel like dealing with the headaches, so he modified this TOS to not deal with it. OTOH, the man held out for 7 years before it got to that point, so it's not like he buckled under at the slightest touch.

Speakin' of which, @ momodot: Trust me - it'd conform to even the most tightest of Bible Belt notches...

Quote - When you want to post images on other peoples sites you gotta conform to their rules irregardless of who dictates those guidelines for them.

Agreed. We follow the same ethic - if we won't accept it (and it has to really cross the line), then go open your own website or find one who will accommodate you. OTOH, we set our own rules and keep to them. I wrote the part about PayPal and Renderosity because there was discussion about how RO was all big on enforcing their standards, when in fact those standards were set for them by another private entity (as opposed to by law, which is a whole different bucket of fish altogether). Nothing wrong with that per se, but it's far more accurate and honest (and complete) to detail how that came about.