This fall, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments on the case, captioned Ashrolf v. Free Speech Coalition, which will determine the legitimacy of a provision of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996 which criminalizes the possession or distribution of so-called virtual child pornography. The appeal of the Department of Justice stems from a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling wherein the Court struck down the provision for being unconstitutionally vague and over broad. The CPPA defines child pornography as a visual depiction that appears to be or conveys the impression of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Therefore, the law not only forbids obscene material with adults portraying minors, but also outlaws the production, possession or distribution of computer-generated images that appear to portray minors. Traditionally, courts have upheld such child pornography laws under the rationale that they are preventing harm to real children. Opponents of the provision do not discount the necessity of a law designed to protect children from sexual predators. However, they argue that the provision of the act reaches beyond its underlying rationale to protect children since the material sought to be regulated doesnt directly involve children. The government, however, posits that harm to children from child pornography is not limited to use of live children in sexual explicit material and suggests that secondary effects of virtual child porn constitute a direct threat to child welfare. For instance, proponents argue that fictional portrayals of elicit sexual activity encourages further activity by enticing pedophiles to stalk and molest children and are used to lure children into sexual conduct. Because the provision is an allegedly threat to a fundamental right (1st Amendment freedom of speech) the Court will likely review it with the strictest of scrutiny for government actions. In order for the provision to survive strict scrutiny examination, the Court must find that the law is the required means necessary to achieve the compelling state interest of child welfare. This is an onerous standard for the government to overcome. In any event, the impact of a Supreme Court ruling will be significant, especially for creators of digital works and particularly to users of the Poser line of software produced by Curious Arts, which has the capacity to easily create digital images of children and adults. Currently, the law provides for up to 15 years imprisonment for the possession of more than three images of child pornography, and 30 years for defendants with previous child-porn or sex-abuse convictions.

You know, I'm no big supporter of child porn. I find it and its users to be among society's more disgusting creations. But this law worries me. A lot. On an AOL board, we were discussing something similar to this: in Canada last year, the courts decided that possession of child pornography was not ipso facto a crime, although the creation and distribution was. Naturally, a lot of people were really upset by this decision, and rightfully so, I suppose. But that got me to wondering: if we're talking about ownership of something that portrays an illegal act as being a crime itself, then how many of us would still be able to keep those videos and DVDs of action movies, where the portrayal of a murder is taking place? Is that so different from what's being talked about in the initial post here? How about sites like "renderotica", where the portrayal of extreme s/m is being presented -- it wouldn't be difficult to describe those as assault with bodily harm, so does that make them illegal as well?

This just gets worse and worse. I'm agreeing with "atthisstage" again. I can think of few arguments more spurious than "proponents argue that fictional portrayals of elicit sexual activity encourages further activity by enticing pedophiles to stalk and molest children". Why should "fictional portrayals" of this particular topic be any different from fictional portrayals of any other illegal or immoral act. Since childhood, I have been bombarded by fictional portrayals of the most henious acts. I have seen John Wayne kill hundreds of Native Americans, and had (as a child) been given the instruments of performing such actions in play, but have never felt that this "encouraged" me to perform such acts in real life as an adult. I have felt no "encouragement" from seeing Elmur Fudd blow Daffy Duck's face off with a shotgun, several times in a 3 minute period, nor from watching the coyote attempt to crush the roadrunner with boulders and anvils. From my teen years, I've seen realistic movie portrails of organized crime, disorganized crime, psycopathinc crime against people, animals, property, and sometimes the whole world, and I have never felt "encouraged" to do any of this. So, to accept these "encouragement" arguments is to accept the censorship of all literature that does not depict the living of healthy, virtuous lives. And we've seen what happens when a government tries such restriction. Things like students, tanks, and Tiennemen square.

I don't think anyone has any business using child models in porn and I hope the government squashes them like the roaches they are. You can define art and free speech all you want, but it is not acceptable to use children or the representives of children in this manner. You can flame me if you like, won't bother me a bit. If I see ANY type of child porn, Poser children or otherwise, I will be reporting it. And since one web owner in Texas just got life in prison for running their site for child porn, I guess there must be a few out there who agree. Marque

Some of the most vivid portrayals of sex and/or violence, including images where children are victimized, come from nations with extremely low crime rates and strong family values, to wit: Japan. Denmark had the reputation of the most liberal of porn movies and videos for a long time. The Netherlands, in particular, Amsterdam has legendary openess with portrayals of sex. The most repressive of nations on the planet today also take the lead in suppression of portrayals of sex. It seems obvious that, at the societal level, the portrayal of violence and/sex (including kiddie porn) has no effect on public mores, And at best, such portrayal is inversely related to child abuse, violence and distonic family values. At the individual level, the availability of ways to work out sexual and/or violent urges by way of fantasy is essential to the control, reduction, and elimination of actions detrimental to society. The mind gets the same bang from an imagined experience as a real one, and without the adverse physical side effects. In the US, one out of every three women and one of five boys experience sexual abuse in childhood, according to a number of estimates. That's horrific! Given the prevalence of the problem, just who do you suppose is adamant on repressing the visual evidence of it's existence? The continued repression of the Freedom of Expression in this case is about the same as trying to put out a fire with gasoline!

You know, some of the fairy art I've seen here and in other forums can come very close to being classified as child porn, especially when you have nude fairy characters with very child-like features, depending on your tolerance level. Some artists put small breasts or traces of pubic hair on them, but those with low tolerance for nudity can argue that these really depict underage teens under the guise of fairies.

Along these lines... how do you all feel about breast morphs and genital morphs already being distributed for the Mille Girls? Y'all can't tell me that's NOT for the sick pleasure of some sick individual?

I was abused as a child and I will tell you that this copout of "oh it happened to me and that's why I do it" is crap. I know many people male and female who have been abused and not one of us is at all interested in visiting that pain and abuse on another person. Knowing what it is like first hand I can't imagine doing that to someone else. I stand by my statement that it is NOT art in any way shape or form and I will continue to report any and all child porn that I see. Marque

The fury of the abused against any and all representation of child abuse is clearly well founded and easy to sympathize with. So it is with fury against any crime of violence ... a child abuse is a crime of violence. It isn't sexual abuse of a child that is the focus of the laws in this matter, it is the CAMERA ANGLE used to portray it. There are numerous examples of major motion pictures that "depict" sexual activity of persons under the legal age ... they just don't show Tab A being inserted in Slot B. The penalty for the right camera angle can be an Oscar, and the wrong camera angle ... 15 years in the slammer! It is arbitrary, capricious, cruel and unusual punishment ...as well as counter productive on the real problem .... child abuse in the real world.

Ah hem....Okay...2 out of 3 of my daughters did the child "pageant" circle, back home in California. (The baby only lasted 3 years...her older sister went on throughout her teen years, and is finishing up college with a complete "dance" scholarship.) You want to talk kiddie porn....hah...The lil mis teeny contestants are all decked out in glitter and makeup, with helmet sprayed hairdoes. And, I have seen so many of them get smacked by their parents, for not winning that contest's trophy. And, we aren't talking an occasional pageant, here. There were pageants just about every weekend. Oh, and to make your lil girl look like a lil hoochie...shoot...I was paying about $100 per costume...AND, THEN...there was the "formal" wear to purchase. Sex sells. And, sex sells some kids on being "sexy". The only reason that I went along with that whole pageant circuit thing was: MY MIDDLE DAUGHTER LOVED IT. It was her "life". Being Teen Miss Santa Clara was such a high point for her. Her little sister, I might add...dropped out and went into sports. That was cool. I got my ex to take the middle one to the pageants, since he had no money, and didn't buy all the crap...and, I went to Little League and Soccer with the baby. The pageants depressed me terribly. Have any of you ever attended one?

Irrespective of your feelings on the matter, you might heed the original posters advice. ...sounds evenhanded-handeded, although there is no mention of 'lascivious display' or recent cases that suggest that nobody has to see the offending material. I don't know how you feel about all-caps user-names, but the single-picture gallery (empty contact and info pages) and front-loading in the Rendoerosity gallery suggest this is an LEA announcing it's presence on the forum. Until HARBINGER-3D revisits the thread I would consider it a troll. And this in a world where people are being beaten and shot down in the streets.

You know...I was wondering what the source of this alleged article was. Thank you, now I don't feel like I am a paranoid.

No Poppi, but I have seen them while cruising the channels and I can see what you mean about depressing. My daughter never got into that, she was a tomboy. Good thing too, I couldn't have afforded the costumes. I have to agree with Imacken, I think the person who started this thread just came in to stir us up. Marque

The person who started the thread is a moderator here - of the Copyright Laws forum. It's a not a troll - it's a heads up.

I do too. It is the yearly anniversary of some very bad Renderosity trolls. LOL...But, I did read a bunch of R'osity history the other day, when takin' a break...'Tis the season. Shoot....they get me, too, cause I am somewhat gullible.

PJ...Could he/she please cite the article that the post was based on. Thanks, Poppi

Methinks you're asking the wrong person. ;-) Try an 'instant message' thingie to HARBINGER-3D (click on the name in the post header).

Poppi, I normally prefer the term "naive". It's an old word, but carries a connotation of "innocence". The carnival slang "gullible" (modern slang, you won't even find it in most dictionaries) has unplesent connotations of being an easy mark, a rube, as it were. Wiz Wiz Wizzzzzzzz! Joe

I'm behind the store on this one. All it would take is one slur and they could be shut down lock stock and barrel. People are trying to make a point here that the pictures don't matter, when in fact they do. You must realize that the protection of children overides anything you will ever render. Somewhere we have to make a stand against using children in any manner that may cause harm. I commend anyone who takes even the smallest step to initiate that protection. Marque

Excuse me for barging in here, but I have a question or two. Can I post a pic of a young teen in a string bikini striking a "come-hither" pose? Can her nipples be perking the fabric of the bikini? Can her bottom depict the hint of "camel toes" through the fabric? How much butcheek can be shown? Sometimes, skimpy clothing can be much, much more arousing then nudity. After all, it's so often a wonderbra that provides us with wonderful cleavage and some ungodly tight shorts that gives the ass some fine shape. Thigh-high stockings really accentuate the legs in a way that makes me loopy. You get the idea. I am getting some ideas for some very, very hot depictions of clothed young teens. (Anyone remember those Calvin Klein ads from a few years back?) -WTB

The protection of children is a notable and natural emotion. Any propagandist worth his or her salt knows that this perfectly natural desire is readily bent to the purposes of social control, regardless of relevance to the actual issue of protecting children: Socrates was forced to drink a cup of hemlock "to protect the youth" of Athens. The Nazis condemned the whole of modern art, particularly Jewish, for being "degenerate". The extermination of social "undesirables" in the Third Reich was "justified" as necessary for the protection of European children and culture. Various communist regimes have similiarly outlawed "obscene"art and imprisoned the artists responsible .. all in the name of decency. While I personally find a great deal of what is called "art" ridiculous, revolting, and unworthy of use other than lining a garbage can, ... I am thoroughly frightened of those who would use the power of the state to repress that which I, or anyone else,do not like. The anger expressed by Marque is a normal reaction to one who has experienced abuse as a child, and is the most destructive lasting aspect of child abuse. The rage he expresses in minor compared to the rage seen in the eyes of the mug shots of those on Death Row. That rage, in it's extreme, has been acted out by Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Goebbels, Joseph Stalin, et al. That rage is also portrayed in the violent art seen on other Poser sites .. and is a visual expression of the rage felt by many artists of abuse they have experienced or have picked up as family tradition. I expect that the majority of so-called "erotic" art is, in reality "rage" art ... traceable to child abuse. But the new law doesn't proscribe "rage'art. Keep in mind the fact that there are people collecting your names from this site and other Poser sites to turn over to the Feds .... and it makes no difference how clever you think you are ... they are out to put you away.

First of all I am a female, and I do not feel rage over what happened, just the desire to protect others from the same fate. If anything I feel sad that this even has to be addressed. Isn't it odd that only the artist's seem to have rights? If someone speaks up and states the opinion that they are against these pictures they are called a prude, Nazi, whatever. Look at what has been written here today. I see a lot of words from people trying to justify "art" at the expense of the innocence they claim they are trying to protect. Marque

Oh wow. Well Marque... did I ever tell you that you are the gutsiest woman I have ever met? There is a special place in heaven for you my best of friends, in another age you would have been called Jeannie de Arc, Bonny Parker, Gwyhnhwyvar, or perhaps just be thought to be a Valkyrie. Hrm... this is a difficult and emotionally charged topic for all. Most here do not wish to think their art could in time be censored, and fear this is the beginning of that movement, and so are reacting in fear. Some here, such as Marque, and I must say, myself, see this as a natural moral stance to take. If these new rules prevent even one person from suffering or help prevent those who have already been victimized from having a flashback by accidently running across an image that brings about a trauma reaction, then I am all for it. I have no personal need to express myself artistically through the nudity of the very young.

Go to the ACLU website and join. Let your Rep. and Sen. know what you think !

The repression of art portraying child abuse will not protect children, it endangers them. The repression of art portraying child abuse hides the problem when it needs to be understood. It is a huge problem affecting one third of all women and one fifth of all boys. The pedofile's need to abuse children is derived from his/her own childhood. It is passed on from generation to generation. And this doesn't even touch the subject of the repression of the freedom of expression which is another subject with different consequences.

And the time will come when those on the far right decide (believe) that any form of nudity whatsoever (any age) is the work of evil and ultimately all nudity depicted in art in all museums around the world is torn down and destroyed. And after that there will come a time when a womans feet in a "revealing" shoe will be considered too erotic and sexually stimulating by those on the far right and being in power at the time they will ban all of the revealing footwear. Athletes foot will increase dramatically. And then will come the time that shorts on children will be deemed too intoxicating to the weak-minded of society so it is decided it would best be served if all shorts are removed from store shelves - where of course now only black, gray and white clothing resides anyway. Ultimately there will only be one type of clothing - unisex where no bumps or bulges show AT ALL because to show anything concerning the actual human body will be considered way too lascivious. I think space suits will work. ***************************** Everything is in the eye of the beholder. What is lascivious and sexually exciting to you may not be at all to me - and vice-versa! We all must remember that we really don't live in a totally free country. We sacrifice many freedoms for safety, protection and security. Wouldn't it be nice to NOT have to lock your front door when you go to work? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to leave your keys in the car knowing that it will still be there when you get back? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to create art without having to worry about if it meets certain guidelines and whether or not you could go to jail? There is alot to think about. But how far will we go? If one of you thinks that simply a naked (Poser) teenager is lascivious and should be banned - then what next? You can't protect all children. That's what parents are for. They educate their children to the best of their abilities. We are (for the most part?) adults here. Can't we decide for ourselves? Just another two cents.

Attached Link: http://faerieguild.com

Just thought I would put my two coppers in here, mainly because I didn't like what I saw in some of the posts above. First off I am a mother of a beautiful 1 year old boy, and as a mother it makes me sick to hear or see someone who advocates it. However I am not against nudity. It's totally natural to be nude, why do you think you were born that way? If it was wrong to be nude you would have been born with clothes. The real concern I have is that child porn or art in general is subjective. It offends me to hear peoples posts above imply that the people in the Faerie community advocate/make child porn. The Faerie artwork on my site contains mostly nude Faeries. Yes they are thin and yes they have small delicate features (don't all faeries?), that does not make them children/teens. Are we to suppose now that all thin women or flat chested women are children or teens? If you're going to assume that you would also have to assume that men who like thin women are really men that like little children/teens. Here's a quote from this forum: "You know, some of the fairy art I've seen here and in other forums can come very close to being classified as child porn, [snip] really depict underage teens under the guise of fairies." So now we have "underage" poser models, you've got to be kidding. What the above statement says to me is that there are sickos out there that see pictures of slender women and think about teen girls. A side note: the one picture on my website that could be considered a pornographic picture is of a voluptous Vargas-Olivia stlye pin-up. If my Faerie pictures were really just guises for child porn why wouldn't my pin-up be of a "teen".

hmmmf looks like someone with poser has pissed off the government.

Huolong....yes this is a big problem...and something needs to be done about it... but stopping the making of kiddie porn (in 3d or real-life) isn't going to make people forget that it's happening. people know its happening...and allowing it to be made is just fuleing the perverts fantasy, in my opinion. and for u to even say that its repressing the freedom of expression is just crap....i'm sorry but it is.

{{{The pedofile's need to abuse children is derived from his/her own childhood. It is passed on from generation to generation. }}}} I think you should try again. Your statement is total garbage. Not everyone who has been violated as a child becomes a pedophile. I am disgusted by your outlandish claims...your attempt to incite riot so as to gain more credence and impact to your statement is absolute GARBAGE!!! Take this statement from someone who has worked in the 'professional field' for over 15 years. You sir/madam ARE WRONG!!!!

Attached Link: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch110.html

currently on the US law Boockes... read, become enlightened or confused as you will. this particular subject is currently in discussion ni a number of countries..

pedofile's should be staked in the city square but when you cant show a naked child in all innocence I think we really have a problem.I think my posts of the evil children playing with knives is more disturbing than naked kids playing, hell I ran around 1/2 naked as did my sister till we were nearly teenagers.As for naked fairies Shee's better burn all them story books . SEIG HEIL

In fact I put it to U Huolong, after having re read several of your statements ...YOU know NOTHING about the impact of paedophelia...aside from your limited readings on the issue. Your attempts at correlating information to substantiate your voiced opinion is nothing more than sensationalism. Your statements are filled with analogies that simply do not exist. Suffice to say..that the majority of what you have said is an insult to those that have and do suffer from this atrocity. An insult to humanity as a whole reflecting on this disgusting lesion of our 'so called human' race. Please refrain from expleting such filth in an attempt to gain more conviction to your bombastic opinions. U do more harm than good to your own credibility. ps. I have been a psychologist for many years...and I DO know what I AM talking about!

Someone mentioned, "but its only pixels on a screen", or something like that, Sounds to me like alittle bit pregnant, it either is or isnt. As far as I think, people who defile and abuse children should be branded and thrown naked into the street. Someone very close to me was abused at a very early age and half a century later, has still not got over it.

Wow, all this controversy over some binary code - how utterly sad that we are all discussing the state of some electronic signals that we have manipulated, and made skins for. Naked is not porn, giving my 1 year old son a bath is not stimulating to me,( if it is to anyone else then I agree they need help ) I suppose some people think that a child nursing is CP, but I certinally don't.We are all born nude and most of us look much better nude than we do with our ratty shirts and baggy pants falling off our rears. If this was to be passed how many artists ( famous or not ) would then be considered Child Pornographers simply because they drew a nude child or teen in a natural non-lewd setting? - or drew sketches of such? Porn on the other hand - the showing of the actual acts - is disgusting and should be stopped. But, to make all people suffer a penalty because one person in a thousand got offended is rediculous. It sad when we are all so politacally correct that we feel we must bend over backwards so as not to offend even the slightest little bit any person, creature or idea. I wonder when the coaltion for the rights of roaches is going to start protesting Raid commercials?? As for the looks like children or teens thing, come on who wants to render old naked hags?? I've seen some 30 year olds that looked younger than my 7 year old. And fairys?? come on- they are mythical and almost always portrayed as nude females, how can you possibly feel that is CP, did we have some bad experiences with out fairy tale books?? And for that matter how many people have downloaded Thorne's models, and then want to complain about his work, and work derived from his work, thats hypocritical and ungrateful and if I were him I would consider pulling my work from here and giving/selling it on my own site. Seems to me some people out there saw something that made them have a errant thought and they felt guilty for having it and now must wage a holy war against the evils of colored pixils. Faerie Advocate: http://faerieguild.com :)

Just wanted to add that a nude render is not abuse, defilement, or anything else. It's a ( non-pornographic )picture that's all. I guess if you think about it the way some of you are then discovery channel should be banned because somebody may consider it lascivious, not to mention National Geographic magazine, and several NEWSPAPER and TV advertisments I've seen with naked baby rears in them.

Marque. I am all for protecting real children, please understand this. First- I feel that saying naked bodies create crime is the same as making the victim responsible for the crime. When I was raped at the age of 15 it was not because my dress was too tight. Crime is not caused by the corrupting force of nakkedness. Not! I have been a victim of various crimes including the crime of never being touched at all by parents who had suffered this kind of abuse, they took this precaution for my 'safety'. The issue is complicated. I only seek to challenge the idea that my artwork depicting a naked child JUST standing there looking anatomically correct is the same as child pornography. It's not! Also I have never said that renderosity didn't have the right to make this rule, it's a private institution and can make any rule it likes. But anyone who says my art is child pornography is going to get an argument from me.

Attached Link: http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html

I'll add my link to the fray

"come on who wants to render old naked hags" What's wrong with "old naked hags"??? Wheren't we all born naked (as you stated)?? Why is it that only the so-called "perfect" body has the right to be shown naked??

"What's wrong with "old naked hags"??? Wheren't we all born naked (as you stated)?? Why is it that only the so-called "perfect" body has the right to be shown naked??" First off I believe art is about beauty, and so I personally won't be rendering, painting, or drawing, any "old hags" but to each their own. Secondly I was only trying to add some humor to this pixel war. Being abused as a child myself, I realize the seriousness of the whole child abuse subject, but I think you are all straying away from what this is really about. I'm sure that most of your parents probably have nude pictures of you playing in the bathtub when you were children, and I'm sure they have shown it to your friends and loved ones, and I'm also pretty sure that it never crossed their mind that it could be somehow misconstrued as being pornographic. That is one of the many points I'm trying to get across. What I still don't understand is how this topic has turned into being about abuse when I've yet to see any pictures on renderosity, or renderotica that depict ANY sort of lewdness, pornography, or abuse of children. All I'm saying is that if I want to make a texture for a nude child I should be able to do so without going to jail, or having to look over my shoulder for the angry villagers with pitchforks. Also I would like to add that I totally agree with fozzibear for saying "As far as I think, people who defile and abuse children should be branded and thrown naked into the street."

Actually Derty, for a very long time there have been posts made in the Renderotica gallery that are both sadistic, and pornographic, usually featuring Thorne's and Handspan's models, though of course not done by Thorne and Handspan themselves you understand, just using their models :( Quite a little series was done of several of Thorne's very young girls a while back, in a series featuring Davo's Mad Lab model... it was horrific, as well as pornographic. I guess it was lost when the old site went down, and God is just and fair at least in some ways ;) I however am still haunted by those images. I sort of stopped going into the galleries there at that point. By beholding, thou shalt become changed, the Bible says. Better to not have stumbled onto them and looked, for me at least. Even right now, if you visit the galleries of Renderotica tonight, you will find in there many images using Thornes very young models, mostly in sadistic ways, torture that would result in their death if this were real life, always though first in the maiming and torture an assault upon their genital area or between the legs. I think perhaps the reason these laws are being discussed is over things like this. Perhaps some one of our elected lawmakers stumbled into Renderotica and found what I did that time and like to have just died ;)

Just so you know I don't advocate or personally like those kinds of images. I find them disgusting too but again you seem to be straying somewhat. The issue at hand is nudity and not those kinds of images. I think there's a vast difference don't you? Also I think the renderotica gallery has violence and nudity warnings to prevent anyone accidentally stumbling on an image they don't want to see? Like I said I don't spend much time over there so I don't know how it is these days. If you or anyone else wants to talk about these other kinds of images I'll be glad to go into my feelings about that but I don't want anyone blurring what I say about one to apply to the other. Since I'm mentioned in the post I wanted to clarify that.

This will be a fascinating case to watch the Supreme Court handle. They are inclined by remit to regard what comes before them in the disinterested light of the Constitution, and not the harsh, flickering glare of public opinion. At heart, the issue facing them is the same as that facing the rest of us, and especially citizens of the USA who have a firm Constitutional right to freedom of expression. If you support the libertarian notion of freedom of expression, how much will you tolerate the expression of others that you find offensive? Distributing and (deliberately) possessing images portraying actual children being sexually abused can be justifiably argued, in my opinion, to be part of the act of abusing the children, just as standing beside the act of abuse and masturbating (or taking the pictures) might be considered as taking part. The right of personal or collective expression does not extend to the abuse of the rights of others. Images of actual child abuse should be kept as 'scenes of crimes' evidence, and nothing else. A similar scenario is seen with so called 'snuff videos', 'rape videos' and 'torture videos'. Making, distributing and keeping these videos is being party to the crimes of murder, rape and torture, and is not covered by any rights of 'freedom of expression'. Yet as a society we tolerate, are even entertained by, a seemingly endless supply of simulated deaths, rapes, injuries and tortures in our imagery. I've seen various arguments, sometimes sensible, from various sides that such imagery should be restricted to certain times of viewing / ages of audience; but I have never seen anyone outright say that John Wayne should never pretend to shoot people, or that Jodie Foster shouldn't pretend to get raped. Or that people should never make imagery of, or write about, such things. Images of virtual acts of abuse are not the same as images of actual abuse. And this applies to images of virtual sexual activity with virtual children. There isn't really any such thing as 'virtual child pornography', because the word 'child' does not apply - there is no child involved. I don't like imagery of virtual sexual activity with virtual children, and I don't like the people who enjoy making and viewing such imagery. People involved with these things are pathetic, contemptible and detestable, in my view. But they are not dangerous as such, and they are not the same as people who abuse real children. Imagery of virtual sexual activity with virtual children has not harmed any individual in its making, and any arguments about whether such imagery harms society as whole are the same as whether John Wayne and Jodie Foster movies harm society as a whole. In nations that purport to stand for freedom of expression, governments have no place restricting such expression. Shout and scream at the people expressing things that offend you, but be very wary of using government to shut them up. You might find government suddenly breaking down your door over some expression you've made...

I've seen REAL child porn, and turned it over to the FBI and got the fucker arrested. I have never seen anything that could be even remotely considered to be child porn here, at rotica or commune. Certainly I've seen pictures of naked children, but so what? That's NOT child porn. But with Bush in office, the thought police are gonna jump all over anything that even resembles material that might offend the rabid fanatics of the religious right. Bet me, by the time Bush leaves office we will have lost a portion of our rights to free speech, to art, to expression, to life. All caused by a man that cheated his way into office despite knowing he's despised and unwanted by the majority of Americans. Big Brother is a little late, but it finally got here didn't it?

"In nations that purport to stand for freedom of expression, governments have no place restricting such expression." True, and in a huge way I agree with you that that ideal should remain intact, but (in the case of the U.S.) the Constitution has, penned into it, and agreed upon through it's signing, the ability to have itself amended if need be, and via the proper channels. Ideally speaking, that is.....

I kinda like ol' George. Getting that $300.00 "refund" check was pretty cool.

"...by the time Bush leaves office we will have lost a portion of our rights to free speech, to art, to expression, to life." Well just a little note on that remark, if Gore were in office, we most likely would have lost our right to own a gun. Which right would you rather loose...

Yeah, that 300 buck refund would have been cool except for one thing. Only people that didn't need it got it. Everyone else got letters saying they weren't entitled to shit because they were below the poverty level. I don't own a gun, so I really don't care about gun rights. I do however, care about my freedom of speech and expression.

"I don't own a gun, so I really don't care about gun rights. I do however, care about my freedom of speech and expression." I don't own a gun either but I would still like to know that if I chose to buy one I could. Even if you don't like grapefruit and had no intention of ever buying grapefruit, qouldn't it scare you to think that someone in the govenrment could all the sudden outlaw it?

Although I normally try to stay away from certain subjects, this one does hit home with me as well. When I was 13 I had to travel by greyhound. I wound up breaking a guys nose because he placed his hand on my groin. My mother for whatever reason saw fit to put me in Ti-Chi cases two times a week for a year when I was 12. My current wife, as well as my first, both were molested as children. My wife now, can't remember most of her childhood. Its sad and its a problem in society today, and actually has been for a long time, just they didnt used to talk about it. (Skeletons in the closet ring a bell?) I also used to volunteer for AOL as a guide. Spent about 9 years wondering the virtual halls of the place. Heck, when I started, it was called Quantum Computer Services. As part of my time there, I spend about of my time in Kids WB, which obviously a place for kids. The crap that was sent to my e-mail made me want to crawl through the wires and go choke someone. (the person/s sending it to me, of course). While I have not spent any time in psychiatric studies, I have been through a Freud book or two. (weird dude, but whats it say about me to have read it?) But the statistic above: The pedofile's need to abuse children is derived from his/her own childhood. It is passed on from generation to generation. And then one reply: I think you should try again. Your statement is total garbage. Not everyone who has been violated as a child becomes a pedophile. And both are right. Popular opinion is that most pedophiles (claim to) have been abused as children. Read Time or People, they print those stats. It does not say that anyone who has been abused will do it and/or repeat it. But this is not a 1 on 1 legacy. One sick person will touch thousands in his lifetime, if not stopped. So far what I see in the thread is that yes, well all against it. This is a good thing. Most agree we should reinstate some type of capital punishment. (Fozzy, et al., + Me. Flog the suckers then put it where the parents can get to them.) Original topic.. 3D / Photo realistic depiction of child abuse and the letter of the law, which per-normal is vague on its definition. (They do this to keep themselves employed I think?!?!) And how it will effect us as artists. I dont think that 90% of us need to worry. By the wording above, I dont see lynch mobs running around. Oh, they may try at first, but what our lawyers will show them is the letter of the law: The CPPA defines child pornography as a visual depiction that appears to be or conveys the impression of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Therefore, the law not only forbids obscene material with adults portraying minors, but also outlaws the production, possession or distribution of computer-generated images that appear to portray minors. How that reads to me: The CPPA (buncha layers), defines cp as: A: visual depiction that appears to be of a minor engaging in .. B: visual depiction that conveys the impression of a minor engaging in .. C: visual depiction (that is) of a minor engaging in Since we can now create images, which will make some people wonder if its real or is it Memorex, we actually do need this to be defined a little more clearly. Thats what this whole thread is about. (IMO) Faeries: for all I know, that 17 yrs old faeries is actually 317! Its a fictional character. I believe most people know that. Or at least, I would HOPE most people know that. (oh yeah, were talking about lawyers). I have never seen anything closely resembling the descriptions above anyway with faeries. Ive yet to see a couple of faeries doggie style over a branch. And if I did, I would backspace and move on. And of course, no offense to lawyers, Im sure there are plenty, which are very nice and loving parents and all around fun to be with. Ive just yet to meet one that wasnt a slime. :)

"Faeries: for all I know, that 17 yrs old faeries is actually 317! Its a fictional character. I believe most people know that. Or at least, I would HOPE most people know that. (oh yeah, were talking about lawyers). I have never seen anything closely resembling the descriptions above anyway with faeries. Ive yet to see a couple of faeries doggie style over a branch. And if I did, I would backspace and move on. " Well someone posted a message that aparently was supposed to remain private suggesting that some of the Faerie artwork on here and on other sites was really cp in disguise. Which in turn offended me since my site has numerous renders of nude faerie's, none of them are in lewd or lascivious as was implied. That's the reason that was brought up. sighs