This issue seems to come up every few months. It's always interesting to see what people's views are. The reference to David Hamilton reminds me of the case a few years ago, where Barnes & Noble was hauled into court for selling Hamilton's photography books. Ironically, the Rev. Jerry Falwell was also burned when it turned out that the student bookstore at his Liberty University was selling the same books. Hamilton, Barnes & Noble and Falwell were all free at last report. While guidelines seem good in theory, I find it difficult to see how they could be formulated without being subjective. As has been pointed out, even 'carding' real people is problematic. How on earth can one determine if a Poser figure is 18 or 15 years of age? Obviously in the case of the figures which were designed as children, it's easy, but a morphed Vicky? Practically speaking, I think the that only thing that could be done is banning any "sexual" (if you can define that) image of any kind regardless of "age." A merely nude image of any figure isn't in my opinion pornographic or obscene. Unfortunately, for anyone trying to make these calls, some people will consider any nude image offensive. Some will find bare breasts OK but the pubic area off limits. One person's cute fairie is another's pre-teen sex object and on it goes. Frankly, what I find a little disturbing is the idea of self-censorship based on trying to divine what some hypothetical pervert might see in an image. Sexuality is perhaps the most diverse aspect of human nature, and someone will be turned on by just about anything imaginable. I certainly understand wanting to err on the side of caution, but it still seems like this whole thing has become just a little insane and I'm not sure who's running the asylum. Then again, people used to think their kids were safe in church.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken