Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL


Subject: OT- SUPREME COURT and Poser- The final word

geoegress opened this issue on Sep 14, 2006 · 76 posts


geoegress posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:20 PM

Because of another thread I decided to post this- This is the FINAL word beyond debate or action.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v.

FREE SPEECH COALITION et al.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


No. 00—795. Argued October 30, 2001–Decided April 16, 2002- - - - - -

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A), but also “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is “advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression” it depicts “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(D). Thus, §2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called “virtual child pornography,” that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology. Section 2256(8)(D) is aimed at preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography. Fearing that the CPPA threatened their activities, respondents, an adult-entertainment trade association and others, filed this suit alleging that the “appears to be” and “conveys the impression” provisions are overbroad and vague, chilling production of works protected by the First Amendment. The District Court disagreed and granted the Government summary judgment, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. Generally, pornography can be banned only if it is obscene under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, but pornography depicting actual children can be proscribed whether or not the images are obscene because of the State’s interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process, New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 758, and in prosecuting those who promote such sexual exploitation, id., at 761. The Ninth Circuit held the CPPA invalid on its face, finding it to be substantially overbroad because it bans materials that are neither obscene under Miller nor produced by the exploitation of real children as in Ferber.

Held: The prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional. Pp. 6—21.

    (a) Section 2256(8)(B) covers materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller, and the reasons the Government offers in support of limiting the freedom of speech have no justification in this Court’s precedents or First Amendment law. Pp. 6—19.

        (1) The CPPA is inconsistent with Miller. It extends to images that are not obscene under the Miller standard, which requires the Government to prove that the work in question, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, 413 U.S., at 24. Materials need not appeal to the prurient interest under the CPPA, which proscribes any depiction of sexually explicit activity, no matter how it is presented. It is not necessary, moreover, that the image be patently offensive. Pictures of what appear to be 17-year-olds engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards. The CPPA also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea–that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity–that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries. A number of acclaimed movies, filmed without any child actors, explore themes within the wide sweep of the statute’s prohibitions. If those movies contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, their possessor would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the literary value of the work. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: A work’s artistic merit does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene. See, e.g., Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Mass., 383 U.S. 413, 419. Under Miller, redeeming value is judged by considering the work as a whole. Where the scene is part of the narrative, the work itself does not for this reason become obscene, even though the scene in isolation might be offensive. See Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229, 231 (per curiam). The CPPA cannot be read to prohibit obscenity, because it lacks the required link between its prohibitions and the affront to community standards prohibited by the obscenity definition. Pp. 6—11.

        (2) The CPPA finds no support in Ferber. The Court rejects the Government’s argument that speech prohibited by the CPPA is virtually indistinguishable from material that may be banned under Ferber. That case upheld a prohibition on the distribution and sale of child pornography, as well as its production, because these acts were “intrinsically related” to the sexual abuse of children in two ways. 458 U.S., at 759. First, as a permanent record of a child’s abuse, the continued circulation itself would harm the child who had participated. See id., at 759, and n. 10. Second, because the traffic in child pornography was an economic motive for its production, the State had an interest in closing the distribution network. Id., at 760. Under either rationale, the speech had what the Court in effect held was a proximate link to the crime from which it came. In contrast to the speech in Ferber, speech that is itself the record of sexual abuse, the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not “intrinsically related” to the sexual abuse of children. While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts. The Government’s argument that these indirect harms are sufficient because, as Ferber acknowledged, child pornography rarely can be valuable speech, see id., at 762, suffers from two flaws. First, Ferber’s judgment about child pornography was based upon how it was made, not on what it communicated. The case reaffirmed that where the speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the First Amendment’s protection. See id., at 764—765. Second, Ferber did not hold that child pornography is by definition without value. It recognized some works in this category might have significant value, see id., at 761, but relied on virtual images–the very images prohibited by the CPPA–as an alternative and permissible means of expression, id., at 763. Because Ferber relied on the distinction between actual and virtual child pornography as supporting its holding, it provides no support for a statute that eliminates the distinction and makes the alternative mode criminal as well. Pp. 11—13.

        (3) The Court rejects other arguments offered by the Government to justify the CPPA’s prohibitions. The contention that the CPPA is necessary because pedophiles may use virtual child pornography to seduce children runs afoul of the principle that speech within the rights of adults to hear may not be silenced completely in an attempt to shield children from it. See, e.g., Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 130—131. That the evil in question depends upon the actor’s unlawful conduct, defined as criminal quite apart from any link to the speech in question, establishes that the speech ban is not narrowly drawn. The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles’ appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566, absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct, see, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (per curiam). The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all. Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited. The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612. The Government’s rejoinder that the CPPA should be read not as a prohibition on speech but as a measure shifting the burden to the accused to prove the speech is lawful raises serious constitutional difficulties. The Government misplaces its reliance on §2252A(c), which creates an affirmative defense allowing a defendant to avoid conviction for nonpossession offenses by showing that the materials were produced using only adults and were not otherwise distributed in a manner conveying the impression that they depicted real children. Even if an affirmative defense can save a statute from First Amendment challenge, here the defense is insufficient because it does not apply to possession or to images created by computer imaging, even where the defendant could demonstrate no children were harmed in producing the images. Thus, the defense leaves unprotected a substantial amount of speech not tied to the Government’s interest in distinguishing images produced using real children from virtual ones. Pp. 13—19.

    (b) Section 2256(8)(D) is also substantially overbroad. The Court disagrees with the Government’s view that the only difference between that provision and §2256(8)(B)’s “appears to be” provision is that §2256(8)(D) requires the jury to assess the material at issue in light of the manner in which it is promoted, but that the determination would still depend principally upon the prohibited work’s content. The “conveys the impression” provision requires little judgment about the image’s content; the work must be sexually explicit, but otherwise the content is irrelevant. Even if a film contains no sexually explicit scenes involving minors, it could be treated as child pornography if the title and trailers convey the impression that such scenes will be found in the movie. The determination turns on how the speech is presented, not on what is depicted. The Government’s other arguments in support of the CPPA do not bear on §2256(8)(D). The materials, for instance, are not likely to be confused for child pornography in a criminal trial. Pandering may be relevant, as an evidentiary matter, to the question whether particular materials are obscene. See Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 474. Where a defendant engages in the “commercial exploitation” of erotica solely for the sake of prurient appeal, id., at 466, the context created may be relevant to evaluating whether the materials are obscene. Section 2256(8)(D), however, prohibits a substantial amount of speech that falls outside Ginzburg’s rationale. Proscribed material is tainted and unlawful in the hands of all who receive it, though they bear no responsibility for how it was marketed, sold, or described. The statute, furthermore, does not require that the context be part of an effort at “commercial exploitation.” Thus, the CPPA does more than prohibit pandering. It bans possession of material pandered as child pornography by someone earlier in the distribution chain, as well as a sexually explicit film that contains no youthful actors but has been packaged to suggest a prohibited movie. Possession is a crime even when the possessor knows the movie was mislabeled. The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction. Pp. 19—20.


XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:23 PM

If you'd like to be some DA's first test case -- then feel free to open up a website catering to such material.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:24 PM

shrug

You might even be able to convince the ACLU to represent you.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



Valerian70 posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:30 PM

Nothing is FINAL, all laws are subject to revision and also being completely rewritten.

In this SPECIFIC case this was the result in a similar case in 2 months time in another court with another judge may find conversely to this one.

If the law was not subject to interpretation and transmutation we would have no need of barristers, judges, juries or anything more than a summary kangaroo court.

Time and time cases are cited as test cases and utilised by barristers in subsequent legal trials that are of a similar enough content to their case to make them believe they can win.  You know what they don't always win because each case is tried on its own merits and under its own whims.

If you wish to take this as being engraved in stone then that is your right.  Hwoever, in specific refence to internet sites they havea legal and bound duty to operate within the law.  However, they are also free to enforce STRICTER guidelines than the laws of their country allow for.  That is their right and by opening an account with that site - even if it is free, gratis and for nothing, then you are entering into an agreement to abide by their Terms Of Use.

So long as the rules of the site do not break the laws of that sites country of origin then you either suck it up and get on with it within their tules OR you pack your bags and leave.

I co-run my own site and many of the images that I post here I could not post there as we have a way stricter Terms Of Use than is in force here at Renderosity.  I helped construct those rules and take full responsibility for them and you know what, I'm happy with the dichotomy that I cannot post some of my favourite images there that I can post here.  It is all part of the rich tapestry of life online.

 

 


Casette posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:35 PM

Please anyone can resume the first post? I read technical english like a hell...


CASETTE
=======
"Poser isn't a SOFTWARE... it's a RELIGION!"


billy423uk posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:35 PM

we're discussing a site rule and a site tos. though i posted an url as well to try and show what you meant do we really need to bring the rule down to the child pornography level again. whether lawfull or not i would be disgusted to see any image of a real childlike quality even if it was a fairy.

i've been beaten. it seems people want to discuss child porn as opposed to a mere rule within the confines of a community that has little or no basis for it's strictness other than to ease the workload of the mods. all i havve left to say is ....fuck it.

billy


billy423uk posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:38 PM

valerian..if a precedence is set a judge is bound to accept it in most cases. whilst cases are indeed tried on merit.  once a precendence is set it affects any case that is similar in context.

billy


Casette posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:39 PM

@billy423uk

I see. Thanks ;)


CASETTE
=======
"Poser isn't a SOFTWARE... it's a RELIGION!"


Valerian70 posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:43 PM

Nope, it can b ignored or deemed to be not relevant in the case, it does not have to be taken as down and dirty fact.  If that was the case every defence lawyer in the land would cite a precedent and get their client off scott free.  It doesn;t happen like that as each case is very individual and no two will be similar enough for any precedent to ever be wholly effective.  Also in trials that invole juries then you can site what the heck you want if it goes to the full length and the jury are sent to reach a verdict it is up to them what the result is and not up to the judge or the lawyers and, believe me, that often hinges on the courtroom performance of the witnesses and the defendant more than it does any previous precedent.

 

 


wheatpenny posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:47 PM Site Admin

Judges are free to ignore or set aside a precedent that they believe to be either wrong or irrelevant/not applicable to their particular case. They do it a lot.




Jeff

Renderosity Senior Moderator

Hablo español

Ich spreche Deutsch

Je parle français

Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?





CobraEye posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:50 PM

Nudity and porn or sexual acts are not the same thing.


XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:53 PM

The ruling posted at the top effectively means nothing in the UK, anyway.

I still say that someone who wants to posit by implication that it's a great idea to go all-out on allowing virtual kids to do virtual things in the galleries -- if they choose to open their own website for the purpose:  without a doubt, they'll have the opportunity to test the limits of the law -- up close & personal.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



billy423uk posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 6:54 PM

Quote - Judges are free to ignore or set aside a precedent that they believe to be either wrong or irrelevant/not applicable to their particular case. They do it a lot.

if the judge deems it relevent (similar or applicable) i doubt he'd refute it. and whilst judges deem some inapplicable many cases are thrown out because he thinks they are applicable. to say a precedent has no bearing sorta negates how the justice system was built........and i know thats not what your saying manhunter just saving myself a post to valerian lol

billy


geoegress posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 7:13 PM

Xeno- god I wish I was as smart as you. You knew what this says without even reading it!

2 post in under one minute, I bow to your in-site-fullness and knowledge.

To read the writeings of others is to acknowledge that others have a voice. Possibally even an opinion or idea that (may) even be valid.

Val- not set in stone- BUT IT IS THE LAW NOW here in the US, where the servers are and this business is.

There ARE points burried within this that do directly apply to 'fairy images'. Formost among them "The prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional. Pp. 6—21."

"It extends to images that are not obscene under the Miller standard, which requires the Government to prove that the work in question, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"

"The CPPA also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea.....that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries"

"This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: A work’s artistic merit does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene. See, e.g., Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Mass., 383 U.S. 413, 419. Under Miller, redeeming value is judged by considering the work as a whole. Where the scene is part of the narrative, the work itself does not for this reason become obscene, even though the scene in isolation might be offensive. See Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229, 231 (per curiam). "

And much much much more...........


XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 7:19 PM

Quote - Xeno- god I wish I was as smart as you. You knew what this says without even reading it!

2 post in under one minute, I bow to your in-site-fullness and knowledge.

To read the writeings of others is to acknowledge that others have a voice. Possibally even an opinion or idea that (may) even be valid.

 

Huh?  Who says that I haven't read it?  I happen to be quite familiar with that case, my friend.  And with its implications.

 

Quote - Val- not set in stone- BUT IT IS THE LAW NOW here in the US, where the servers are and this business is.

 

shrug  If anyone wants to test that hypothesis........but I'd seriously recommend against trying it.  In fact I'd say: don't do it.  For many, many reasons.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 7:22 PM

BTW -- I won't hesitate to say that the divided majority of the Supreme Court was wrong.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



Khai posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 7:25 PM

ok

can someone PLEASE tellme what the outcome was? in english not legalise? as in practical upshot?


JenX posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 7:25 PM

The TOS was not put in place by the US government.  By far, yes, our TOS is stricter.  That was an admin decision, not a governmental decision. 
Posting the verbage of a Supreme Court ruling means little to nothing when it comes to the rules and Terms of Service of a Private site.  UNLESS said site is breaking the law.   I.E., Renderosity can have stricter rules, but not more lax rules, than the entity in which it resides, i.e. Tennessee, United States. 
For instance, when we run contests, they have to follow the Tennessee State Laws governing lottories and contests.  Prizes MUST be awarded on time, and participants can not be forced to make a purchase in order to participate and/or win.  Now, along with that, we can make things a little stricter, by our own site rules.  Our rules in no way reflect State or Federal laws, but must be within them.

MS

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.


XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 7:30 PM

Quote - ok

can someone PLEASE tellme what the outcome was? in english not legalise? as in practical upshot?

 

Like most of these types of rulings, the interpretation really depends upon who you ask.

But esstentially, it says that so-called "virtual child porn" is allowable -- so long as no real children were involved in the making of it.  However, this ruling has yet to be tested in a real case.  It'll happen  -- and by that time, the makeup of the Supreme Court is likely to have changed.  The nine-member legislature that passes laws -- overruling Congress -- will perhaps change its mind with that change in membership.

Edited to add -- this also doesn't totally account for local & state laws.  Once again: it's yet to be tested.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



Miss Nancy posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 7:36 PM

I didn't read all the preceding, but I'm guessing that none of the participants (including me) is a lawyer. however, I'm also guessing that the "scotus" is totally unaware of the existence of poser :lol: o.k., maybe thomas, but not the others :lol:



Acadia posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 8:42 PM

Is there a "Cole's Notes" version of that?   Or at least a summary about what the core issue is?

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi



billy423uk posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 9:02 PM

i read it from top to bottom and as far as i'm concerned on a personal level the supreme court is morally talking out of it's courtly arse. anyone in their right mind would find any kind of child porn offensive...whatever the medium...even if it was a something scarted onto the back of a bog door with a rusty nail. sometimes the obvious has no bearing when it comes to waht the supreme or any other court declares. where i come from people get lynched and rightly so for any kind of child porn.

glad we agree on at least one thing morrigan lmao re what the discussion is about.

billy

 

 


pakled posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 9:07 PM

yow..gonna havta crack a few Westlaw volumes to make sense of it.  Lots of precedents, verbiage..I felt my eyes glazing over about 2/3rds of the way down. I've never had any desire to do kids (1 pic out of 600..and that a joke one anyways..;), but that's me..

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)


SoCalRoberta posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 9:32 PM

Ninth circut court is California. Not a conservative venue at all.

This still has one more level to go to be final. It still needs to be heard in the Supreme Court, if it hasn't already.

And let's not forget the little detail omited by the 9th Circut court. Even if  the Sickos kiddy image is "legal" to put out in the public eye, he(or she) ican still be criminally liable if someone uses that image as inspiration to do something against a live child.

I say, let's keep our nice strict TOS.


wheatpenny posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 10:15 PM Site Admin

Yeah, that court is notorious for controversial decisions, like the pledge being unconstitutional among other things.




Jeff

Renderosity Senior Moderator

Hablo español

Ich spreche Deutsch

Je parle français

Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?





XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 10:28 PM

This IS (or rather was) a Supreme Court case.  It was mighty big in the news back then, when this ruling came down.

You can easily do a google on this.  But here's a link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

Frankly, it's old news.  And in spite of the ruling, I've yet to hear of any commercial sites being opened on that basis.  Except perhaps for in countries like Indonesia.  But they already had those types of sites operating out of that country, anyway.

It's......still yet to be well & truly resolved as to what this means.  So far, no one has been foolish enough to test it in a major way.  This decision was handed down -- and then for all intents and purposes it seemed to result in little-to-no actual change.

BTW - the makeup of the Court is already different today than what it was back when this.......ruling.......was made.  It might not fare so well, next time around.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 10:32 PM

Here's another link.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_9_54/ai_85410321

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 14 September 2006 at 10:36 PM

Here's another.  This article is much more recent than the other two -- which were both written at the time that the ruling came down.

She makes some excellent points -----

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202454,00.html

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



geoegress posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 12:06 AM

Khai-

It all means that if an image has ANY serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value it is legal as long as no real person is used to make it.

The arguement that some pedo 'may' get there jollies off it is not relevant because the law itself also limits many, many other unrelated art and stories types. It splashs over into other areas it was not ment to limit.  (like nude faries)

" The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process"

(paraphrase) speech that is itself "NOT" a record of sexual abuse, the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production

Actually SoCal- It has gone to the Supreme Court and and has been upheld. It is done. Unless you have 10 million dollars and 5 years to gamble that the court would even take it up for consideration.

Morgain- We all know that. We also know that any law that DOES go against this is not a valid law. So if you are going to use a specific LOCAL law that goes against the supreme court ruleing YOU would be in deep doodoo.

I just find it totally amazing that those of you who find it repugnant that the TOP court, whom your allways useing for law and order reasons, selectively want to pick and choose just which supreme court ruling you want to follow.

Allways say you are not allowing this or that to avoid breaking the law is pethic. If you wish I do have each and EVERY individual judges opinion I can post. You think this little summery is deep. Try again, lol

This thread is NOT in itself about the TOS. But it may be a good logical starting point. The differance between what is and what you wish it to be are seldom the same. This ruleing is the "what is" part. The TOS is the "what you want it to be part".

(lol, sometimes have a grownup conversation here is like asking Tony Snow a question about terrorist and CIA secret prisons interrogation techniques- your just plain not going to get a straight answer)


geoegress posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 12:32 AM

Khai- :)

Broken down even simpler is:

It is illegal to have ANY sexual contact with a minor.

Takeing a photo of it is a documentation of a crime against the minor

But 3d images have NO victim - thus no crime is commited

simple enought?


Frisketus posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 12:41 AM

Well, The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft IS the law of the land in the U.S.  In it the Supreme Court held that the Child Pornography and Protection Act was unconstitutionally overbroad in prohibiting virtual images of explicit sexual acts involving minors because of 2 previous decisions.

(a) Miller proscribes only images that  (i) appeal to a purient interest, and (ii) patently offend community standards, **and **(iii) lack serious literart, artistic, political or scientific values.

(b) Ferber proscribes production and distribution of child pornography because they are intrinsically related to sexual abuse of real children.

So, because ther CCPA prohibits much more than Miller allows and virtual porn can't be shown to harm real kids as Ferber sets forth, the CCPA can't be enforced as to virtual images.

Finally, the question of whether something should  (or should not) be done and the question of whether something IS (or is not) being done are two entirely different questions.

 


XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 12:43 AM

Oh....its repugnant, alright.  Personally, it's not something that I would choose to crow about like a strutting rooster.  Most people would frankly find the things that this ruling at least cracks the door open for to be utterly disgusting.

As for grownups and conversations -- most grownups would find this particular conversation to be nauseating at its core.

The Supreme Court has made its ruling -- for now.  Nowhere does that ruling say that a website named Renderosity is hereby compelled to have fae creatures of any age in its galleries -- nude or otherwise.  That's an attempt to take a......twisted........definition of "free speech" -- and turn it into FORCED speech.  Which isn't free at all.

The warped suggestion that this Supreme Court case means that a website like Rendo is somehow compelled to allow the posting of underage-appearing figures is simply asinine at its base.

It'll be challenged.  And with different justices sitting on the Court this time.  There are plenty of people with plenty of money who will see to that.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



webmonster posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 1:05 AM

After reading the ruling the thing that seems most pertinent is that Renderosity has nothing to fear on the legal front really. They are covered by both the virtual depiction verbage and the artistic merit verbage. The TOS clause, if solely a legal safeguard, from what I read above, is not necessary. I believe the TOS may have more to do with the value systems of the operators of this site dictate.  (which is well and good - it is thier blood, sweat and tears that created it) The above ruling, to me, is extremely smart as it sees clearly the abusive power it could hand over to the government.

I will say this though - you start down a slippery slope when you start putting restrictions on artists. An artist should never have to worry about creating in the form of the masters, at any rate, as that is an age old precedent and easily identified as having artistic merit - yeah and I mean cherubs too. Depiction of fantastical and mythological creatures should be exempt IMHO. If the artist did not set out to create a depiction of a pure human sexual nature what is the big deal? In fact unless the depiction seems wholly aimed at the sexual gratification of sickos I dont believe that it should be pulled. Though the admins are within thier rights by all means, as I stated above, to make what ever rule they want and  I personally will abide by them while they do not infringe on my artistic vision - that does not make them "right" by the law or ethically.  As a business venture that caters to a global audience I would be extremely extremely careful that my policies did not come off as racist or wholly determined by middle American standards.


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- Albert Einstien


XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 1:15 AM

Quote - After reading the ruling the thing that seems most pertinent is that Renderosity has nothing to fear on the legal front really. They are covered by both the virtual depiction verbage and the artistic merit verbage. The TOS clause, if solely a legal safeguard, from what I read above, is not necessary.

 

To say this is to miss the point of a test case.  If anyone wishes to be the legal guinea pig who ends up testing this ruling via a 3-or-4-year fun-filled ride through the courts: then be our guest.

But I kinda doubt that Rendo will volunteer to fall on such a legal sword for the sake of this particular cause.  Be it because of their "Middle-class American standards" -- or for any other reason.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



webmonster posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 1:23 AM

I have not seen all pulled artwork - but the fairy images in one huge thread in this board would not even be close to putting anyone in a courtroom. They would have to redact god knows how many books if they were ruled pornographic.


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- Albert Einstien


XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 1:29 AM

Well......if you are only referring to the pulled Aiko image -- and not to the above referenced Supreme Court ruling in general -- then that's another matter.  There I think that reasonable people can disagree.  It's not my call, because I'm not a mod.

What I'm on about isn't that specific Aiko image.  My beef has a lot more to do with matters going well beyond that -- issues brought up by the insertion of this Supreme Court ruling.  In all of its "glory".

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



billy423uk posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 1:32 AM

as long as the tos breaks no spreme court ruling which it doesn'y it can have whatever rules it deems fit. it isn't held to follow the miller or any other such guide. it can be as restrictive as it wishes. and no one whos a member can argue about it. they agreed to abide by them when they became members. xeno..i agree that any adult would find a discussion of this kind in a place like this disgusting. i already said to much here. and i won't besaying anything else. i've just been told not to post pics of 5 yr fairies in the other thread which i also find disgucting behaviour. i couldn't give a shit what the supreme court says i know whats right and whats wrong and thats enough for me for all i care the supreme court can shove it's ruling up it's arse.

billy


XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 1:42 AM

@ Billy --

👍

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



wheatpenny posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 1:42 AM Site Admin

The supreme court ruling dictates ONLY what can or cannot be illegal. It has no bearing on any site's TOS. Legally, you have the right to produce any images you want without legal consequences, but nobody is obligated to let you post it on their site. 




Jeff

Renderosity Senior Moderator

Hablo español

Ich spreche Deutsch

Je parle français

Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?





webmonster posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 1:46 AM

Well I thought, perhaps wrongly, that this thread had to do with the implications of said ruling on us the artists in the community and perhaps how Renderosity might want to give a second thought to the verbage in the TOS. I mentioned the Aiko image because I think this ruling reaffirms that the TOS clause is a bit overbroad in its scope, especially in that it does not consider the intent of the artist (the above image was a typical subject of the artist whose other artworks were permissable) and the classical subject of the piece.  Otherwise I am not interested in discussing judical rulings of any nature.


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- Albert Einstien


billy423uk posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 1:53 AM

the ruling has no implications...the tos is personal rules of a site and as such cannot be be forced to amend said tos as it breaks no laws. the thread that tried to discuss the tos rule and it;s implimentation is now closed down i doubt it's worth carring it on here as the original post would overshadow anything constructively

billy


XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 1:54 AM

@ webmonster --

shrug

While the original posting of that other thread re: the famous Aiko image got this ball rolling in the first place -- the current debate/discussion/fight has traveled well beyond that.

I likely wouldn't have involved myself in this little contretemps if the Aiko image had remained as the central focus.  That issue alone probably wouldn't have gotten my attention.  So I won't argue with you on that score.  I have no doubt that the artist's intent was a sincere one.

But the outside implications of this Supreme Court ruling -- and other, similar matters -- THAT gets my attention. 😠

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



webmonster posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 2:03 AM

billy - if the rationale behind the tos is actually fear of legal reprisal over the subject of a piece of art it does... else you are correct...

xenophonz - ok I will leave you to rage against the machine

 

laterz - monster


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- Albert Einstien


XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 2:20 AM

What machine?  A few would say that I at least represent the machine.  Perhaps that I'm an avatar. 😉

Some things are worth the effort.

I think that you could be one side of an intelligent conversation, monster.  And yes -- that's a compliment.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



webmonster posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 2:27 AM

Thank you - sincerely. You strike me the same way.

You are right too... and I wholeheartedly am behind the motive to enact legislation to protect our kiddos. Just gotta be careful of what such legislation does when applied outside the scope of that motive. 

Mainly I just didnt want to open a discourse outside of the interest of this board which is poser - I didnt mean to come of as implying it was fruitless to discuss. Sorry if I did. 


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- Albert Einstien


XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 2:40 AM

Quote - Thank you - sincerely. You strike me the same way.

And thank you.  Civility is a rare thing to see in the forum.  I think that I can understand why you've not posted much -- even as a long-time member.

Quote - You are right too... and I wholeheartedly am behind the motive to enact legislation to protect our kiddos. Just gotta be careful of what such legislation does when applied outside the scope of that motive. 

I suspect that we largely agree here.  That sounds like a smart approach to me.

Quote - Mainly I just didnt want to open a discourse outside of the interest of this board which is poser - I didnt mean to come of as implying it was fruitless to discuss. Sorry if I did. 

No.....I haven't taken the slightest offence at anything that you've said.  You don't impress me as the type to attack on a personal level those with whom you disagree.  That's rare, too.

And as for discourses outside of Poser happening in this forum -- that's a battle long since lost, I fear.  You certainly wouldn't be the first.  😉

I'm going to have to go offline for a few hours.  Something about needing to sleep.

It's been a pleasure meeting you, monster.  And that's sincere also.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



Casette posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 2:54 AM

Simple but not. 3D erotic sites usually have stores or payzones. You need a bank to process credit cards. And if the bank is more restrictive than the law, you have no choice (or changing the bank and probably find a worse one). This is the matter because a lot of 3D sites don't allow child nudity including non-sexual contact pics. If you upload here a nude kid, you're acting against the private rules of this private site (and a private site can have rules more restrictive than laws - you have the choice of join or join not into the site, once you are in you need to follow the TOS

The sad thing is when a site has rules which change with the incoming of new laws (or politics, or moralism...). You could upload here a nude fairy with a child face; now not. Renderotica allowed rape and non-consensual pics; recently not. Erotic Illusions had a big restriction of members who posted violence pics. In all these site you can't upload a pic with bestiality althought you says ther aren't a sexual contact between a human being and an animal but a 3D image with 'no victims'. TOS is TOS, laws are laws, and the most of times TOS is very influenced by the bank which works with the site (the extremetely neomoralist Paypal for example)

Dura lex sed lex (hard law but is the law)  :(


CASETTE
=======
"Poser isn't a SOFTWARE... it's a RELIGION!"


webmonster posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 3:43 AM

Quote -
And thank you.  Civility is a rare thing to see in the forum.  I think that I can understand why you've not posted much -- even as a long-time member.

I have to say it is rather satisfying to have a conversation on this kind of topic without just getting flamed. I piped up because I get a bit touchy about censorship in the arts and the legaleeze seemed to be mystifying folks. > Quote - No.....I haven't taken the slightest offence at anything that you've said.  You don't impress me as the type to attack on a personal level those with whom you disagree.  That's rare, too. And as for discourses outside of Poser happening in this forum -- that's a battle long since lost, I fear.  You certainly wouldn't be the first.  😉

LOL.. I have read enough on here over the years to know your right on that. :D No, personal attacks don't make your point - unless your point is that you yourself are a cruel imbecile. I would hate to think someone out there would think that of me.

Well Needing sleep is yet another issue we agree on heh..

A pleasure meeting you too.  G'nite!
monster


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- Albert Einstien


lmckenzie posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 5:16 AM

Attached Link: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html

Phonzie, I assume you keep harping to refer to the ACLU's "official position." I'm still waiting for the citation. Please be more specific than suggesting we Google it. As far as I can tell, the ACLU's position is summarized in an excerpt of a letter they sent to Congress: "The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition." (ref. link) If you disagree with *that* position, fine, but don't try to imply that they support what they don't. I'm sure their real position is sufficiently repugnant to you to maintain your animus towards the organization. Anyone who defends Nazis, the Klan, people who make dirty pictures and a whole host of other undesirables is bound to make enemies. Hell, they'd even defend your kid's right to wear a "Hillary Sucks!" tee shirt to school :-) I agree that the question is far from settled and it may well change, depending no little on the result of the upcoming elections in November and in 2008. At the moment, the Bushies have bigger fish to fry with defining the legalities and virtues of torture, wiretapping, etc., give them time. At any rate, there seems to be far more real vs. Poser generated porn of any kind on the web - probably because most people (likely including pedophiles) find it rather boring. Of course, I'm talking about real pornography. If NVIATWAS causes you to run for the tissues and lotion then there's an ample selection.

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


Lucifer_The_Dark posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 6:02 AM

Any chance of having the original post reposted in English for those of us who don't understand legal jargon (gibberish)?

Windows 7 64Bit
Poser Pro 2010 SR1


TrekkieGrrrl posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 6:13 AM

Quote - "The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment.

Looks like a lot of people are missing the emphasized bit here.

It's not a question of supporting child PORNOGRAPHY, it's a question of allowing paintings/drawings/renders of nude children in totally innocent situations. Like on the beach or babies lying on a fluffy white rug.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would support child pornography, but child nudity is a whole other matter. Even if a lot of people seem to mix up those two...

FREEBIES! | My Gallery | My Store | My FB | Tumblr |
You just can't put the words "Poserites" and "happy" in the same sentence - didn't you know that? LaurieA
  Using Poser since 2002. Currently at Version 11.1 - Win 10.



bigjobbie posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 6:53 AM

What is the legal outcome of the "Pandering" element? Is that limited to Obscene/Victim imagery or anything that a perv would get "inspiration" from (which of course could extend to anything)?

Away from the Porn question - what are the boundaries of allowable "victimless" images on Rendo and other sites? Does this extend to SciFi shoot-outs or horror scenes or is it only within a sexual context? I haven't done any gory action scenes myself, but you never know - a big shoot-out inevitably ends up with some poor sod riddled with holes...

Cheers

 


mickmca posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 7:00 AM

Quote -
The nine-member legislature that passes laws -- overruling Congress -- will perhaps change its mind with that change in membership.

This is the kind of neocon crap that passes for politics these days. The Constitutional purpose of the court is to see to it that the Congress and the President do not just drag the country wherever their whims take us but adhere to the Constutition. The Constitution DOES NOT prohibit pornography, so the Court must interprete how pornography should be handled. They make that interpretation based on their knowledge of American law, not whether the folks in Southie will boot dem out if dey side wit perverts. That may not be your brand of democracy, but I can live with it when it isn't being perverted by baby killers and war profiteers.

Like the "liberal media" (which died with Edward R Murrow) neocons love to trot out the "activitist" court every time the Court (which they have stacked to such imbalance that no one their right mind would call one of them "liberal") tells them something they want to do is unconstitutional. For all their "patriotism," neocons are contemptuous of our political system, because it gets in their way. Bush has been using the Constitution for a butt wipe, and Congress has hysterics when the Court rules that they can't pass a specific law governing a specific case (Schiavo).

Sure, Bush and his totalitarian henchboys will persecute the "low-hanging fruit" -- powerless individuals who create erotic images of children. And the cases will lead to convictions where we will hear about. Like the hundreds of "convictions" of "terrorists"... mostly for credit card fraud to giving false information on Federal documents. WHile bin Laden rests peacefully somewhere with his dialysis machine. Have they gone after one distributor or manufacturer of this stuff? No, because they want lynch candidates who can't fight back. Lynch 'em, burn 'em, THEN try 'em. Oh an' Lemmy Bob, lookit here what the colored girl is doin' in this one. We gotta burn these too?

What this establishes for me is that there is no "law" handing over the TOS. We knew that was righteous baloney; here's the proof.

M


webmonster posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 11:39 AM

Quote - Any chance of having the original post reposted in English for those of us who don't understand legal jargon (gibberish)?

Let me give this translation a crack - a good writing exercise if nothing else. I am going to boil each paragraph down to the core human readable facts. Keep in mind this my attempt at a translation - not what I believe to be true in all parts!!! Thier decision not mine!!!

PG1

The Child Pornography Prevention act (CPPA) is basically wanting to outlaw anything that appears to be child porn wheter it involves a child in making it or not. It also wants to specifically prevent people from faking child porn with non-child actors. An adult entertainment union(of sorts) filed a lawsuit because they felt the law was overbroad and vague - it did not define what it was making illegal well enough. The government won a lower court decision on this but on appeal lost due to the fact that the court of appeals agreed that the law was not clear and could be possibly used to make illegal things not really meant to be addressed by the new law that are currently legal - things (visual media) that are not legally meeting the definiton of obscene and do not envolve a real child in other words. It also reinforces that any porn envolving real children is illegal wheter or not it is determined to be legally obscene or not.

PG2
In a nutshell the Supreme Court says the appeals court was correct and deems the CPPA offically too broad and illegal as it was presented to them.

PG3
Basically there is no reason to overturn past legal decisions (precedent) and/or restrict freedom of speech as stated in the First Amendment.

PG4

The CPPA makes it to where the government does not have to prove that a thing, in it's whole form, is actually legally obscene in order to ban/prosecute it. The CPAA applies to things without any consideration to the redeeming value of the the thing or community standards - anything inferring any underage sex would be illegal. It gives the example the CPAA could make owning a movie that deals with or has scene involving underage sex illegal (sex between two teenagers for example) and you could be serving some hard time for just owning it even though underage sex is part of the reality we live in daily. Furthermore one such scene that is offensive by itself does not make an entire work legally obscene. The last sentence is a tough one to grok - I beleive that they state that the CPAA does not define "lacks the required link" what is obscene about what it makes a thing illegal "it's prohibitions" and that the the thing in question is deemed illegal wheter or not it is actually offensive to the community (the average folks in america) and/or are not obscene under the standing legal definition of what obscene is.

Whew...

PG5
Basically this tells of the case where child porn and its sale became illegal and relates that the reason behind that ruling was that child porn was a form of child sexual abuse and the sale for profit of it encouraged people to abuse children to make money. The CPAA makes things that have nothing to do with the sexual abuse of children illegal. The ruling that made child porn illegal did not deal with the content but with how the content is made, did not rule that all depictions had no value and that nonobscene and nonchild abusing content was protected under the First Amendment. In fact the original ruling literally encouraged the substitution of virtual or adult alternatives in work of such nature. The supreme court also states here that the availability of simulated child porn as a subsititute can not be proven to increase child abuse and hence is not illegal. (kinda like video games and violence here)

PG6
The CPPA says that simulated child porn might somehow be used to seduce children (i dont understand that myself) but current laws state that speech(read things) that are determined suitable for adults can not be made illegal outright just to keep it from kids. Again the court states that speech (read things) can not be made illegal because the might incite an unlawful act - at least without defining proof. The government argues that the since real porn is illegal the virtual must be as well - the court says this is illogical because few porn companies would risk hurting a child if they could use a virtual one. Furthermore even if this was applied to try to get rid of the market for child porn it can not be justified because the production of such content does not break any laws. I am not exactly sure what the statement about the First Amendment being turned upside down implies but they do say that the difficulty for law enforcement (I am guessing) in determining what is virtual and what is not does not factor in this. Current law states that the government cant ban a thing if a substantial amount of it is legal by definiton. First Amendment issues aside the CPPA is illegal because it makes even things that can be proven as virtual (and thus not the product of child abuse) illegal. The CPPA does not protect the average person who might have a virtually created image.(which is not child abuse by the courts ruling)

PG7

Creating the impression of child porn with what is actually not child porn can not be called illegal. The thing in question must be sexually explicit. This part is human readable - "Even if a film contains no sexually explicit scenes involving minors, it could be treated as child pornography if the title and trailers convey the impression that such scenes will be found in the movie. The determination turns on how the speech is presented, not on what is depicted."


Vocab lesson time...
Main Entry: pan·der·ing
Function: noun
1 : the act or crime of recruiting prostitutes or of arranging a situation for another to practice prostitution —compare PIMP
2 : the act or crime of selling or distributing visual or print media (as magazines) designed to appeal to the recipient's sexual interest


I think this part is saying that in cases where this material like other erotic material is used somehow in connection of the commercialization of sex (pandering) courts should consider the material when determining what is legally obscene. (just cause it is virtual does not mean it is not porn). The court says that the CPPA makes anyone who has touched the stuff in question guilty even if they had nothing to with producing it. (think a store that unknowningly sells something illegal facing the same punishment as the people who made it - I think..)  When a movie is labeled to look like child porn but obviously isnt (probably the school girl thing here I imagine) the CPAA makes the person who has it a criminal even though that person had no intent of viewing child porn. In the end the first ammendment (which is primary in the concern of the court in this issue) requires the government to be more precise than the CPPA - hence the CPPA is unconstitutional.

 


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- Albert Einstien


rreynolds posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 12:25 PM

There's kind of an apples and oranges thing here. This particular ruling was a question of whether virtual images of children can fall under the tough child porn laws and the Supreme Court said, "no". Those laws are extremely harsh for good reason, but the Court decided that they should not be applied to situations where no children were harmed. Such images can and probably will be deemed obscene even if they are only of virtual characters. Such images are a violation of Visa's censorship rules (which can be more restrictive than the law, as can any site TOS) and would jeapordize the marketplace here.

This ruling did not legalize virtual images in any fashion or provide them any free speech protection. It just stopped them from being added to a more severe law. I seem to recall that another law had a rider that made such images illegal and cannot recall which one, but it seems to have been done in a way that did not contest the earlier Supreme Court ruling.


XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 1:22 PM

I just don't have the time to get back into this at the moment -- I'm a bit preoccupied with drawing up a lighting layout for a new university communcations center building -- complete with TV studios.  So this post will, of necessity, have to be short.  Perhaps I can get into more detail several hours from now.

Others are making excellent points & contributions anyway.

@lmckenzie -- re: the ACLU position on KP - for now I'll just refer you to my responses in the other thread.  A Clintion-esque non-denial denial is not a denial.  Saying that "we don't support KP" -- and then going on to effectively say that it should be made legal......that's nothing more than a great example of how oiling oneself well prior to squeezing through a sewer manhole might help to keep the......dirt......off.  While, of course -- denying that the dirt is dirty.

But I have to give you credit, mckenzie:  you don't use the tactic of going for the personal-level attack.  At least I haven't seen you do that.  Perhaps we can discuss something.

@mickma --  I don't have the time to deal with your obessive black-helicopter-style fantasies in regards to conspiratorial "neocons" at the moment.  No doubt, when you sleep you have recurring nightmares about leering, moustache-twirling neocons in the neighborhood -- hiding behind your bushes, peeking into your windows, trying to figure out how best to ruin all of your fun.  Don't worry -- there isn't a neocon boogeyman hiding in your closet at midnight.  There's no need to hide under the covers -- or under the bed.  Besides -- getting under the bed is potentially dangerous in and of itself.  There might be a neocon lurking there in the darkness.

Quote - rreynolds -- I seem to recall that another law had a rider that made such images illegal and cannot recall which one, but it seems to have been done in a way that did not contest the earlier Supreme Court ruling.

 

If that's true, then it's news to me.  I haven't heard of any mollifying legislation actually being passed.  And even if it has -- it has yet to be tested by the courts sigh.

Well -- back to the communications center.  Y'all have fun without me. 😉

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



Huolong posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 3:44 PM

It is dangerous to interpret law with broad application only in the narrow.   Rules against sex and/or violence can backfire.   There is no conclusive evidence that any form of art or literature inevitably leads to harm.   It may be slanderous, libelous, incenting to riot, but each much be proved to some degree of certitude in each case, based on the evidence relevant and competent to that case.  

It is the harm done to the child in child porn that is the harm, not the possession of the image except as can be proved as an accessory after thefact to the act of the child's abuse but in accordance with the law for such accessory action.

If one accepts the notion that mere possession or production of a particular form of expression, without relevant and competant proof in the specific case, the the "community" can ban anything for any reason.   If a suburb of Detroit went fundamentalist Muslim, that community could ban any article or image that offended the Sharia.   

Those who place faith in their Bible should note that it can be banished or censured under current law as overt portrayal of an execution which the Left deems offensive to child development.  Certainly the Holy Eucharist is virtual cannibalism and likewise unfit to be exposed to children.  At least the Bible could be XXX rated. 

Since the US Constitution guarantees a "republican form of government",  under the Patriot Act, those who plot to establish a Kingdom of God are thinking about plotting an overthrow of the Constitution.    Likewise,  those who congregate to conduct unlawful activities such as virtual cannibalism can be arrested, tried and convicted for conspiracy and their properties seized under the RICO anti-crime legislation.

He who preaches from a glass pulpit should avoid throwing rocks.  

Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you say,  but I will defend your right to say it,"

 

 

 

 

Gordon


XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 4:14 PM

Quote - Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you say,  but I will defend your right to say it," 

 

Oh......that high-sounding idea died about the time that Ann Coulter was physically assaulted while speaking on a college campus.

Or everytime any other conservative speaker is protested or attempted to be shouted down while speaking on those same campuses. 

BTW - the converse rarely -- if ever -- happens.  "Free speech" is all relative, I suppose.  Free speech is only allowed so long as the left agrees with it.

"Free speech" is a concept which covers many things.  But in the opinion of the vast majority of us (I suspect), virtual kids doing virtual things doesn't fall under the rubric of "free speech".  But apparently the Supreme Court -- or at least the Court of 4 years ago -- didn't agree.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



geoegress posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 5:39 PM

Webmonster-

Thank you- someone who actually gets it :)

The discussion is more important then the content.

*"Finally, the question of whether something **should (or should not) be done and the question of whether something **IS (or is not) being done are two entirely different questions."*****Using sarcasm and promoting fear as argument is far to common around here. One line sound bites faulter against those who do try to think deeper and understand.

 

But I suppose it does scare some away who would otherwise challenge them.

Thank you again for your insiteful analyst

I wear my official warning as a badge of honor over this subject!

Geo


webmonster posted Fri, 15 September 2006 at 9:43 PM

Well when I read that I pretty much instantly saw the point in terms of the TOS. Supreme Court basically nuked a national TOS similar to the one in force here. This topic is only partisan if you really try and make it partisan. Most of the Supreme Court ruling is developed out of logic rather than opinion or politics as I read it  - that is what should be gleaned from this more than anything.

Your welcome -I normally write strictly scifi/fantasy so the "translation" really was a good writing exercise - plus it made me think hard on the intent behind that verbage. Basically they mean to protect us - even if some of us dont see that. Sounds to me, my opinion which I can not qualify, that this CPPA was an exercise in crappy kneejerk bipartisan politics - probably tinged with hopes of gaining votes at home in the ranks of both parties else something so obviously flawed would have never made it into law. This CPPA should be rewritten with much more thought to protecting innocent people from undue persecution.

With that I think I am done here... I want to do some art now.
monster

PS - Geo your mag covers are way cool - I want a subscription! ;)


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- Albert Einstien


Zed4 posted Sat, 16 September 2006 at 12:56 AM

This has been a very interesting discussion. But I have always been, and still am, perplexed as to exactly what is a pornographic image of a child. As far as I can determine there has not been a universal hard and fast rule established. Is an image pornographic if it shows: A nude child from the rear? A frontal view of a nude child? Or does it become pornographic only when the genitals are blatantly featured. I don't think there is any doubt that both real life and artistically created images portraying sexual interaction are pornographic, but, the big question is, are the artificially created images to be considered harmless legal entertainment for adults or not????


lmckenzie posted Sat, 16 September 2006 at 3:39 AM

"Saying that "we don't support KP" -- and then going on to effectively say that it should be made legal ..."

Phonz, twas you who highlighted the 'not otherwise obscene' caveat. You know as well as I that any such images depicting explixit sexual acts would be held obscene, even by most Blue state juries. Hell, you can't even buy an such a video featuring featuring ADULTS in my county. Now perhaps in its dark heart (as you imagine it), the ACLU really feels that such images are not obscene but to parse that from their statement is an even more tortuous exercise than wending one's way through a sewer - (be careful using that one around a Freudian :-) - it's down right clairvoiyant.

The problem, as oft stated, it what is over the "line." In that, R'osity is simply a microcosm of the larger society. The Court sentences us to endless wrangling with the ridiculously subjective Miller ruling. Speeding is going fast enough to give a reasonable person goosebumps? R'osity could have avoided the problem by simply saying render what ou want as long as it's not grabbing it's crotch, fellating the MilDoggie, yada yada. Those are fairly objective standards. Even the notorious breast coverage formula might be if someone would write a boob calculator script. They chose a standard which at lease some "reasonable" people feel is far too subject inconsistent application - fine, it wasn't the first time and won't be the last, their call. The only people who benefit are those who get off on how far they can tug ght baby in one direction or the other - let's see if I can sneak this one past vs. let's see if I can get this one pulled.

As I suggested before, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. In years of looking for everything Poser related on the web, I've run across exactly one, uno site that featured Poser kiddies doing the nasty along with 2D versions of same - which BTW showed far more talent than the Poser variety. Hint, it's on a super secret part of the ACLU server, along with the secret pics of Osama's cave and the upskirt shots of Ann Coulter - though I get the last two confused. Damn, Phonz, I wanted to be the first to mention the venemous righ-wing pin-up girl. I read the account of her being attacked - with pies no less - by "Al Pieda." According to the local press, she wasn't hit directly by either of the missiles. For someone who delights in tossing bombs like:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

I'd say that getting pied comes with the job and the paycheck. If Bill Gates and countless others can take a pie in the kisser and not deem it the end of Western Civilization, please. For a group that controls every political organ sight and has, claiming victimhood at the hands of a mythical left-wing juggernaut really does ring a bit hollow. Still, bring Annie over and I'll lick the whipped cream off her tortured tushie if she pays me enough - but I will not have sex with that woman.

On the subject of real, as opposed to slapstick violence though, I would suggest that a perusal of the news of the past decade or so would show that it is the far right which has the greater penchant for voting with real, as opposed to rhetorical explosives here in the US. With rare exceptions like the ELF (who I'm not sure have killed anyone yet), where are the violent leftists? The Islamists IMO are simply extreme rightists who disagree over what to call God. We have Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, violent gay bashers, those 82nd Airborne troopies who decided that interracial couples made good target practice ... Remember, even Sadam's judge said, 'You weren't a dictator, it was the people around you who made you look like one.'  I admit, it must be all that navel gazing and ungodly moral relativism. Liberals just can't seem to believe in too many things with the fundamentalist zeal required to justify TNT.

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


AntoniaTiger posted Sat, 16 September 2006 at 3:57 AM

Quote - The ruling posted at the top effectively means nothing in the UK, anyway.

That's an important point. As I understand the US system (and I Am Not A Lawyer), this Supreme Court ruling pretty well kills dead the legislation it decided on. It doesn't stop a later law being enacted which has the same ban on "virtual" child porn if it was worded to take into account the ruling. British law on child porn is pretty close in effect to the US law the USSC ruled against. If it looks like a photograph of a child, it doesn't matter that it's CGI or somebody who just looks young. Which means that possession is illegal. For computer users it also means that, under the basic legislation dating back to the 1950s, downloading such an image will be considered to be "making" the image, attracting a higher penalty than mere possession. Add in the incompetence and dishonesty apparent in "Operation Ore" (Wikipedia is not wildly wrong on this affair), and it would be insane for a site to carry such material, or for a British resident to use such a site. That, alas, is the shabby reality. Photographs of people old enough to marry and fuck each other's minds out are dreadfully illegal. And even if you can be 100% certain it's not real, the cost and effort of defending against an accusation is a punishment in itself. So, while it may be legal, it's also incredibly stupid to fake child porn.


rreynolds posted Sat, 16 September 2006 at 2:59 PM

Attached Link: Wikipedia - Protect Act

> Quote - So, while it may be legal, it's also incredibly stupid to fake child porn.

As I mentioned in an earlier post (and there's a whole lot to read, so there's nothing wrong with missing it), the US Supreme Court never said child porn was legal. They only said that a depiction, that did not involve harming actual children, did not deserve the more draconian punishments that were reserved for laws meant to protect real children from real physical sexual abuse. It's always dangerous to turn a decision 180 degrees and believe that the turn is true. It's akin to "not guilty" prouncements, in criminal cases, being equated to "innocence"--when lack of a guilty verdict only means that there was insufficent evidence to return a guilty verdict. Lack of guilt does not equal innocent. The defendent may still be guilty of a crime, but the court didn't prove it. Similarly, here, the Supreme Court only said that virtual depictions did not belong under the law they struck down. That is very different from saying that such images are legal.

If you look at the Wikipedia link, there's a link to the 2003 Protect Act law that criminalizes virtual child porn. Basically, a new law was created to criminalize virtual child porn rather than try to tack on the virtual stuff to existing child porn laws that the Supreme Court struck down. So far, the Supreme Court has not gone after the new law, probably because it does not have the precedences of the previous law. The previous law was designed to protect children, not computer similations. The new law creates new criminal penalties instead of tacking them onto a different law.

I found this info by doing Google searches, starting with
    law virtual child porn
    adding "amber alert" from the info the first search provided
That got me to the Protect Act which I looked up in Wikipedia for a summarization and a link to the actual text of the law.

It's always better looking up the facts than arguing about emotional things. Although the 2002 Supreme Court decision was old news, so was the 2003 Protect Act that flew under the radar of public perception. Similarly, other laws have had the same lack of public scrutiny and are quietly eroding our choices.


geoegress posted Sat, 16 September 2006 at 5:52 PM

Hi- I tried to find the actual law mentioned (Protect act of 2003) but could not.

I hate posting links to news articles cause they can be so bias.

It seems this one also is working it's way through the courts and from what I've been able to gather it sound like it will also get struck down completely at the S.C. too.

It's already been partly over turned.

http://www.freespeechonline.org/FSCview.asp?coid=271&keywords=PROTECT+Act+of+2003


Huolong posted Sat, 16 September 2006 at 6:59 PM

Why is KP singled out for so much venom, including a five year sentence for mere possession, in the light of considerably more venomous vile is utterly ignored, even protected, such as the tender lyrics of the super cute kiddies of Prussian Blue, a white separatist hate group?  Or the hateful bilge of Al Qaieda's webniks?  If there is a near certain connection between KP and Child Abuse, then sites openly advocating negative social values such as holocaust, genocide, and negative affirmative action should be as dangerous and subject to the same strictures of law as CPPA.

The people most upset by KP are the victims of Child Abuse, and they tend to pass it on down through the generations, one after another.    Some of the abused hate KP because it reminds them of what happened to them,  some hate KP because they don't want you to know what it looks like ....or that it is even possible as many can't even imagine what happens.   Or the telltale look in the eye.   In short, it's a cover up.

Out here in the Bush, the politicians most vociferously against pornography of any kind, are the same who insist that children taken by the state from abusive families be returned forthwith.  After all, family values means that incest belongs in the home, not on the telly.

OBTW:  The TOS of this or any site can, by virtue of the right of free speech can ban whatever they want ... such as posting renders with blue in it.  No BS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gordon


rreynolds posted Sun, 17 September 2006 at 2:30 AM

Quote - Why is KP singled out for so much venom...?

Because normal adults consider child porn one of the most reprehensible acts any adult can force on a child. Is there any reason to not have strong animosity against the kind of people that sexually exploit children?

My only concern with child protection laws is that they are often being used as a screen to go after adult entertainment products that have nothing to do with exploiting children. The recently passed Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 has a rider being used to fund 12-16 teams of FBI agents going across the country to check paperwork of adult production companies to ensure that they have copies of drivers licenses to document the ages of all their performers. Instead of those dozens of agents protecting children from real predators, they're busy scanning documents, trying to catch somebody who didn't keep good documentation on their adult performers. It's very unlikely that child pornographers are checking for drivers licenses, and maintaining records, of their underaged victims.


amacord posted Sun, 17 September 2006 at 3:29 AM

hi all, hi geo!

imo this kids-nudity-poser-problem isn´t that complicated.

(should the next sentence sound like a violation of TOS to you, pls tell me, i´m ready and willing to rewrite it.)
look, the most famous "kids with tits"-dealer is VOM.

that means:

now TOS say:

you see, it´s simple! ; )

A.

ps: i wonder why the VOM does never take an active part in discussions like this...

 


Huolong posted Sun, 17 September 2006 at 6:49 AM

Child abuse, not money, is the root of all evil.   Hitler, Saddam,  Stalin,  all had abusive fathers and doting mothers.   Hitler was so mad at his half Jewish father that his gravesite was made into an artillery range so that he would recieve Hell on earth ... the Hell of the trenches of WW1.  It is estimated that 70% of all prostitutes and convicts were sexually abused as children.

Current estimates of the numbers of children who have suffered directly from or indirectly through transmitted the behavioral effects of abuse in earlier generations is around a third of everyone.   Boys show it through anger, girls through overly sexualized behavior.   While the image of a male father figure abusing a girl is most well known,  the evidence suggests that as many boys are sexually abused by their mothers. 

While all manner of crime can be portrayed in literature, art, and other forms of expression,  the same is not true of the single most destructive behavior there is, but only if it is expliciet is it the third rail of art.    The public is obsessed with the subject, however.  but in the tease not the strip. The Jon Benet Ramsey case is good for headlines at any time.  "Law and Order, SVU", the TV series feeds on that subject.  

That level of concern is perfectly normal as the prime directive of any species is to protect the young.   The survival of the species and the gene pool is dependent on that.   It's a really bad idea to get in the way of a Momma Bear and her cub. 

Rather than deal with the problem itself, however, the body politic treats the image of abuse as if it were the real thing and cuts the budgets of those agencies charged with dealing with the real thing.   It's as if burning Guy Fawkes on November the 5th really does dispel treason, and gunpowder plot.  

It's alsoan ancient ploy to substitute the image of the real thing for the real thing.    Rituals are founded on that.   The priests of ancient civilizations managed to control the lives of whole populations for millenia just by pretending they could control the weather by ritual sacrifices and mumbo jumbo.    And the Maya used to toss kiddies into the pit to assuage the Gods. 

Freedom of the press is pointless without the right of the people to know is as free.   There are lows and in the Common Law,  remedies for lies and harmful expression that can be proved to the false, malicious, and causal.    Practically none  of history's previous repressions of the possession of proscribed expressions, including the Catholic codex of proscribed works, were as harsh as the punishment of KP.   The author or artist might have been locked up.   That still goes on here and there as in Austria and Turkey,  but the recipients of banned manterials usually got a slap on the wrist.   

Even the possession of classified material is not proscribed if the possessor didn't take it.  As in classified material,  the danger lies with the exposure of the truth.  It's as if the whole KP thing is an instinctive cover up,  by those who don't want the public to know what's going on behind the white picket fence,  or why their children are over sexualized or overly angry

 

Gordon


Huolong posted Sun, 17 September 2006 at 6:52 AM

Child abuse, not money, is the root of all evil.   Hitler, Saddam,  Stalin,  all had abusive fathers and doting mothers.   Hitler was so mad at his half Jewish father that his gravesite was made into an artillery range so that he would recieve Hell on earth ... the Hell of the trenches of WW1.  It is estimated that 70% of all prostitutes and convicts were sexually abused as children.

Current estimates of the numbers of children who have suffered directly from or indirectly through transmitted the behavioral effects of abuse in earlier generations is around a third of everyone.   Boys show it through anger, girls through overly sexualized behavior.   While the image of a male father figure abusing a girl is most well known,  the evidence suggests that as many boys are sexually abused by their mothers. 

While all manner of crime can be portrayed in literature, art, and other forms of expression,  the same is not true of the single most destructive behavior there is, but only if it is expliciet is it the third rail of art.    The public is obsessed with the subject, however.  but in the tease not the strip. The Jon Benet Ramsey case is good for headlines at any time.  "Law and Order, SVU", the TV series feeds on that subject.  

That level of concern is perfectly normal as the prime directive of any species is to protect the young.   The survival of the species and the gene pool is dependent on that.   It's a really bad idea to get in the way of a Momma Bear and her cub. 

Rather than deal with the problem itself, however, the body politic treats the image of abuse as if it were the real thing and cuts the budgets of those agencies charged with dealing with the real thing.   It's as if burning Guy Fawkes on November the 5th really does dispel treason, and gunpowder plot.  

It's alsoan ancient ploy to substitute the image of the real thing for the real thing.    Rituals are founded on that.   The priests of ancient civilizations managed to control the lives of whole populations for millenia just by pretending they could control the weather by ritual sacrifices and mumbo jumbo.    And the Maya used to toss kiddies into the pit to assuage the Gods. 

Freedom of the press is pointless without the right of the people to know is as free.   There are lows and in the Common Law,  remedies for lies and harmful expression that can be proved to the false, malicious, and causal.    Practically none  of history's previous repressions of the possession of proscribed expressions, including the Catholic codex of proscribed works, were as harsh as the punishment of KP.   The author or artist might have been locked up.   That still goes on here and there as in Austria and Turkey,  but the recipients of banned manterials usually got a slap on the wrist.   

Even the possession of classified material is not proscribed if the possessor didn't take it.  As in classified material,  the danger lies with the exposure of the truth.  It's as if the whole KP thing is an instinctive cover up,  by those who don't want the public to know what's going on behind the white picket fence,  or why their children are over sexualized or overly angry

 

Gordon


JenX posted Sun, 17 September 2006 at 8:28 PM

First of all, we've already discussed to death that physical development (i.e. young women growing breasts) is happening to girls younger and younger. 
Second, it's not Thorne's responsibility for any customers' neglecting to put clothing on their characters that they render and place in the gallery.  When he's selling young-looking characters, he's very courteous and clothes his characters.  He is a very big selling merchant, and for very good reasons.  He creates quality, which brings customers back. 
And, finally, I really wish everyone would leave Thorne out of these discussions.  Until he, himself, comes in here and speaks.  Because, as I have said before, it's not his fault for anyone else's neglecting to clothe their characters. 

MS

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.


geoegress posted Sun, 17 September 2006 at 8:38 PM

huh? Your the only one who mentioned he who will not be named!


JenX posted Sun, 17 September 2006 at 8:40 PM

amacord mentioned the VOM.  We only have one.  And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who it is, geogress, so don't play stupid. 

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.


geoegress posted Sun, 17 September 2006 at 8:54 PM

ok- I'm not playing stupid

I don't know what VOM is?

Good night sleep tight.


JenX posted Sun, 17 September 2006 at 9:20 PM

VOM = Vendor Of The Month

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.


JenX posted Mon, 18 September 2006 at 5:43 AM

As this has turned into yet another non-productive thread, we've decided to lock it.

MorriganShadow
Poser Moderator

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.