Hmm... wow, panties sure got into a bunch over this, as Legume and I were sure it would once the Supreme Court overturned that law... took almost 3 years, but Legume, you were right it happened. Now about the B.S. regarding TigerD's post, whether or not his intention was to group the R'otician's into a neat little stereotype of: "well if they are involved in porn then they must also support Child Porn". At least that was my take on it, sorry VirtualSite, but I've seen this sort of stereotyping ever since I first created R'otica (as a means to keep everyone's now precious R'osity free of the "Poser Porn" or "smut" that the "Oh DEAR GOD there's a NIPPLE in that IMAGE" people so loves to bitch about over here) and I have to say that I was offended. Here is a tiny little freaking tidbit that I am sure that very few of you are aware of about Renderotica and the man (Your's Truly) who created that haven of freedom of expression with the helpful and much needed aid of Doc Legume. Nine Years ago, when my daughter was the age of two, she was molested by an unknown person, both anally and vaginally... TWO YEARS OLD!! If anyone in this goddamn site should have a bitch about the Supreme Court Ruling it should be ME. A person who was a second party victim and a person that was initially accused of the transgretion. If anyone here should be mounting up an attack it should be me... but I am not. I am very much in FAVOR of the Supreme Court's 6-3 Ruling!! Here are some facts that many of you may not've known about the past law... If your REAL LIFE wife, girlfriend or model who is 35 years old wore a "School Girl Outfit" or "Cheerleader Outfit" and did a private home video or a public one, both you and here could be arrested under that law as supporting or contributing to advancement of child porn. Because under that law it was a matter of the perception of the Authority's as to YOUR intent when doing that video or Photoshoot. With that law they were able to assume what your intentions were when you did that video or took those pictures. If they felt those images could arouse Child Molestors or Pornographers, then you were in the wrong and subject for arrest... for contributing to a crime that has not yet occured, even though you never intended it that way. Because of this NEW RULING, Authorities NOW HAVE TO TRACK DOWN AND VERIFY THAT THERE WAS INDEED A VICTIM!! Did you know, with that old law they never had to checked on the victim or even checked to see if there was one? There was no need for them to verify the age of the model in the image, even if she was 35 years old, if she looked like and/or dressed like a 16 year old, you were in violation of that law and subject to arrest as a child pornographer or in possession of child porn, regardless of that model's age!! That if NINE YEARS AGO that sick f*cking a$$hole that molested my TWO YEAR OLD daughter took pictures of her and distributed them on the internet and the authorities found those images on another person's hard drive, they would arrest the fuck that had them, but they would NEVER LOOK FOR THE CHILD or NOTIFY THE PARENTS OF THAT CHILD!! This new ruling forces the Authorities to do their JOBS. To track down the VICTIMS and the FAMILIES of the VICTIM to VERIFY the CRIMINAL ACT and POTENTIALLY help to take the actual PERP'S OFF OF THE STREET!! Think of it another way... with the old law, the Government was just happy with busting a few people toking on a joint, rather than bothering themselves to track down the person that sold those people the joint or manufactured the pot to make that joint. In fact, with that law, they could arrest you for smoking a joint, even if it was only a hand rolled cigarette, because it "APPEARED" to look like a Joint... Wake up people!! This overturning of the law was not to open a door to Pornographer's to create virtual child porn, but to actually have authorities make sure that a crime was INDEED committed!! 'Nuff said Jack