By way of background. Yesterday 10/11/99 I posted a pic which I am rather fond of in the Gallery. Knowing that this image would be controversial, I also posted a message in the Poser Forum explaining exactly what I had done and why I had done it. For the curious or non informed here is the link to the image www.asan.com/users/sailnut/images/impregnat ion.jpg Within hours, forum and/or EdgeNet management, seemingly in response to NON PUBLIC complaints, deleted the image (as pornographic) from the Gallery. For what its worth, the PUBLIC comments I saw in the Gallery were generally favorable. It seems to me that a tiny, hidden intolerant, vocal minority are imposing their views on the majority. We are a community. By operation of law what is pornographic is decided by the standards of this COMMUNITY the Poser Forum! Not by the narrow individualistic views of those few with their particular agendas. The test of Community Standards has been frequently perhaps universally upheld by the courts and is the law of the land. Of course, the question for us is how to determine if a given IMAGE falls within the scope of community tolerance. I think that the management of this site should institute an process whereby in cases such as mine, the Poser Community, right here, determines whats acceptable. What do you think? Christine

Simple question. I'm not trying to start anything and the Team members maybe should've contacted you ... but honestly would you like to try to explain that image to a 10 year old child? It's a beautiful image ... but we do not have an age restriction here and that is what I believe the team members are considering. It can easily be considered violent, sexual in nature and even pornographic because of the position if the elements in the piece. Again ... it is a lovely piece, but please consider who your audience could be. That is the issue. Thank you for "listening" Sincerely Boni

I have wrestled for some time with your very real concern. Please consider the following; 1. I think it is the parents place not EdgeNet's to control where and what their children view. There is a very distressing tendency in our society to buck our obligations over to others. 2. Just how many kid's know or care about Poser et-al? If they did would find their way here? This issue of censorship has been with us for a long time. The Oscar Wilde/Richard Strauss opera Salome (a masterpice but nasty) comes to mind. Christine

Chrisa.. i agree. After finally seeing Your image i found nothing objectionable about it. Suggestive maybe but nothing that should have been pulled a challenge everyone look in the gallery.. i dare anyone to say that they don't find a single picture in there that they don't take offense at. that's not saying that any of the images are bad or that they should be removed.. it just says that we all have different tastes and different ideas of art and porno, and good taste. what my idea of art is not your idea of art. I hold the idea that this forum this "arena" is the poser communities. Simply because if you removed everything we have put here there would only be a few blank pages here. Nothing like it is right now. So why shouldn't it be us who decides what should stay and what should go? Management has said that they don't want to censor. Which was a fantastic departure from Willow's rule but now they are censoring (under the pressure of members or whatever.) Someone said if you can show an image to your mother and call it art then post it. I can show my mom any piece i have done (from the lifestyle images, gorean poses, Hawk's slave, and more. ) and tell her mom this is art. She may not agree but she accepts it. I haven't posted it here because i beleive it isn't nearly good enough yet. but i do feel that either the management comes up with clear concise rules regarding posting images or let the membership rule on "controversial" images as You said. This is as much our forum as it was when willow ran it. We should have the ability to rule on images. Let the majority decide. Stormrage's 2cents

Bonai.. Ummmm 10 year olds see worse than Chrisas image on tv everyday.. They see it in school, on the way home, they see worse at their friends house.. Aye so maybe a few kids come here. first of all they should have their parents with them. I always make sure i am right here with my daughter when she gets on the computer. And I will continue to do so. We live in the age when it's your fault not mine because i don't want to make sure my kids view things that are proper. They can go to geocities and see pure pornography. They can go anywhere on the net and see it. I ran and run adult sites so this is nothing new. You can try to ban kids from sites, you can try to prevent them from seeing it but they will see it. whether it is on here or on a "homepage" So Edgenet needs to add a disclaimer on the site. It would solve any legal problems. I would bet it wasn't the parents complaining.. i would bet it was a few ummmmm "moralists" who complained. and how many objected to the image? how many objected to how many members there are here? if we had voted maybe the image wouldn't have been pulled. I explained that image btw to my 10 year old cousin with her mom standing next to her when i saw it. The ten year old smiled and said "it's neat but not my thing" and walked off. So i would explain it which is more than many parents would. In this age of parents not paying attention to their children how can we expect others to do our job for us? We shouldn't we have to accept responsiblity

I think we all have an Idea of what we should and shouldn't post on a public gallery. Anything involving manipulation of genitalia is a given to be controversial, that and sexual violence. I suggested an Adult warning method to Roy and Tim that would allow gallery contributors to mark their work as adult oriented as well as giving gallery viewers the choice to display the marked images or not. I'm not sure if this is possible, we'll have to see what they can do. -JH.

Good God--how easily offended can people be? I've seen the image in question, and there's nothing even remotely pornographic about it--no breasts, no wieners, no nothin' (all of the potentially naughty bits are obscured by glowing ectoplasm). The issue seems to be with what's implied, ie., that the fem figure is being impregnated by the alien figure--and not in the missionary position either! The knocked-up-by-an-alien concept has been the subject of at least a couple of recent Hollywood movies (albeit "R" rated ones)--but it's somehow too controversial for the new, non-censoring Poser Forum. Sheesh. Censorship is the tool of the fearful and narrow-minded. "We must protect the children!" cry the fascists, as they burn the books. Mosca (who's considering posting a few of his images here, so the censorship-lovers will have some real porn to get alarmed about.)

Censorship, just like Democracy in practice, is almost never a reflection of the majority opinion. It arises from the strongly held opinions of a few, the apathy of the many and the fear of the ones who hold differing opinions. Ultimately, the management of this site cannot straddle the fence. They should make clear what they wish to allow on the site in specific and unambiguous terms - no sex, no genitals, not violence etc. Then the community of Poser artists can decide if they wish to continue contributing their work. Censorship after the fact is not acceptable. As Mosca said above, I am tempted to post some of my work here just to give people something to be really offended by! Verywierd

Christine, I saw the image and didn't fine it objectionable. In my opinion, there is no pornography on this site. If parents are concerned about what their children might view here, then parents should supervise the kids, not webmasters or isp's. And concerning the 10-year old who visits this site; if his or her parents allow them to play with the big kids, they should expect their kid to get a few bruises. --ratta

If this image is porn, I'm a Swich watch!!! Okay, the image is a bit weird, it makes you look like : "What the hell is that?"..... but isn't that cool?? Yes!! :o}} That this image is removed is pure nonsense!! You have to remove a whole lot more images here cause it is not the only one in his kind I did see here. Sorry, but IMHO the removal is a stupid example of people who don't like and/or don't want to see new stuff, who just don't want to see further then their noses are long.

I do not find Christine's image objectionable, personally. However, it would be blind of us to believe that children don't go out on the net unsupervised. We may take care of our children, but there are tens of thousands who don't or can't. Edgenet has taken the position that they, as a company, will shield young eyes from questionable material by not allowing it in the gallery. That is their right... it's Edgenet's money that provides the space, therefore it should be Edgenet's morals that guide its usage. This is true of any real-world gallery, as well as virtual. Now, those who have read my prior postings on censorship know that the idea disgusts me. But there are outlets for adult imagery. There's also the option of paying for your own site. Set your own guidelines. It is governmental censorship that I abhor. But I think the owner of a gallery should have ultimate discretion in what is displayed there. We all know when we toe the line. I rather like Christine's image, but she said herself that she knew it would be controversial. Why not just post a message in the forum with a link to your site. By not pushing the envelope, we can avoid gallery "censorship" altogether. Just my thoughts... no flames please. -ScottK "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice Doggy' until you can find a big stick." - Will Rogers

Wow, that is one lucid statement, Superuntitled! Bravo!

I have no quarrel with what is written above. However, the writer is answering his own question. The issue here is simply that I posted my pic in good faith and in reliance upon what was published right here as acceptable content. Within hours the pic was deleted on the basis (I later learned) of a complaint to EdgeNets management. Not unreasonably I asked for the identity of the complainant and the text of the complaint. Disclosure of this information was declined and remains declined. I thought conviction via dennuciation by unnamed parties became unfashionable in the 16th century. Dosen't what happened strike you as unfair? I want to go on record by saying that I do not believe that any person on the forum team was or is in any way involved with this unfortunate affair. Everything I have seen points to someone in the executive suite. Yes it's possible I will profit from what has happened. Stravinsky's fortune was made when a riot ensued during the first performance of the "Rite of Spring." However, a necessary and universal requirement to reach this happy state of affairs is that the object of contention be of quality sufficent to reasonably stand the test of time. Therefore only time will tell in respect to the issue of my personal enrichment. Christine