Just heard this on the news. Can anyone find a net link to recent supreme court rulings. Apparently they decided that you cannot ban art that depicts children nude or in sexual acts as this has been a human tradition for countless millenia. However: pictures made using real children are still illegal and pedophilia. But CG made or painted work cannot be banned or restricted. The ruling was based on the 1st Amendment and on 'human traditions'. Interesting. I'm no fan of making sexually explicit images of children with my Poser... but this protects all those "fairies" people have been posting here for the last few years. It would also allow me to finally have more than just adults in images of my classical fantasy world (though I have no intention of showing them 'doing stuff' as that's not my thing...).

Attached Link: http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/index.html

The Free Speech Coalition is comprised primarily of a trade association of publishers of pornographic materials. That pretty much says it all, as far as I'm concerned. I wonder how much it cost them?

This may be machivallian(sp?) of me, but I think the means justify the ends in getting this law overturned. Don't misunderstand me, I don't approve of child porn, but my attitude towards law is that it should be "no harm, no foul". Besides, the current law went too far in my opinion. For instance, I've heard of someone who was abused as a child and uses Poser, etc for theraputic reasons to work through sa's grief and trauma. Sa doesn't share the pictures, they're all computer generated, and as mentioned it's done for theraputic reasons, and yet it was illegal just for him to have them? I remember when we lost Thorne's free fairies for a while because they were being used for child porn and he was getting flak for that. I need to go to work, so I'm going to sum up quick and then run to avoid flaming. ^_~ The government should not be our mommy. In my opinion, it is there to protect us from harm. Child porn done with real children does harm to those children. Anything done with virtual models does not harm the virtual models. If someone doesn't want to see it, then don't frequent the places it can be found and hit the "home" button if you find something you don't like. It's so easy to mistake something that was made to portray a message as just trash, and someone's dislike of an opinion should not dictate whether someone else can state it. "Michelango's David. Great art, or just some guy with his pants off?"

Nude doesn't bother me at all, particularly when done as art. I can't see thr problem of the fairies. Card shops sell those cards with little nube baby butts all the time. Sexual content with children disturbs me in any form as I believe it does do harm in that in encourages the world to see children as sexual objects. In the case of theraputic issues,I don't see a problem though. Art as therapy is appropriate, and if the person isn't sharing it on the web it shouldn't be a problem that it's in the computer.

I actually sat down and read the judgment last night (yeah, I know, boring night, nothing good on TV), and it appears the Supremes are just lobbing the ball back at the government to try again with a new version. I was pretty surprised to see a conservative court striking this down until I read this monster and found that it was still acting as a conservative court, adhering to the absolute letter of the law. What it told the government was, in essence, "yep, we need a law, but not this one." I'll be interested to see if the government now tries again.

"Child porn done with real children does harm to those children. Anything done with virtual models does not harm the virtual models" About sums it up FyreSpiryt We all know that right wing maniacs like Ashcroft ,Bush , Rumsfield, John Howard (Australia) and John Anderson (Australia) want to protect us from ourselves even in the privacy of our homes. Pity they dont spend a bit more time on violence on innocent people.

The decision was, if I'm understanding it correctly, that the law was unconstitutionally vague, and gave law-enforcement way too much latitude in deciding which images "appeared" to place what "appeared" to be underage models in a pornographic context. Specific to CG, the court also decided that the criminalization of "virtual" childporn--that which uses no actual children--essentially creates a class of illegal thought; a bit too 1984, even for this very conservative court. The 1st amendment exists to protect unpopular and subversive ideas--and since there are no victims, the court says there's no crime. I'm no purveyor of child-porn, but I'm glad to see an end, at least temporarily, to all the completely loony hysteria around this issue.

Sorry, but a bit of a rant here... What is it with you people? Okay, maybe this was a vague and somewhat misguided attempt, but does that mean we have to allow everything in some kind of virtual free-for-all? An image of little kids having sex, created solely as some kind of jerk-off material, is perfectly okay as long as they're not real? Are we looking at the next big growth industry here? I'm sorry, but that's ludicrous. You people seem more interested in your God-given right to show double-D hooters on little girls than anything else, and this kind of priority just amazes me. Not one of you has expressed even the slightest concern that maybe, just maybe, some version of this law could be a good thing. Instead, it's "wahoo! -- gimme them MilGirls and watch out!" I guess we can expect breast morphs for the pre-teens in Freestuff almost any hour now; I mean, isn't that what the Poser world needs more than anything else? Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at anything any more. Today I see the president of the LPGA, a man BTW, thinks the players should be more "sexy". Yeah, an all-swimsuit edition of the LPGA -- just what the world needs, right? Maybe strip-a-thons on the 18th hole as a means of breaking a tie. Gee, with any luck, maybe we'll also see a call for Chippendales to sponsor bowling. Hey, and maybe we could have nude professional football: maybe that would have saved the XFL. The world truly is going to frigging hell in a handbasket.

Who are you yelling at VS? Actually, I agreed with your assessment in your previous post. Someone else in a different thread pointed out the difficulty the courts might have in differentiating between alleged "real" child porn, and virtual, CG "child" porn. I think that's a rather valid concern, because you know that people will try to slip the real deal in there, while calling it CG. With as realistic models and rendering engines are becoming these days, the really talented people can create images that look perfectly realistic, and the software being invented brings that ability closer and closer to the hobbyists every year. What if relaxing the laws against "virtual child porn" results in a slew of "real" child porn being passed off as CG? Is there a conclusive way of determining whether an actual photo was processed through a computer, or if it was created with a computer? Anyhow, I'm personally very much opposed to this new development, and I certainly hope it doesn't end here. I hope you are right that the Supreme Court's ruling is just their way of saying "needs more work". (Assuming that is what you meant) I think there is a difference between free speech and protecting it and the child porn issues. I don't believe in wanton free speech for all occasions and all circumstances. Some things just ought to have limits, IMO.

"What is it with you people? Okay, maybe this was a vague and somewhat misguided attempt, but does that mean we have to allow everything in some kind of virtual free-for-all?" It means that the crafty old farts who wrote the Constitution didn't want people slapped in irons merely for offending people's sensibilities. You of all people should appreciate the court's reluctance to legislate morality. And you can stop trying to infer that those who find this decision a welcome note of sanity (in your face, Ashcroft!) are all CG child pornographers waiting to unleash their evil wares. It's a cheap and offensive argumentative strategy.

"What if relaxing the laws against "virtual child porn" results in a slew of "real" child porn being passed off as CG?" This was Ashcroft's principle argument, which the court rejected, largley because the government couldn't present any evidence that this was currently a problem. Where civil liberties are at stake, it's very hard to legislate what might happen down the road. "I don't believe in wanton free speech for all occasions and all circumstances." The court is essentially reiterating the old "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater" model. Certain ideas might be patently offensive, but if we make it illegal to think them, we open a very dangerous Pandora's box indeed.

OK, I can buy that. Somehow I wasn't considering the possibility that there wasn't already a problem. I've never been "into" porno, and certainly not child porno, sio I'd hardly be aware of just what is going on. Seems as though all the discssion about it can influence one to think there is a problem. But I suppose that's what "they" want us to think? That they are helping to rid the world of a big bad evil? Well, of course child porno IS a big bad evil, but if the CG version of it hasn't yet reached problematic status.... Yeah you're right: You can not legislate based on "what if?".

Gee Nothing like a group of Bible Basher's to try and stick down everyones throats.

Mosca: You of all people should appreciate the court's reluctance to legislate morality. And you can stop trying to infer that those who find this decision a welcome note of sanity (in your face, Ashcroft!) are all CG child pornographers waiting to unleash their evil wares. It's a cheap and offensive argumentative strategy Gosh, Mosca: whatever happened to good ol' simple concern? No political agenda. No ulterior motives. Just looking at a situation that seems verging on the untenable and asking why hardly anyone here gives a sh*t? Out of the four threads on this subject, I've seen a really small number of people saying, "Okay, maybe this wasn't the greatest thing, but it's something that should be addressed somehow". Instead, it's been "hurray for free speech and damn those bible thumpers anyway!", as if we can reduce this down to ideas that simplistic. Almost all of the "discussion" I've seen on this around here has been "well, gee, what about my needs?" (followed almost immediately with the claims of it being "art", lest I forget that). Be honest: that has been the level of exchange more often than not when we talk about this stuff -- in a recent thread on the questionably young images of Vicky, the remarks in there were tantamount to absurd: "Well, practically, she's only two anyway", as if that was supposed to excuse the teenie-pornos somehow. People are more concerned about their right to make smut than they are to any kind of larger moral responsibility, legislated or not. And yeah, you can't legislate morality. One man's morality is another man's cesspool. That's not news. But when we start allowing that kind of free-for-all thinking as an excuse for kiddie porn, CG or not, then something is really, really wrong somewhere. This isn't Botticelli painting naked cherubs. This isn't Shakespeare. This is kiddie porn, self-described and nothing less, relishing its now-completely-legal status. Sorry, but this whole thing just disgusts me. Huzzah for your personal freedoms, but this is different, and you know it as well as I.

I've done a lot of thinking since my last foray into this discussion. I think looking at pictures of naked children for a sexual thrill is sick and wrong. But I think a lot of my disgust comes from the fact that for some weirdo to have the pics a child somewhere had to be abused and exploited. CG art doesn't harm a child in that way so I'm not sure how I feel about this development. Honestly I'm all for artistic freedom but this law does have me a bit worried. Not for the fact that someone might put big breast on a mil gir, thats uhm lame, but because someone out there may take it as a sign that its okay to look at a real child as a sex object.

The point behind the whole issue is that it's a huge mistake, and against basic human rights, to make a thought illegal. I think child pornography sick and wrong, too. But then I think it's sick and wrong for people to poop on each other for a sexual thrill. Should we make it illegal? Should we make it illegal for people to think about it or draw pictures of it? The issue isn't whether involving children in sexual activities is wrong, it's about how poorly written laws can be abused to infringe on our constitutional rights to have ideas of our own.

VS: the best way to address the moral issue here is to continue to actively smoke out the makers of CG child-porn wherever possible. The scorn of the online CG3D community is what they deserve, and what they should get. On the other hand, maybe those conducting their little witch-hunt against the faerie pics will do us all a favor and just shut up, since there's no risk now of this or any other site being "shut-down" for hosting such images. Whatever form the virtual child-porn law comes back in, it's mighty unlikely that any but the clearest-cut examples would fall under its umbrella. Legume: you said, "You can rest assured that the law WILL be back, and worded more carefully to assure that children are protected without compromising our freedom of expression." I rest assured that the law will be back, indeed, and that it will be worded more carefully. But I doubt that those who are no doubt already feverishly crafting it give much of a shit about freedom of expression. These are the people who put a 12' high curtain around the bare-breasted, art deco statue of "Justice," don't forget.

The bad news in all this which people seem to miss is it doesn't matter whether it's legal or illegal it's not going to go away, the people who get caught go to jail but for each 1 who's caught there's at least another 10-20 sitting at home jerking off to that type of picture/video or whatever. My only concern with this law (I'm in the UK by the way) is once it get's passed what will be the next target? kill off child porn then maybe it will be all pictures with "sexual" content or even all pictures containing nudity, just think how many pictures we all have with at least some nudity in them and think how many of them may be illegal one day. I'm all for getting rid of child porn but that should not give any government the idea that they can ban all forms of art/porn, if that happens we'll be on the road back to the victorian age when women had to be covered from neck to ankle at all times.

"And yeah, you can't legislate morality. One man's morality is another man's cesspool. That's not news. But when we start allowing that kind of free-for-all thinking as an excuse for kiddie porn, CG or not, then something is really, really wrong somewhere." Your usual straw-man. No one here is advocating in favor of any form of child-porn. "This isn't Botticelli painting naked cherubs. This isn't Shakespeare." Actually, VS, under the now-invalid law, Zephirelli's beautiful film version of Romeo and Juliet would have been considered child-porn--it featured teen-aged actors having simulated sex. It IS Shakespeare and Botticelli, at least as the law was written--that's the point.

The Court did not approve child pornography. What it said was that the law, as it was written, gave too many individuals the power to declare what is child pornography and what is not. This law, as it was written could have been used to ban such works as Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet" or even the classic painting "Madonna and Child." A picture of a parent giving his/her newborn child a bath could be prosecuted. If you think there aren't individuals in power who would try you're kidding yourself. I think that child pornography is the worst of the worst of human offenses and (literally) horsewhipping is too good for the perpetrators, but this was a bad law. The court is right, we need a law, but one that defines specifically what is illegal and what is not. This was not that law.

Mosca: Your usual straw-man I gather simply stating a personal belief is no longer allowed. Gosh, whatever happened to "freedom of expression"? No one here is advocating in favor of any form of child-porn Oh sure, not literally. But we sure like skating to the edge on occasion, don't we. Oh wait, I forgot: around here, it's "art". We're all just Botticellis. It IS Shakespeare and Botticelli, at least as the law was written--that's the point. Fabulous. Huzzah and hurrah. We've made the world safe for people who can't tell the difference between "Romeo and Juliet" and "Barry Gets a Boner". I can go to bed tonight, reassured that the dumbing down of America continues unabated.

Legume: Most people aren't going to start creating child porn with Poser. Most people find it dispicable Most people find murder despicable, Legume. Most people don't engage in that either. It's the ones who do that we need to worry about, right? Overturning it doesn't send the message "It's cool to jack off to pictures of kids"; it says instead, "let's make sure we don't screw the innocent in our quest to punish the guilty". Granted. But that's not my issue here. Look, I know I'm outside the herd's mentality on this issue most of the time, and I can live with that. I think this place is sometimes obsessed with sex (sometimes? who am I kidding?), and anyone who states otherwise is immediately decried as some kind of puritanical jerk who has no business dictating his wrong-headed moral position to people who know better. But when you start putting kids into the equation, I start to get a little peeved at the free-for-all atttitude. It's saying, "Hey, anything -- even a kid -- can be made a sex object, and don't make a fuss about it, because it's my right to make that kid a sex object if I so desire." Now yeah, around here, we say we would stand up to the kiddie-porners if they showed up with the wares. But you know what, Legume? I don't think we would. Instead, cynic that I am, I think we'd be fascinated, riveted to the new-found possibilities. And we'd set aside any arguments against them because, after all, it's art, protected by the Supreme Court no less, and if you start censoring one piece of "art", then, by God, you're only one small step from censoring all of it, right? Yeah, it's all a "what if" argument. But just as others have their right to express their god-given need for vaginal morphs, I think I'm entitled to say that on this issue, if we claim to have any voice on the matter at all, we're not talking very loud. Just my 0.02, which I'm sure most of you feel is all it's worth.

looking around suspiciously "Pictures of BUNNIES get deleted here!" Were they underaged bunnies? ;)

I seriously doubt it Sorry, I don't. I think we would find some way to justify it as "art". And we would scream blue murder if anyone dared contravene that. Look how righteously indignant people get when their comments are taken off a picture. Well, yes, but Clint Eastwood isn't one of them. I've seen him murder probably a hundred people on film. Should he be put in a cell next to a person who does it for real? Honestly? I don't know. IMVHO, we've become so obsessed with sex and violence that, as a society, we probably don't care to know what the long-term impact of all this will be. Hell, there's been an ongoing debate for years about violence in video games, which the VG industry finally seems fit to address, but you really have to wonder when it seems like every "game" out there has to do with (1) body counts, (2) car crashes, (3) one-on-one fights, and (4) sex. Adventure games in the style of Obsidian or Of Light and Darkness don't stand a chance today, because there's no blood and gore, just something where you have to think for a change.... and that's no fun, right? They're boring! Nah, gimme a first person shooter! Now that's entertainment! Nobody's saying it's anyone's right to make jerk-off pictures of little kids Not in so many words, of course not. We may be collectively stupid around here sometimes, but only a remarkable few would be so dumb as to actually admit what we all know happens from time to time in the galleries. And now, well, hey, it's legal.

Hey gang...we'er getting way OT from Poser on this one. Would you like to continue this thread in the OT forum? Or have you guys said everything you wanted to say already? ScottA

Hell, lock it. No one's interested in my POV anyway; it's just good for amusement.

Oh gosh, I can't believe I'm jumping back into this. But I am. People do have the right to make smut. ::waits for the screams and shouting to die down:: I don't like smut either. I don't like racism either. However, people have the right to hold those opinions, as long as they don't act on them in a way that makes others suffer. Who gets to decide what's smut? Is it the publisher of Playboy? Me? My best friend's very conservative mother? Who's opinion is more important? And who's opinion when? Shakespeare's plays were considered low base and vulgar in their time; they weren't socially acceptable. Shakespeare was writing his time's equivalent of prime time sitcoms; ideal entertainment for the masses, capitalizing on the sex and violence crowds tend to enjoy. Another thing to remember is that nudity is not always sexual. For millenia it's also been used as a symbol of innocence. After all, we are all born without clothes, and is there anything more innocent than a baby? In some cases its very obvious to most everyone how an image is intended, but not always. See the problems so many have had with pictures of faeries. Many times I've seen a piece of art that's meant to show how bad a problem is be misinterpreted as supporting that problem because it portrays it. Free speech does not mean someone can run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" They can, however, sit in a crowded theatre and discuss starting a campfire and roasting marshmallows after the movie.

I think the #1 game of last year was The Sims, actually. I never played it, so I don't know if it could really be called a game or not. But I heard a gaming industry analyst-type saying that he thought that the success of The Sims revolved around people's preconceived notions that monetary success in life is all that's important; In The Sims, you earn friends, for example, by becoming wealthy. Could that be considered to be any less of a statement on the nature of society than, say , the poularity of the "shoot-'em-up" games? Ahh, well, that's OT.... Actually, VS I always like reading your POV. You are most certainly not alone if you think things are severely wrong in society.

...though I can't help but make the following OT observations as an introduction and segue to connect the thread back to Poser. Will Congress pass a new law in response to the Court's decision? Almost certainly! Will the new law acually mean anything in the real world? Almost certainly not, as the Court's decision basically says that virtual child porn is to be held to the standards for obscenity, rather than to the lower standard for actual child porn, and the government is already able to prosecute obscenity. Now that the Court has spoken, and is unlikely to change its opinion until its membership changes and/or persons charged with real child porn start making successful "I thought it was CGI" defenses, it would be a good time for R'osity to examine its Terms of Service and the inconsistencies in its enforcement thereof, as I have recently become aware of stuff that is creepy and seemingly in violation of the ToS that remains in the Poser gallery (including a child touching a statue's genitals), whereas several images that did not violate the ToS and which did not even depict genitals heve been banned (some of which Legume mentions above, but at least one other comes to mind). I think the artists here are generally willing to abide by whatever rules R'osity sets (and ultimately must do so because the owners are the owners), but they should be clear and enforced in an even-handed manner. I suspect ScottA may find even these comments to be OT, so I'll dismount the hobby horse now;-)

Lol. Moving threads is just a way to keep the forums from getting clogged up with un-related stuff. Moving threads to the OT forum isn't a form of punishment Or is it? ;-) ScottA

I would bet that the Poser forum is more read than the OT forum, so moving a thread there probably diminishes it in that respect. That being said, I fully understand the desire of the site to keep things on-topic. In this instance, I would suggest that the legality of Poser renders is of sufficient general interest to the membership to remain here. Arguably, the questions of whether those same renders comply with the ToS, and whether the ToS are being enforced properly might be more properly lodged in the Admin forum, but IMHO, they are also questions of general interest to the membership in trying to comply with the ToS. So I would suggest that such issues should be discussed where most members are most likely to see them. But to quote former NFL commentator Dennis Miller, "I could be wrong ;-)" And yes, if Miller had cartoon baloons coming out of his mouth, the smiley would be there;-)

Seems like it is on topic... They had thing on NPR this morning about the judgement, and making virtual images of children with computer tools kept coming up. The lady they had on as a federal prosecutor seemed very ticked off that she couldn't go after people like the 3D art industry anymore... This ruling has a direct impact on several of the artists on this site. Mostly the people who post those fairies from what I can tell. But I see this discussion is also going on in the OT board...

That's because they jumped from how it applies to Poser renders. To personal beliefs about how governments act. We jumped into human rights and morals in this thread too. So technically, I should have just moved this thread and not even said anything at all. Just do me a favor and keep it Poser related in some small way. And I'll crawl back into my cage. :-) Talking about how it relates to our TOS is fine. ScottA

Hey, I mentioned Poser Faeries in both of my fire dances. ^_~

Okay, so child nudity or sex in CG art is harmless because noone is actually hurt and anything that limits us is bad. Did I get that right? Frankly this is frightening! Check out Renderotica and tell me what is going on with the people creating those images and viewing them. Do you all seriously believe that they are NOT having sexual thoughts? Even if the people creating these child images are thinking artistically, what about the guys looking at the images? I have young children and the idea that some scumball pervert being able to freely view these images turns my stomach. What about the poor kid(S) that he then comes into contact with after poring over these fine pictures? And please, don't throw Shakespeare and Botticelli at me, I don't recall seeing the works of either at this site. I like art, but somehow, I fail to see how children depicted in sexual situations qualifies. Can someone please explain to me why someone who is NOT a pedophile would enjoy that. You see, I agree that nudity is not always sexual, but it's not just nudity that is being allowed here. I think that Poser is a brilliant program and could list many excellent artists who have produced almost lifelike images with it, and this is what worries me. Someone said earlier that we would excuse kiddie-porn by calling it art. I think that's exactly what is happening here. Why do we think that any censorship is bad? Let's face it. There are some sick people out there. "soundly lambasted by his peers"? I don't think so!

TigerD: Ex-fucking-scuse me? "Okay, so child nudity or sex in CG art is harmless because noone is actually hurt and anything that limits us is bad. Did I get that right? Frankly this is frightening! Check out Renderotica and tell me what is going on with the people creating those images and viewing them." I am a mod over at Renderotica, and I back up Legumes statement. Child porn has never been, nor will it ever be allowed on Renderotica. Your statement is libelous, and I for one, would like an apology.

Douse the torches, folks. TigerD wasn't saying that child porn is being shown over there. He's saying those kind of images are being shown -- you know, the S/M sort of thing. He then seems to jump the track back to talking about kiddie porn in the next sentence, but I don't believe he meant to say that Rotica allows kiddie porn. He just forgot to sufficiently divorce the two to make the meaning clear.

TigerD.. Did you even look at the galleries at Rotica before you made that statement?? Like Legume I am involved with Rotica and have been since it first came into being in one way or another. Child Porn has never NEVER been allowed on Rotica and isn't likely to be in the near future. And no matter what you think of the other subject matters over there. You do not have to view it. And whether or not he forgot to sufficently divorce the two, he made a statement that is within our right to correct since at the moment that's the way it sits, as we are the ones who take the heat for things like this. Remember it's our names and reputations involved with Rotica. And the fact that we all love Rotica and our own art. Storm

My .02 worth. You can't make something illegal just because someone MIGHT THINK of doing something unsavory with it. Thorne's lovely little creatures and others of their ilk, could be forbidden if the law was misinterpreted. I'm no fan of child porn, virtual or real. I am a fan of Thorne and others free expression of the artistic. The chief lawmaker of the USA decided to cover a classically draped statue of Justice because of an exposed breast. Maybe its not only ridiculous, but symbolic of his attitude towards all laws.

I have to take exception to TigerD's statement as well. As the OWNER of Renderotica, I can also confirm that child pornography has never been allowed there and never will be. In fact, as soon as I heard about the Supreme Court ruling, I made a post stating that our TOS would NOT be changing. And no, it isn't clear at all that he didn't mean that we show child pornography over there. I've read the post several times and it still sounds like that is EXACTLY what was implied! I do think an apology is in order.

The ruling was man's law and not God's law. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. What he hated yesterday he hates today: what he loved yesterday he loves today. I think most of us know what depicts child pornography and what constitutes God given art.
I am not a bible basher; I am a bible believer. To each their own. I myself have never come across anyone involved with this forum who has shown child pornography.
There is no place in the Poser World for this type of stuff. If anyone believes they need this type of entertainment, please keep it to yourself. Poser is of the adult world. Let's keep it on an adult level.
Dutchman.

The ruling was man's law and not God's law. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. What he hated yesterday he hates today: what he loved yesterday he loves today. I think most of us know what depicts child pornography and what constitutes God given art. I am not a bible basher; I am a bible believer. To each their own. I myself have never come across anyone involved with this forum who has shown child pornography. There is no place in the Poser World for this type of stuff. If anyone believes they need this type of entertainment, please keep it to yourself. Poser is of the adult world. Let's keep it on an adult level. Dutchman.

And no, it isn't clear at all that he didn't mean that we show child pornography over there No, it isn't. Like many of us, he writes faster than he thinks. SO CUT THE GUY SOME SLACK AND MOVE ON. Instead of being all offended, how about addressing the issues he raised in general?

The justification of censorship of any kind is the presumption that a bad thing will happen if a person is exposed to it ... will rape, pillage, and/or plunder if exposed to images/words of one or all of the above. In libel/slander cases, there is no such presumption of harm ... it must be proved. And that any real harm had to be the result of the original libel/slander and not to anything else. I learned this lesson the hard way. This is even true in criminal matters regarding threats, an actual harm or specific attempt to cause harm to a specific perosn must be proved. Despite stalking laws, blowing off steam is not a crime. Even if it were established that there was a causal link between looking at bad things caused bad things, the only crime can be prosecuted is not the look, the the act. As it regards the heinous crime of sexual abuse of a child, nothing is served by hiding the extent of the crime in the arts or in journalism. It affects one third of us all, and twenty percent of us with some severity. Over 80% of felons in prison have been abused sexually as a child .... and the ravings of many of the world's mad men (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, et al) can be tied directly to established patterns of child abuse. It's serious shit.

Well, this certainly is interesting, isn't it. You know, at one time I was part of the SM/BD community on Folsom Street. I still call those people my friends. And generally you'll find them to be the most understanding and tolerant on the sexual pathline because they... hell, we have enough self-awareness to know how we're perceived by society at large. Some of them, like my friend Jay in Toronto, relishes his outlaw status and practically lives it 24/7. But if any of them came off as obstinate as you folks, they would have been laughed off the street. Yeah, it has all the appearances of looking like Tiger's saying there's kiddie porn at R'otica. But if you mental giants try looking at it again, you just might figure out that the Internet is a lousy way of communicating sometimes because it leaves a false impression. This isn't the first time we've seen a post that looked a little strange because the person writing it was thinking faster than he/she could type, and it damn sure won't be the last. So, for your benefit, we're gonna walk through that post, one line at a time. Everyone ready? Good. Okay, so child nudity or sex in CG art is harmless because noone is actually hurt and anything that limits us is bad. Did I get that right? Frankly this is frightening! Check out Renderotica and tell me what is going on with the people creating those images and viewing them Now, look at his first statement. See that phrase "sex in CG art"? That, my learned friends, is what he's refering to when he cites Renderotica. But now he returns to the general message of this thread when he writes: Even if the people creating these child images are thinking artistically, what about the guys looking at the images? They're two separate thoughts. So put out your damn torches and start making a few apologies of your own.

At the risk of being burned at the stake, I think what is important here is the crucial underline of the ruling... There should be no such thing as a "thoughtcrime". Yeah, some people will make CG art with kids that arouses them... and there will be people out there who are aroused by those images. The point is that until they actually go out and break the law or act ont hose thoughts there is no crime. Freedom of speech is a good idea, but it is also a way to defend the idea of freedom of THOUGHT. You are welcome to dislike what people think... but criminalizing thoughts is a fast slope down to a dictatorship. We tried that silliness before, and it's a mess. The absolute morass of law that is "hate crime" legislation is an example of what happens when you try and criminalize thoughts. Remember the nightmare of the height of the political correctness era? Colege students taping each other ins ecret and turning fellow studens in in exchange for added points on their GPA? I for one don't want to live in that kind of world.

VS:

Unless you are also TigerD, I will not be taking your word on what his intent was.

I am, to a much lesser extent, also offended that you would suggest that I and my fellow representatives of Renderotica should be the ones to apologise. It reminds me of the time that my daughters school principal made her apologise to the boy who punched her in the face and knocked her down because "she made him mad".
I, and my co-mods, have been given a virtual punch in the face, and I'll be damned if I'm going to apologise to the one who did it.

TigerD made the statement that I take offence to.
It is up to him to apologise for such a libelous remark, or clarify his statement if he meant something other than what is clearly impied. The implication, which is clear to me, is that he is stating that Renderotica allows sexual images involving children to be displayed in their galleries.

As a moderator at Renderotica, I do take great offence to that implication, and no, I will not move on until I am answered by the person responsible.

Well...here we are in OT forum. I'm concerned with the language you folks are using. Please remember that you are allowed to get mad at eachother. But you are not allowed to call eachother names. It's counter productive anyway. So please try to keep a cool head. Remember, Although we all have different opinions. We are all friends here. :-) ScottA

{Now, look at his first statement. See that phrase "sex in CG art"? That, my learned friends, is what he's refering to when he cites Renderotica.}

VS, you should look at his first statement more carefully. It is actually:

{Okay, so child nudity or sex in CG art ...}

The way that is most likely to be read is 'child nudity or sex' with both the words nudity and sex tying back to the word child. Taken in the context of the rest of the post, which further goes on to imply that child porn is shown at Renderotica, that is EXACTLY what it appears he meant. What we are asking is that TigerD come and apologize if that was not his intent, not you. No personal insults to him OR you. No condescending tone to him OR you. Just perfectly justified offence at what could be taken as a personal insult to every one of the mods and admins at Renderotica. Not to mention that it could be viewed as libelous. Renderotica is part of my business. We have an online store. Not everyone here has been to Renderotica and giving the impression that we allow child pornography on our site has the potential to harm my business.

{He's saying those kind of images are being shown -- you know, the S/M sort of thing.}

And no, he said nothing about SM images. You are the one that is reading things into his post that aren't there. So, let this person speak for himself. He doesn't need you defending him and making snide remarks on his behalf.

Virtual Site. ...Let me just add something to your post in #51. The SM/BD community Maybe the most understanding and tolerant of the sexual pathline but they are usually 150% against child porn in any form. Especiallly lifestylers with children. Since if for any reason they go to jail, they know for a fucking fact that they will be looked at as if they are abusing their children sexually. No matter what. Ask any Lifestyler if they believe in the rights of child porn and you will NOT get a HELL yeah as a response. Where they even come into on this discussion I really don't want to know but if you are part of the community or were, you would know this information. Most of them would even take offense at being brought up in this conversation. Since Lifestylers are precieved by the society at large as perverted sick demented and other things. It's hard enough raising children, even harder to be a lifestyler and keep that part of your life secret from the children who live with you. And yes I have an intimate knowledge of the lifestyle and the community and have for half my life. and I do agree with momcat and Legume, TigerD should be correcting his own statement if that is not what he meant. While I understand what you are trying to do, Unless you know and live with him you do not know if that is what he meant or not. You are doing the same thing you accuse us of by assuming that you know the intent to his words. Perhaps just letting it set and having him deal with it?