http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=70&ncid=70&e=1&u=/cn/20020626/tc_cn/939407 Basically they are trying to ban the use of CG figures of children in erotica. This probably includes any "fairy" or little girl/boy looking figures used in adult situations. Here's the article in its entirety: ****************************************************** The 413-to-8 vote aims to circumvent a recent Supreme Court decision that nixed an earlier ban on "morphed" erotica. A similar proposal has been introduced in the Senate. With the enthusiastic backing of both Democrats and Republicans, final passage of a bill this year is all but certain. "This bill closes the door left open by the recent Supreme Court decision," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said at a press conference Tuesday. "I urge the Senate to take action immediately." Law enforcement considers restrictions on computer-generated images a key tool in fighting child pornography, backing that has made the issue an easy sell in Washington despite lingering constitutional concerns. Congress has moved swiftly to pass replacement legislation after the high court struck down the previous law on April 16 on First Amendment grounds. Immediately after the court's decision, politicians from both major parties pledged to try again. That afternoon, Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and one-time Mormon bishop, vowed to "craft new legislation." Attorney General John Aschroft held a press conference two weeks later to lend the Bush administration's support to the letter to Congress offering tips on how to craft a law that would survive Supreme Court scrutiny. Ashcroft said in a statement Tuesday evening that the bill "will strengthen the ability of law enforcement to protect children from abuse and exploitation. I urge the Senate to bring this important legislation to the floor as soon as possible." The new bill includes relatively minor changes to the 1996 version of the law, known as the Child Pornography Prevention Act. That legislation had prohibited any image that "appears to be" a minor. By contrast, the new Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act (COPPA) refers to any computer-generated image that is "virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Supporters of the new legislation claim it has been carefully crafted to pass constitutional muster. Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, said COPPA had been written "as narrowly as possible" to avoid running afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression. But some legal scholars said they are dubious about whether the changes will be sufficient to survive an expected legal challenge, once the bill becomes law. "I don't understand why they think this statute is going to eradicate any of the problems that the Supreme Court explicitly delineated in its recent decision," said Megan Gray, a lawyer at the Electronic Privacy Information Center who specializes in free speech law. The courts have repeatedly turned back attempts to limit digital pornography, striking down laws aimed at curtailing publication of smut on the Internet and requiring public libraries to filter Internet content. In their April ruling, a 6-3 majority of the justices wrote that Congress' first try at banning "morphed" porn was akin to prohibiting dirty thoughts. "First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end," Justice Anthony Kennedy ( news - web sites) wrote for the majority. "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought." Prosecutors argue that the COPPA bill is needed, since otherwise it is too difficult to prove that an actual child was involved in the production of an electronic image on, say, a seized hard drive. But foes of COPPA in the House Judiciary Committee ( news - web sites) called the measure "a hasty attempt drafted by the Department of Justice ( news - web sites) to override the United States Supreme Court's decision," which is "fatally flawed." Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the committee, voted against COPPA on Tuesday. The only Republican to vote against COPPA was libertarian firebrand Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

here we go again :(

A few statements and observations here: in the wording of the bill: "virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Ok I can kinda give them this, but I still have an issue with it due to the fact that there was no law broiken in the creation of the art. The second observation is that they make a very limited mention of the fact that the bill places the burden of proof on the defendant. THis concerns me for the same reason it concerns them: " since otherwise it is too difficult to prove that an actual child was involved in the production of an electronic image on, say, a seized hard drive." THis essentialy also states the oppisite, that it will be to difficult to prove that it was an actual adult. Next thing you know you will be guilty of child porn for having pictures of a legal 20 year old person because some law enforcement officer can't make the determination between that and a 17 year old. I've said it before and I will say it again. THe burden of proof has to remain with the prosecution. Our government is seriously NOT doing thier job by passing this with such a high vote.

You know, if they really want to know if it's real of if it's Poser, why they don't ask us? I can tell the difference. There are jobs in this, friends and neighbors-- if you don't mind working for these people-- who really are trying to pass laws against the imagination. Emily "Everybody knows the scene is dead But there's gonna be a meter on your bed That will disclose What everybody knows" Leonard Cohen

It's also another attempt to fool the masses. Typical of legislative electives who can now run home and boast to thier Nebraskan (pardon the example) constituants that THEY passed another bill to stop child pornography. The average person living in "fill in the blank state name" has no idea what Poser (or similar products) are, will never read the words of the law, yet will get outraged when the Supreme Court strikes down this second attempt. And the representative of these people will still be held in high esteem because s/he tried. I'm outraged, not because I make pictures that will be suspect (well, not with THIS law, anyway), but because of the principle involved. Just because the courts might not be able to distinquish between a real photo and a CGI, those found with CGI will automatically be lumped in with those posessing child pornography and assumed guilty. And, as outrage goes, I find it maddening that ths is going on at the same time there are so many Catholic pedophiles and so little concern by the US or the Catholic "rulers".

So then this raises a question for me. If a CG representation of a woman or a child (or man for that matter) performing a sex act is exploitation then what is exploitation? This bill apparently doesn't protect real live people. Its not like its saving a little kid doing dirty pictures. If this type of "measure" is allowed then why not against violence? We have tons of CG rendered stills and movies of shooting, beating, killing, are these to be banned as well? Its OK to kill a death star full of millions of troopers but God forbid you show Princess Lea in a bikini?

Yes, Here we go again, another pile of sh-- with a beautiful frosting on it that the public is going to eat. Im pissed at Congress and Media for this. They both want to feel good on what they do and not what it does to us. They are looking at the frosting and not the cake.

does this not mean that anything we make with the child characters is liable to be seen as child porn or is it just the sex act that counts? Rob

Well, Rob, the quote from above is, "engaging in sexually explicit conduct". One MIGHT think that means you can render what would pass for a 10-year-old completely naked as long as, for example, s/he is just standing there. But put 2 of those 10-year-olds in the missionary position and you are in trouble. The $64,000 questions comes from what is in between. What, say for example, if you render what appears to be a 13-year-old girl looking in the mirror and cupping a breast to measure how she is developing, something I'm sure goes on quite a lot, and is therefore an innocent glimpse of a growing child's life. Some might find it gratuitous, others might look at it and see innocence. I'd hate to find myself in court with a bunch of stodgy hypocrits needing to satisfy their constituants (some judges and DA's are elected) at my expense. Therefore, I will never do any kind of render like this. Which, in my opinion, means my 1st amendment rights have just been trampled.

Ever known a child who has been molested? The worst thing that can happen to a child. It seems to me they are wanting to protect children from the many awful things that happen every day. I don't think anyone is saying that a person who creates questionable images is a pedophile, but if a pedophile creates those type of images, they are just fueling their screwed up hormones. I haven't made up my mind how I feel about this legislation yet, but I can see why people would like to combat child pornography. I am glad they are concerned about this type of thing. I just hope that they will look at it with a neutral mind and listen to the facts and issues at hand before making up their minds. No one likes to have their artwork censored, but it has always been an issue for those that create vs. those who view/listen/experience the artwork. Many times an artist creates something with one thing in mind while those that see it will take it completely different from the intended message. I don't know where the line should be drawn, but I think it is an issue that should be discussed rationally instead of both sides trying to go to extremes.

I wrote a letter to my congressmen (and also Senators) explaining my view as a digital artist, with a copy of the article that was printed on Reuter's, and a Poser image I'd made of the Mil Preschooler, in clothes, so I could point out some of the flawed assumptions behind the bill. Whether it'll do any good, I don't know, but at least I tried. On thing that is often forgotten: Pedophilia is a neurological disease that neither needs nor utilizes a "trigger". No one is going to see a piece of computer generated child porn and become a pedophile. After all, does a normal person need to see an issue of Playboy (or Playgirl), or does just seeing a cute member of the opposite sex IRL suffice? It's also a disease that has no cure, so no legislation is going to decrease the demand. Given that, if a pedophile's going to get child-porn images one way or another, I rather they be made with a computer mesh than with someone's son or daughter.

Child pornagraphy doesn't have to show pictures of children (whether real or not) engaging in sex. If it's a picture of a partially clothed or nude figure that looks like a child or a young teenager below the age of consent, any puritan worth his or her salt will make a case that it's child porn since pedophiles will collect pictures of young people in various degrees of undress and let their prurient imaginations do the rest.

No, I'm not a puritan. The reason why I bring this up in my post above is to just remind people to be aware that if they post art that depicts young looking figures undressed, someone somewhere, whether in this forum or in Congress, will take offense and label them child pornographers, no matter the art value of the work.

"Given that, if a pedophile's going to get child-porn images one way or another, I rather they be made with a computer mesh than with someone's son or daughter."

I agree with that, too. People should be able to make or do all they want in the privacy of their own homes, as long as it doesn't involve other people and they don't distribute it. Distribution or publicizing it makes it wrong in my book.

And I hope you didn't take my words to mean I felt it would trigger it. I'm not sure whether it would or not. Only person who could know that would be someone who experienced it, and even then it would only have validity in their case. Everyone's different.

I'm glad you wrote your congressman about it. More of us should take the initiative.

whattawa ....Of COURSE they should be cocerned with stopping child porn. But things like "Ever known a child who has been molested?" Have nothing to do with it other that to raise the blood pressure, because this isn't about child molestation. The last ruling was based on other rulings before. It's been a continual tweaking process driven by politics that ChuckEvans was talking about. To begin with, the court ruled that sex wasn't obscene. But that the government still had an overriding interest in the child-porn venue, because its interest in the protection of innocent children overrode the freedom issues. But THEN the last ruling came down protecting CGIs under freedom of speech, because the government lost it's abiding interest because there ARE no children involved. But of course we all agree that the exploitation of children is deplorable. No argument there I'm sure. Beav Oh...and you're right, Kattman, the day the burden lies with the defense, we might as well pack up democracy and move away.

Gee, Fyre, we may actually agree on something...not like last issue (grin). But I may differ on one item...you said there was no cure...isn't castration a cure? Or is that just for rapists? Wattawa, I do know someone (actually, two) who has been molested. My wife's best friend's daughter. When she left her grandfather's home @ 14, she was withdrawn and a person of very few words. She didn't think she was pretty at all and when I tried to take pictures of her to show her (I have a few photgraphic skills...grin), she buried her face. When her mother found out about it, she took it to court. I can show you the outcome in the form a newspaper article where her grandfather is listed as a child molester. The second person was me. I had an older boy masturbate me and made me masturbate him when I was about 8. Before that, my baby sitters made me finger them and lick them when I was about six. I guess they were about 13 or so, because I still remember them having a small "patch" of pupic hair. Strangely, I don't remember much else except being scared and knowing what was coming when the two girls started taking off their clothes. I don't let it bother me. And, though I will probably "take fire" for saying so, I imagine it's worse if this sort of thing happens to a little girl. So, in spite of those items, I still think the law goes too far.

Castration does not stop sexual desires in all cases. So much of human sexuality is mental as well as physical. There have actually been cases of rape by someone who was castrated (castration technically being the removal of only the testicles, not of the penis as well). So, even that extreme action couldn't be guaranteed as a cure.

I think it would give me the same satisfaction as congress takes in passing laws that don't seem to be able to withstand judicial scrutiny...grin. I don't claim to be expert...just repeating what I have read...that the testicles generate the desire (in conjunction with the mental urges) and getting rid of it somehow reduces the urges. I've often wondered if getting my balls cut off would make me even "madder" at women (since rape is a violent act anyway and not sexual desire) if I were a rapist. But that is OT...grin. On a slightly different but related topic, wonder what viewpooints CL and DAZ have on this...since it, well, sort of, "targets" thier "meat and potatoes". Or perhaps I should say, "labels".

ChuckEvans, I agree this law could go too far, and that is a worry for me, just as it is for you. As I said earlier, I hope that both sides can deal with this without going to extremes. People will ask questions similar to what I did earlier, which may lead to less rational decisions. Maybe not, but it could happen. There will be some things that will be labeled child pornography that shouldn't be I'm sure. That would be very hard for me to deal with if I was the artist, but it will take compromise from both sides to reach the best solution. I don't know if the other side (gov't side, that is) will compromise at all, though....

Wattawa: I imagine what I said earlier will happen. ACLU will attack it and get it discarded. Or someone innocent like Thorne (sorry, bud...just a random example...nothing intended) will be taken to court and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court and then it gets thrown out. Heck, knowing how things work these days, "John Law" is probably reading these threads and doing background checks as we speak. Remember the "widened" rules that have been passed. After all, I used to work for NSA. I know how much "listening" goes on. Ooops, guess I've done it now!

Actually, I am not so sure we need this law at all. Child porn is already outlawed. If someone is using a child to pose in the nude in sex acts then they are pornographers the medium doesn't matter. Nudity is not porn as it is the way God sent us into the world. I mention this as it seems our current gov't is very busy defining God's intent for us. With Poser there is no need to have a real child, you already have the model ready to go, so there is no immediate victim as stated by the supreme court. Unless you catch the artist in the act of creating art with real children as the models in the poses that are sexual acts you cannot prove the artist wasn't working from memory of what a child looks like and then creating a work posing the virtual/thought child. I rarely use a model and haven't worked with nude models since college, yet I do alot of nudes in painting. Fairies and cherubs can't even be considered human so that whole line is rediculous. Show me a real child with wings growing out of its back and flying and I will rethink that. Till then, I am sorry, the artist is not responcible for the 3% of the population that are pedifiles. It's all out of context, as is the comment about catholic priests.The present powers that be don't like catholics any more than they like pornographers so we have a field day in the media leaving the public to believe all catholic priests are suspect and that all claims are true. There are significantly less pedifiles in pastoral work than in teaching. Less than 1% vs 8%. I say pastoral work, because you can not believe that priests are the only ones and the catholic church is the only religious order that has hiden it . What is appalling is the choise to hide it and leaving the suspect in position to repeat the crime. Again this is all the same, the media telling the story fed by government, outraging the population and causing them to believe that a drawing or thought is equal to the act.

I personally find CGI kiddy porn as distasteful as the real thing, but there's a huge difference between making distasteful animations and perpetrating an actual sexual crime against minors. Making child pornography exploits and harms the children (the 'actors'). This is why it's bad. You can't sexually molest an .obj file. Computer renderings are just a form of art/animation. If you are going to allow your lawmakers to ban CGI porn, then illustrated porn is next. Pretty soon, it will be a federal crime to sketch two children having sex, or to write a story about it. then, you will truly have the 1984 vision realised. Good luck to any of you that take the initiative to fight against these laws and keep artistic freedom free. -Adam

This is an interesting vote and will likely be struck down in the future. In 1990, Justice Anton Scalia wrote the opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. I met him briefly and listened to his lecture some years ago at Loyala School of Law in LA. In that opinion, the court basically gutted the free exercise clause of the first amendment. In 1991 congress passed the RFRA (Religious Freedom Reformation Act) in an attempt to overturn the Smith case. In 1992, (and the name of the case escapes me now but email if you really want all this) the Sup. Ct. overturned RFRA saying that Congress had exceeded its power under the constitution. This fight between congress and the sup. ct. (legislative and judicial branch of the gov't) is significant because dating back to the founding of this nation there was a case between Marburry v. Madison where the Sup. Ct. appointed itself sole power to interpret the constitution. So, I anticipate that the scenario of the early 90 MIGHT play out again. That said, the sup ct is a political body (not in the sense of a democratic election politics, but in the sense of political power). If the Sup.Ct. receives enough pressure from the "people" they will find a way to support congress and not go against the earlier ruling. You should know that if you think the president or congress runs this country, you are very wrong. You are run by the freedom and punishment as dispensed from the sup. ct. and the Honorable Justices are appointed for life by any president in office a Justice dies or retires. You should also know that some of the voter turnout and campaign funding for presidential election has to do with what candidate is conservative/liberal and expected to hold office during a time when Justices are expected to retire. This us why the Clinton administration had so much controversy over trivial things that other presidents were never hit with and also why Bush/Gore became one of the most notable elections in history. That said, welcome to politics 102 and we hope you enjoy the class. I said on an earlier thread that this was a very interesting topic and that I wanted to finish a law review article on the subject. As an attorney, an artist, and a member of this community, I made my email addy available for anyone that wanted to assist and keep me focused on writing. I have not received any interest. Your call. I'm willing to write the legal technical stuff, just need some support and encouragement cuz I do work a full schedule (80 hour week). eric@annsartgallery.com And come visit the family site. www.annsartgallery.com

Sorry for the typos, its after hours and the secretaries are home tending their families, like they should be. Loyola is the right spelling, and a few others. The more I think about it, my prediction changes that the Sup.Ct. may find a way to make this stick and still not overrule the earlier decision about congress exceeding its power. Why?........... Some years ago, back in the Madeline Murray O'Hare days, there was a push to rewrite the Constitution. The issue was whether or not a 200 year old document should still govern this nation or if it should be revised to reflect a gov't of, by, and for the people (sound familiar? Think of top hats and a place called Gettysberg). At Loyola, Justice Scalia mentioned that he believed the Constitution should reflect the will of the people, the current will of the people. That if the Constitution was not working, it should be changed. Obviously, folks are not willing to gut and rewrite our founding document. So........ The Sup.Ct. that interprets that document merely finds new "interpretations" and in some cases, bypasses all fundamentals of hermeneutics to arrive at a decision which pleases the "people". So, who are the "people"? A Gallup pole? A lobby group that uses a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" tactic? ... The $200,000.00 question is whether or not the Sup. Ct. will stand by their decision or cave in. I pick that price because its the average cost to a person who wants to appeal a lower court ruling all the way to the sup. ct. Any of you got that kind of money? If not, expect the local police and courts to follow the codes and statutes and ignore the theory behind Ashcroft v. Free Speech. Local judges have the discretion to decide on statute as interpreted by case law and when the two conflict, often the statute wins. Also, expect local judges who are elected officials to go for the votes. If ignorant public opinion is against this type of art, the judge will stand by the codes and statutes if the same make them favorable in the electing public. A local trial court judge will run the judicial branch (judgment against you) based on the legislative branch (law enacted by congress) unless overturned by a higher court. So, set Ashcroft aside, Congress will rule until slapped down again by the Sup. Ct. and you need to go there to do that. Is this making sense? I hope so, its the way it is. Can your congressman or representative articulate this to you? I hope so because its why you elected them. Who knows, maybe some day I'll get a shot at a seat. That, again, is your call. (Now to find an after hours secretary who can spell.) At least I'm not a Dan Quale who was a brilliant theoretician with some economic common sense but couldnt tell the difference between the Latin language and his Latino friends. Spelling mistrakes are fixable, intellectual mistakes are not.

Some might remember a certain, former Senator Smute from Utah who, in an election year, sponsored legislation to ban lascivious images. A reaction appeared in a Washington paper that went something like the following.

OK, Sen. Smute from UT
seeks to ban smut of ill-repute
Smite smut fiercely Oh Sen. Smute
Smite for honor and for truth,
for us, for them and people of UT,
for religion, for America,
for mothers, for hysteria.
Smite smut to protect our youth
to stamp out all that is not cuth
Smite smut Sen. Smute,
even when the going's tough
For smut when smitten is front page stuff.

"Hysteria" is the right word. Anyone else here reminded of Salem?

Barberellany, I'm not sure my statement about Catholic pedophiles was extensive enough to be taken out of context. It was one sentence. However, I can expand on it so that you may at least see what it specifically was that made it maddening to me. (1) That Catholic powers moved known pedophiles to other locations when "caught". (2) That these same decision-makers finally met under severe public pressure (and only after severe public pressure) to decide what to do with "their pedophiles" and actually, initially, leaned toward a "you get one mistake" policy (till more public outrage followed). (3) That child molestation occurred and the Catholic church, IMHO, harbored criminals, in essence, being more concerned about sweeping it under the rug than following the law. (4) That the federal government, IMHO, concerned about "rough-riding" the powerful Catholic church decided on a "hands-off" approach. As to your statistics, if I understand them correctly, are you saying about 1 out of every 12 teachers is a pedophile? Are you saying 1 out of every 12 teachers has molested a child? I'd be interested in seeing that fact from some sort of reliable source if you have it handy. I won't argue that there is more molesting going on in the Catholic church than our schools. What is maddening is the incredible hypocracy of the priests...holding out one hand as if it's the hand of Jesus while running the other hand down underwear of young children. It's maddening because they preach about how everyone should act and conduct their lives in the eyes of God at mass. I guess what I'm trying to say, although lacking articulation, it's maddening because they should be held to a higher standard than school teachers, therfore, IMHO, it just seems worse to me. I suspect this has gotten off-topic a bit, but to segue back on topic, I guess the proposed law, CGI child pornography, is intended, among other things, to help prevent Catholic priests from getting the urges...grin.

Gilead gets closer...

ok, after this if there is more debate we can further discuss this through e-mail. After an experience with my daughter and a teacher, I did a lot of research regarding teachers as pedifiles and truthfully, I can no longer site specific documents. Logic though can help support my comments. First of all, pedifiles look for employment where they can be near children. Becoming a teacher is much easier than becoming a priest. I found that around 8% of teachers have sexually based complaints against them but few make it to court. The news will tell you that less than 1% of priests have the same complaints. As with the Catholic church, teachers and students are moved around in most cases as resolution. It is easier to move a child to another class or a teacher to another school within the district. Ususally during the school year it is the child that gets moved as was the resolution in our case. The teacher was moved to a library in another school the next year. We further found that this same teacher had been moved around years before under a similar situation. The district would not discuss it. I cannot believe this district does things so different from other schools. Reseach at that time and a lawyer told us that this was the usual process. As for the president keeping quiet as to not look like he is crusading against catholics as well a muslims, who's group do you think keeps the media at it? I'm just tired of hearing about priests as though there were no Lutheran, Baptist, or Jewish spiritual leaders that are pedifiles or ever had a complaint to suggest they are. Now since no pedifile priest has been associated with cgi as a means to hurt actual children, I think we can leave them out of this debate. I don't believe they have proven any pedifile has used cgi to harm an actual child which is the debate.

Barbarellany, I didn't intend the topic to go this direction when I made my one-sentence remark about priests. You said my remark was out of context, I decided to expand on it. By focusing on Catholics, I certainly did not mean to infer that there were no other problems in other religions...it just seems they only hit the local news and we have our share of them here in the "bible belt". It's interesting that schools also try to move pedophiles. I wonder why no one has sued them. Or why these people aren't in jail in the first place. And I made a weak attempt to get back OT, too...grin. Guess I'll try again. Does anyone know of any real-world examples of CGI "kiddie pics" being used/sold as real photographs? Any court cases?That seems to be what this law is proposing to stop, so how often has it happened so far?

This isn't about baby pics or baby books, or the like. Its about the old code that criminalized any 'sexually explicit' image of a minor, whether or not an actual person was involved. For example, an 18 year old adult female with a baby face who is dolled up with pig tails to look like a minor, well, the person was adult, but the portrayal as a minor is enough under the old code to convict the viewer of child porn. The old code was way overreaching. It was the only code that reached into the privacy of the home and said what you did was a part of the commerce chain and punishable. I recall a case where a man with kiddie porn books was arrested for possession (note that I said possession, not commerce) when he moved them from his house to his shed in the back yard. The police were waiting and arrested him in his back yard when he walked out the door, without a warrant. So, if the old code said you were busted for looking at (possessing) an image of even a legal adult who looked like a minor, and didn't even care if the image had artistic value (like cupid on a card) then it does indeed infringe on several amendments. It infringed on the first amendment free expression (same as free speech by caselaw). It infringed on the 4th amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. It infringed on various privacy issues in the core of the constitution which were supposed to protect what a person does in their own home. Under the old code, if you went to a web site, were redirected to a kiddie porn site, exited out, and didn't know that a temp internet file was saved with the images in it, you could be searched and sent to prison for possession. The Ashcroft decision was designed to reign in that police intrusion and the particular issue at hand was CG art. While I agree there are problems with the Ashcroft decision, there are also problems before it that might be corrected. And if someone wants to start up a CG kiddie site, that is an abuse that is protected now. Congress is aware of this and working hard to stop it. Like I said, it will be interesting to see who ultimately wins in the power struggle of the three branches of government. On a side note, while I enjoy these forums on 3d stuff, I never expected to have my mind jogged in this arena and very much appreciate these threads.

why on earth would anyone make a child porn picture with the images we have.i recently got ziza and i could never even think of something like that.it seems to me we as an art community have a respect and caring for our models.i know this sounds corny,but from all the forums and images i think everyone feels that way.that is why thorne pulled his free models for awhile.