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

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity Gallery

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

Here's a link to it.

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity Gallery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity Gallery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gordon

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

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

VS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott, You must've posted while I was writing my post. Sorry for my intense wording regarding child molestors, this subject cuts deeply and is a personal one to me. Jack

Jack, Your wording was fine. I don't mind Intense feelings being expressed here. It's understandable in this situation. It's just when people get too specific and start swearing or say things like "grow up", or call people "Mental Giants" and things like that that I get a little nervous. If we can stay away from things like that. Then we're golden. ScottA

Wow. big thread. In a way, thank god for that, but you lost me somewhere after the Doctor piped up about personal responsibility ( a top for legibility: hit enter now and then, pretty please ? ) So let me just add my two cents here: One: Breats morphs for the MilKids ? Dears, the attraction is the LACK of breasts, not the existence of them on a child. The more innocent the child looks, the better. Two: Do you honestly think that CG will ever replace the real thing for a person of such inclinations ? They all profile pretty much alike, and in the end, it all comes down to urges, and being able to control them. If you can't , you do so willfully, and fuck the twinkie-type defences that have sprung up over the years. Also... excuse me for asking, but doesnt 'rotica have a no kids and no animals in their ToS ? ~S

Excuse me people, but has anyone noticed the picture that is number one on Renderoticas top 10? As much as I sympathize with Mr. Kammerer and his daughter, their tragedy cannot and should not put a lid on the actual issue of this debate. Im sure that a lot of people will come up with some very fine arguments against said picture being classified as child porn, but its certainly suggestive of - shall we say an "alternative" sexuality. Not only on Renderotica, but also here in the Poser gallery some "artists" are balancing on a very thin line between art and lechery. Poser is the perfect tool for that. And Poser is no doubt being used for creating virtual child porn of a true hardcore nature. I agree with - was it VirtualSite? - who said that under no circumstances should children be percieved as sexual objects. It makes little difference if they are virtual children or real - the idea itself is equally sick. If this court ruling means that America gets a better law, then fine, but quite frankly Im pretty appalled to see people actually applaud this decision in the name of their "freedom of expression". Who could possible benefit from this freedom, except the creeps who create and use child porn?

The records of the most spectacular child abusers/murderers often show that they are heavily involved in activities directed towards children. The current flap in the Catholic Church is but an example. John Wayne Gacy, child murdered, was a clown that entertained children. Many of the others were involved in church groups and other civic activities that put them in close contact with children under a mantle that vested themselves with a degree of trustworthyness. I suggest that the parents in our Poser community take extra care in evaluating those parent figures we let out children get close to. It would also be a good idea to mount surveillance on places where children gather, like the school playground to spot frequent lookers. A lot of the energy and venom spent on pornography acts as a diversion from more clear and present dangers to our children

Gordon

Legume: Virtualsite, this thread does not need your condescending tone, and neither do I. I'm no idiot, I can read, and I find your dumbing it down for us "mental giants" insulting Tough. You folks aren't even considering the possibility. I don't know TigerD well, but I know what his writing style is like. I gather you don't, nor do you seem to want to. So flame on all you wish. You're just compounding your own errors. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't respond, not after this circus. Momcat: Unless you are also TigerD, I will not be taking your word on what his intent was No sweat off my brow, ma'am. I am, to a much lesser extent, also offended that you would suggest that I and my fellow representatives of Renderotica should be the ones to apologize Be offended all you wish. Doesn't change it. Where they even come into on this discussion I really don't want to know but if you are part of the community or were, you would know this information. I'm not rolling out my leather credentials for your inspection, but let's just say I've been a part of it for probably longer than you, with involvement in the community on an international scale, thank you very much. So yes, I know the community's take on this. I also know that responsible people in the community will admit the possibility of their being wrong. Here, let me hold up this rather large hall mirror for you, shall I? DTHUREGRIF: The way that is most likely to be read is 'child nudity or sex' with both the words nudity and sex tying back to the word child Nope, that's your assumption. By the time he gets to the word "sex", he's off child porn and talking about Rotica. Repeating myself, I know how this guy writes. Apparently some of you don't. Stormrage: Most of them would even take offense at being brought up in this conversation I'm sure they would. But let's not kid ourselves when we talk about Renderotica and "Lifestylers" (and where did this term come from? Jeez, we're all "lifestylers".). While most of the images at R'otica are pretty tame, there are some that even I look at and wonder just what the heck the "artist" considers erotic. Tiger's right: some of them are frightening to people outside the "Lifestyle"... hell, I'd bet to some people inside the "Lifestyle", for that matter. So you're surprised at his reaction? You are doing the same thing you accuse us of by assuming that you know the intent to his words I've had enough communication in the past with him to know how he writes. That's good enough for me. Not for any of you? Sorry. Jack: This overturning of the law was not to open a door to Pornographer's to create virtual child porn, but to actually have authorities make sure that a crime was INDEED committed I'm not sure I agree, Jack. It sent the law back to Congress for re-writing, but until that is done, it has indeed opened the door to kiddie-porn made on the computer, because until Congress says otherwise, it's now perfectly legal to make and distribute kid-porn made through CG means. And while you guys are bashing Tiger's writing style, no one seems interested in that simple little fact. Tell me, Jack, what would you do if you found a CG film of your daughter's rape travelling around the internet? Write it off because there's no victim? People want to do CG films of rape and worse? Fine with me. Go for it and waste the pixels, not to mention the time involved. But the minute you involve kids, no matter who you are, no matter if those kids are "real" or not, you have crossed the line. And I'm personally appalled at the celebratory mood over this law being shot down. Yeah, maybe it went too far. Maybe it was vague. But it was a helluva lot better than nothing at all, which is exactly what we have right now, gang. Someone can take the Poser baby and Vicky with a strapon and put together a rape film that would curl your hair and do so with complete impunity. And that doesn't bother any of you because they're not real?

You'll have to excuse some of the reactions VS. I don't remember if you are living in America or not. But we Americans have been getting clobbered with laws and restrictions for everything from blowing our noses in public....to the kind of pets we're allowed to have. I don't think anyone is happy about the freedom to make virtual child porn. We're just happy that the government didn't slap another restriction on us, who already knew it was the wrong thing to do in the first place. Kinda of a victory for freedom, if you will. The ability to monitor ourselves for a change. Instead of Uncle Sam doing it for us. It could have been any topic. Our reaction would have been the same. It just happened to be virtual child porn in this case. ScottA

"People want to do CG films of rape and worse? Fine with me. Go for it and waste the pixels, not to mention the time involved. But the minute you involve kids, no matter who you are, no matter if those kids are "real" or not, you have crossed the line." I wholeheartedly agree. "And I'm personally appalled at the celebratory mood over this law being shot down. Yeah, maybe it went too far. Maybe it was vague. But it was a helluva lot better than nothing at all, which is exactly what we have right now, gang. Someone can take the Poser baby and Vicky with a strapon and put together a rape film that would curl your hair and do so with complete impunity. And that doesn't bother any of you because they're not real?" Did anyone say it didn't bother them? I certainly didn't. It does bother me, very much so. What bothers me just as much, though, is the fact that as the law stood, it was too open to interpretation. Too open to abuse. Too open for innocent people to be branded as something they are not, simply because someone in power has more conservative views on what constitutes pornography than they, or what constitutes an underaged model/depiction, when that model is not flesh and blood, nor even represents a previously existing flesh and blood human being. The law needs to be rewritten. BTW, you are confusing quotations in your above post. I never have asked for your "leather credentials" nor do I give a rats ass one way or another about them. Dmon: For the record, I really hate that picture. I almost lost my lunch when I saw it. However, it really has nothing to do with what we are discussing here today.

{because until Congress says otherwise, it's now perfectly legal to make and distribute kid-porn made through CG means. And while you guys are bashing Tiger's writing style, no one seems interested in that simple little fact.} I guess you aren't comprehending what we are saying, VS. Not one of the people involved in the discussion over TigerD's post has come out in favor of child porn. In fact, we don't allow it on Renderotica. Period! Sorry, but we are understandingly upset with TigerD's implications. All that need be done here is for him to come here and state what he really meant, because gee, it seems that of the people discussing this, more people agree he WAS implicating that Renderotica allows child porn than the one person (you) who says he knows his writing style and that he wasn't. Nobody is saying they support child pornography. Not one person in this thread. However there are some who are saying that they don't support unclear laws. I guess the Supreme Court agrees. And Dmon, I fail to see how the image you are speaking of can in ANY way be construed as child porn. Faerie does not equal child. And this faerie doesn't even remotely look like a child.

If it was my daughter VS, I would find the person who did it, cut their balls off and sow them into their mouth, the proudly set them on fire in the middle of a busy intersection, trust me, I've had 9 years to figure out what I would do if I caught the bastard... REGARDLESS of that feeling, a real child is completely different that one made up of polygons. The only person harmed in it is the person who is doing the stupid picture and the poor/stupid SOB that decides to view it. Who really gives a two bit shit if some sick and twisted demented pervert decides to create Michael throwing a hump into a Preteen? Sure, we could all sit here and sweat and worry that that sicko might go out and do it for real, or we all can actually buy a clue that no matter how many laws we bend and convolute to govern a person's state of mind. Am I celebrating that the law has been overturned? I didn't break out a bottle of bubbly and pass out cigars. Actually, I could give a rats ass if it passed or failed. I reconize that there need to be laws that can and WILL prevent the victimization of REAL (let me say it again for those who are unclear on the subject) REAL children. Busting people on the basis that their CG Art might arouse a Child Molestor, doesn't FIX the FUCKING PROBLEM. Like I said before, create a law that goes after the motherfuckers that are actually committing the REAL CRIME against REAL CHILDREN rather than sitting content with those who play with POSER KIDS. You may not like my opinion VS and face it, you aren't going to change it. You come back and offer me your opinion when you've been through the same shit as me... alright? Then maybe I will lend some serious thought to your "we need to protect the rights of 3D models that can be used to tease a pervert and turn them into a child molestor" opinion. Jack

Oh one other thing, VS you asked... "what would you do if you found a CG film of your daughter's rape" I would keep an eye on the individual that created that CG Film to make sure that the individual did not actually act upon that sick fantasy, but asside from that, I would do nothing and why would I. Yes, it would disturb me that some sicko is having sexual thoughts about my daughter, but it IS NOT a crime until that person ACTS upon those thoughts. I don't know, maybe I am a bit more mature than most in knowing the difference between REAL children and FAKE children and would rather focus my attentions on the REAL kids that are victimized... Jack

"Yeah, maybe it went too far. Maybe it was vague. But it was a helluva lot better than nothing at all, which is exactly what we have right now, gang." I whole heartedly disagree. Bad laws are never better than no laws. With the vague nature of the wording of this law, movies like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" could be classified as child porn because it suggests that the underage (regardless of actual age) characters had sex. It didn't matter that it wasn't graphically depicted or porn by an sensible person's definition of the word. Are we better off if Amy Heckerling is put in jail as a pornographer? Child porn laws should be written so they protect children and punish those who harm them. Any law that allows punishment for mere "suggestion" that two 16 year olds may be having sex is pathetic and stupid. Many mainstream movies suggest this because they are reflecting on what happens in real life. We should not start down the road to censoring that kind of movie, and this bad law opened the gate. I do understand the fear that we are getting so good at this that soon you won't be able to tell if its a real person or a computer generated one. Now while I fully support child porn laws that protect kids, I'm not sure whether CG kids count. They aren't actually kids now are they? They are just numbers in a computer...does preventing certain kinds of numbers in a computer protect children?

Lifestylers the term comes from the term alternate lifestyle shortened to lifestylers by those in the BD/SM community. Who live the lifestyle whether it is 24/7/356 or just indulge in it once in a while. Lifestyle comes from the knowledge that the lifestyle is NOT ACCEPTED by most vanillas and acknowledges that the lifestyle is different. Actually yes I am surprised Of the bdsm images on rotica currently There is none there that Any of my friends in the lifestyle have taken offense to or consider wrong in any matter. Remember your statement The Lifestylers are very open about other fetishes. Especially since some of it is their fetish. Now images of cannablisim. Sure that shocks everyone but they see it for the shock value. Course I have very open minded friends. Who have seen and been the worst in the lifestyle. I've had enough communication in the past with him to know how he writes. That's good enough for me. Not for any of you? Sorry. Hmm so since you have talked to him and think you know how he writes it should be good enough for all of us? Okay I am going to go out and buy a red and green volvo station wagon with black flames racing up the sides and am sure that you want the same thing since I have seen your writing style and assume because of your posts you want the same thing. Pretty much thats what you are saying. No it is not good enough. None of us are saying we agree with child porn. Hell I have worked against it most of my time on the internet from when I ran adult sites to working on rotica. I am a mother and I sure as hell don't want my child involved in it. I even don't have the Poser children on my poser installed UNLESS I plan on using them in a "innocent" image. Just because of my work with adult sites and rotica and because YEP I am paranoid about that issue right now (with good cause mind you) I do not see at anytime Rotica allowing child porn Diane and Legume just aren't the kind of people to allow it. I don't think I am wrong in it. But to assume that just because there are disturbing images on rotica that Diane is going to allow ChildPorn is just plain silly. Sure there are disturbing shocking images on rotica. But there always have been. Legume started it here with his shocking images back when rotica was just an extra gallery on Rosity. and if i remember right even before that. My opinions on those images are simply that they don't float my boat. I may not like them but that's life. There is a lot in life that I don't like but I ignore it and move on. And for images of faeries.. Why does this issue always come up when talking about Childporn when many many BIG NAME artists have done images of these without it being considered childporn but Poser artists who use faeries are considered to be indulging in childporn. That just never ceases to amaze me.

If this discussion can be carried on in another thread without fighting with each other, fine. This one has run it's course.

THis is the OT forum. This topic is perfectly appropriate in this forum, and noone has violated the TOS here, not even within our argument...unless of course the tOS has been changed yet again to require that we blow sunshine up eachothers arses at all times. THis is a controversial topic, and everyone involved in this discussion, and even the ensuing argument, has behaved well within the TOS. Show me a really good example otherwise.

actually the thread is no longer in OT it's now in the forum news and team contact. Surprised me actually S

LOL..fer cryin' out loud. Did they move it here so they could have an excuse to bury it?

Still showing as the OT forum for me

don't know now it's back in OT.. BOING BOING BOING

"Okay, so child nudity or sex in CG art is harmless because noone is actually hurt and anything that limits us is bad. Did I get that right? Frankly this is frightening! Check out Renderotica and tell me what is going on with the people creating those images and viewing them." Keep the finger pointing out of it, please.

That would be what started the argument. Those of us from R'otica are still waiting for an apology or clarification of intent. While I appreciate your intent to protect us from insult, the damage has already been done, and was subsequently furthered by interference of an unrelated party. The moderators of this sight saw fit to allow us to defend ourselves for the past 38 posts. A little late to be jumping in now don't you think? How about you give us a chance to work this out as adults. All it would take would be for a TigerD to speak for himself, and take responsibility for his words.

Work out all you want, just keep the personal remarks out of it.

I have been dear, I have been. My poor tongue is positively cramped from being held for so long.

Whatever, folks. Trash Tiger all you want, if it makes you feel better. Play "I'm a bigger victim than you" if that makes you feel better. Bite your tongue till it bleeds and announce it to the world if you want. But never ever entertain the possibility that, gosh, you just might be wrong. Wow, what a concept. Oh, Momcat? That "interference"? It's called defending a friend. But nevertheless you still ain't got any law on the books right now that controls the manufacture and distribution of CG-made kiddie porn, and as the line between real and "real" gets fuzzier and fuzzier, it's gonna be harder and harder for you to prove that anything in those films was real to begin with, even if the "filmmaker" went to the outrageous expense of mocap and disguised it that way. Rotoscoping? Entirely within the realm of possibility, and you wouldn't need any kids, just an existing film of real kids. But it's still legal, right? Oh, one other thing: that whole "Romeo and Juliet" argument? If we're using the social order of another time and place as a barometer of the appropriateness of a certain law, then we might as well toss gender-bias ones out the window as well and return to the time when women knew their place. No? Well, gee, tell me the difference. This should be really entertaining.

Virtual Site: My argument is not with you. I will no longer respond to anything you have to say on the matter between Renderotica and TigerD. If he feels his words need defending, or if he is ready to apoligise for his inference, then I'm quite sure he is capable of doing so himself. If he has not the courage to either apologise or clarify his statement, then I will have to live with that as well.

shaking head following Legume agreeing completely.

It must be wonderful to be right all the time. And not have answers when the questions get really tough.

Hmmm... Flamage aside, I think I see what the deal is here. VS: Currently, there is no enforceable federal law on the books banning CG-generated kiddie porn. OTOH, I sincerely doubt that the pedos are busily trying their damndest to crank any out at this moment, either... mainly because there are lots and lots of state (and even local) laws out there that ban much the same thing, though each state has worded its laws differently, differently enough perhaps to pass muster at the SC. Given this, I seriously doubt that the pervs are going to look at this week's events and say "whelp, that was the green light I've been waiting for! Time to go buy Poser at the store and make us some smut!" You are right in that technology is getting to the point where realism and pure CG art can be hard to differentiate at times... with the right lighting and post-work, you can make a computer generate a CG person's image right now that the casual observer would swear was real. However, I believe that technology also raises a darker spectre... that of thoughtcrime. Law by its nature is too slow in creation to keep pace with technology, so to compensate, it tries to look ahead... sometimes, it steps over the line. In this case, it did. As disgusting and unpalatable as CG kiddie porn may be, there was a very real possibility of innocent people getting snared in a net originally designed to catch such pedos. Legislators are just as human as we are, and they screw up with the same regularity. Yes, the SC struck this one down... time for the Capitol to get off it's ass and do the job right this time. BTW, a query... what laws are/was in place to prevent and control pedos from drawing or painting kiddie porn and passing that around? More importantly, when they were enacted, when were they enacted, and what effect did it have on the number of incidents involving that particular type of kiddie porn sicne their enactment? I guess what I'm saying is, this whole thing is blown out of proportion... a badly written law bit the dust, and has to be re-written. That's all there is to it. In the meanwhile, any pedo with more than two operating brain cells isn't going to suddenly say to himself "holy shit, I'm free! woo-hoo!" Instead, they're going to worry about state laws, about new laws, and about the same things they always worry about: Will they get caught or not, and what will happen to them if they do? After all, pedos don't have a very long life expectancy in a prison's general population, nor do they much enjoy the wrath and ostracization from their neighbors after being outed. So, in that regard, I think we can safely put the tempest back in it's teapot and instead work on making sure the new law does what it is supposed to do, and no more than what it's supposed to do. Now, in regards to TigerD... he picked a rather poor choice of words. I can't say that I blame Legume, Momcat, or any of the R'otica staff... if someone said that I somehow condoned kiddie porn, I'd jump down their throats and demand an immediate apology myself. You see, erotica is a business and art form that walks a very tight line at times... it's either extreme BDSM, or it's a snuff film; it's either a pair of 'barely legal' 18-yr old girls having a go at sappho, or it's blatant kiddie porn... like I said, fantasy and sex mixed tends to draw a very fine line at times. The fact that people come in all shapes, sizes, and appearances at all ages doesn't help things all that much. Since R'otica, like Thralldom or any other erotic site has more to lose (and faster) from any mis-application of law, or in this case, misuse of implementation over the intent of the law, they are going to be a little more on-edge towards preventing any appearance of violating it. Also, as a consequence they are going to be much faster at defending their reputations... especially when someone impugns it, even without thinking. Anyrate, let's put the damned flamethrowers away already. /P

I'm outta here, too. Going back to where people do take responsibility for what they say and expect others to as well.

" Excuse me people, but has anyone noticed the picture that is number one on Renderoticas top 10?" ************************************************************** Good god that's a disgusting image... I don't know what I think of that or where I'd put it, I think that ones going to huant me for a while though... that needs a serious warning on it before you click in... hmmm... ... Anyway; the points made by Jack about now requiring you find a victim are very good ones. In the thread above this one I also pointed out that before a few days ago legally any image of a minor in the buff was child porn, as was things like Romeo and Juliet. Anybody seen, read, or been in a Romeo and Juliet play, book, or movie? Before yesterday by the letter of the law you were a sex offender. That point was even made by the justices on the court. The law just had WAY TOO BROAD of a definition... It's not likely any sane judge or jury would convict you for going to see Romeo and Juliet; but legally they could have... Thankfully that loophole is closed now. I'm still wondering how this affects the TOS of various 3D sites. Ok so you don't plan to change your TOS; at least clarify it. Does a 'coppertone' pic or a fairy count as child porn? Before yesterday they both did...

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity Gallery

Yes sorry Arcady. That is a really vile picture and it has haunted me too. I should have added a warning. And will someone please explain to me why my previous message was removed? I think I at least deserve an explanation.

ok, just a small item here, IF YOU STOPPED POINTING OUT THE NUMBER ONE OF TOP TEN AT RENDEROTICA, IT WOULD QUICKLY FALL OFF THE LIST!!!!!!! next point, xhorror gallery on Renderotica is full of similiarly shocking images, if you don't like them, don't enter that gallery. your own actions are keeping xxfantasy ( the first of three images) number one. Jaqui.

What someone does in the privacy of his own home with his constitutional rights and his copy of Poser is none of my business. What they do on PoserPros is. Therefore, I would like to point out that despite the Supreme Court's ruling, PoserPros will not be hosting virtual child pornography. Our previously decided rules still stand there. However, we at PoserPros are relieved that one may now render pictures of Vicki changing the Millenium baby's diaper without winding up under arrest, and that the faeries and cherubs are free at last to be faeries and cherubs, even up to occasionally shining their cherub and faerie hinys as they are occasionally won't to do.

If I may briefly state my intentions for bringing up the infamous picture in the first place... Child porn is not about shiny hinys on chubby little cherubs. Its about extreme acts of violence against the small and defenseless, and so is that picture. Now since the people on Renderotica do not wish to discuss the appropriateness of hosting such material, neither will I. Im simply clarifying my reason for mentioning it. I hope this message gets to stay.

I agree Dmon. Child Porn is NOT about little faeries and cherubs hinys. It is not about Botticelli's angels, nor the coppertone girl with her bikini bottom getting yanked down by her doggy to show her white bottom. It is not about Romeo and Juliet. It is about crimes of violence against children. Thank goodness the Surpreme Court has struck down a law that tried to brand things such as faeries and cherubs and even mothers giving their babies a bath or diaper change, as child porn. We may all breath a bit easier now, those of us who are "innocent", and merely being artists who might get an urge to decorate a valentines day card with cherubs. Most sane people will know child porn, or any porn, when they see it. Whomever wrote that old law evidently was not sane enough to know it when they saw it ;)

Again, the people from Renderotica (me and several of my moderators) stated that we do not condone child pornography and we do not and will not allow it on our site. The image Dmon has pointed out may be shocking and violent, but it is NOT child pornography. A faerie is not a child. It's not even a human being. It is a fantasy creature. Please, let's get that straight.

"Most sane people will know child porn, or any porn, when they see it. Whomever wrote that old law evidently was not sane enough to know it when they saw it ;) " What? Sometimes I think people read a bit much into things. The law was poorly worded, and used language that was considered too general. It was broadly worded in an effort to make it easier for prosecutors to convict criminals. The lawmakers involved were not INTENDING to outlaw naked baby butts and Romeo and Juliet. They were not trying to piss on anyone's parade. What they were trying to do, was to legislate something that is very difficult to legislate. Good lord, think about it... do you believe that our government is so out to get YOU that they decided to outlaw Romeo and Juliet? Have you ever read a 340 - page legislative docket? Or seen the sheer volume and language required to get a law passed? There was nothing Machhiavellian in the passage of the law. It was made with good intentions, but poor wording... that's it. The reason our system is set up the way it is, is because no matter what the lawmakers intend someone, somewhere will always take it to the extreme. Whether it's the granting of a right ( rights are government granted, btw ) or the restriction of a liberty, someone, somewhere, will try to abuse the language of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law. That's why we have the courts. Do not presume that lawmakers intended this law to restrict your rights... The only error was in overlooking that others might try to use it to do so. Regards, Paul We now return you to your regularly scheduled arguments about whether or not a naked faery is child pornography. Only at rosity will people attempt to determine the legal status of fantasy creatures... sigh

The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions -

Gordon

Instead of worrying about the CG laws maybe we should be worried about the real life laws. Child molesters get slaps on the hand most of the time while other crimes get life sentences.If you sell some grass to a narc, you get 10 years. If you molest a child 6 months? WTF? What we need to do is concentrate our law enforcement on the abuse of real children and do it now! I would rather let a drug user or supplier lose than a molseter. But thats not the sentencing pattern of our courts, It should be if you molest a child you get life, period. As for this law, if it was as broad as most people say it was, then it would have created a terrible backlash. Im not condoning CG child porn, What I am saying is that while REAl clild molesters are running around on our streets doing whatever the hell they want and getting away with it, I think the law should focus on that. I hate the abuse of children, they are the future, so lets all hope that the next law will be focused on the real problem. And I truely hope that we all find a way to keep real child molesters in prison for life.(Personaly I wouldnt mind a harsher punishment than just life).

I agree with you Spiritbro, but everything starts somewhere. People who get off by watching pictures of children being molested have some kind of problem and could be potential offenders. Likewise, if they like to look at pictures of virtual children, theres a pretty good chance they will enjoy the real thing even more. I enjoy the occasional pictures of nude Poser men in the gallery. If you think that means I dont like real men, I can probably get you a good deal on a bridge :)

I hate to say it, Dmon, but no one has been able to put a study before the courts that establishes any correlation between watching porn and acting it out ... including Kiddie Porn. That's one of the reasons why the courts won't uphold such bans ... All the huffing and puffing about pervs getting turned on by images and then jumping some kid, just isn't based on fact. Reasonable though it may sound.

Gordon

I agree with you Dmon, I wasnt saying that I didnt want a law against CG Child porn, I think any child porn is gross(and criminal) and should be banned. The problem is this law seemingly would have banned a lot of other things as well. If they rewrite the law Im all for it. My real concern is our prioritys, we spend billions each and every year on the war on drugs, we have a war on prostitution, but we have no war on child abuse. In the last year in my area I have read about at least 50 cases of children being shaken and beaten by either a babysitter or their own parents. Thats just the ones I happened upon in the paper. I know there were lots more I didnt see or weren't reported. Many Many more are sexually abused each day. Our PRIORITYS have to change. Is it more important to bust a Pot dealer or a Pedophile? A prositiute or a person who abuses a kid? I think its time America(where I live) wakes up to the fact we cant do it all and we desperately need to alter our prioritys.We fill our jails with Drug criminals, instead fill them with child abusers and molesters. Id rather see a junkie on the street than a pedophile.

Our jails are filled with abused children ... after they got a little older and carried out the inner rage that child abuse normally causes. Various studies of prison population that I have read estimate 70-90% of all prisoners had been abused as children. Estimates of the percentage of female sex workers that were sexually abused as children are about the same. What is learned as children gets passed on ... to the next generation. And the percentage of everyone that has suffered some form of abuse is about one third ... ranging from verbal abuse to battery to sex. No amount of exposure to porn can account for this and the substitution of symbol bashing for substantive preventative public health and education is, at least, ineffective, and at worst, counter productive.

Gordon

I live in Denmark, the first country to ever legalise porn. This year, one of our major hospitals has started a help centre for sexually abused children. They can come directly to the centre without going to the police, which many of them fear. In its first four months of existence, the help centre has already had twice as many patients as they expected in a year. Roughly one third have suffered abuse from a parent or other close relative, one third from an unrelated adult (teacher, sports coach etc.) and surprisingly the last third are teen or pre-teen girls who have been sexually assaulted by boys their own age - often very brutally, like anal or oral rape. The experts at the help centre estimate that these boys could only have known about such sexual practices from pornography. This indicates that ideas might spread, so to speak, even to people who have not yet formed any particular sexual preferences. So what is to stop other young (or less young) people from thinking that sex with children is acceptable if images with such content are easily accessible on the internet?

As you accurately point out, two thirds of the abuse you state came from family, friends, or neighbors. . The "idea" of sex with children pre-exists the printing press. Or likely before the first cave paintings. It is, unfortunately, all too common. The more fuss we make over images of it, the more attractive it becomes ... the forbidden fruit syndrome. Until seeing some actual photos of children in a sexual content, I had no idea such things were even possible. Now I do and am now aware of how extensive the problem is. Hiding the problem (from me) didn't help my understanding of myself or of the world. You can't solve a problem by hiding it.

Gordon

{The "idea" of sex with children pre-exists the printing press.} Heck, in some areas of Ancient Greece, there were something like seven "levels" of "love." One of the "lowest" was that between a man and his wife. The highest, 'ideal' of Grecian love was an adult man with a boy on the cusp of puberty. So, no, it is something that has been around for a long, LONG time... As have it's unfortunate side effects, I suspect.

{The experts at the help centre estimate that these boys could only have known about such sexual practices from pornography.} This doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. First of all, there are enough implications around about such acts that are not pornographic (jokes, television, movies, etc) that it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to get the gist of the idea. As I recall, I had heard of both oral and anal sex as a child long before I EVER saw any erotic or pornographic images or movies. And if people could only get these ideas from pornography, how did the practices start in the first place?

The reason is, that people are born with only a vague programmed-in idea of what the correct sex object is, and given the wrong exposures, the mind at puberty can get imprinted on a wrong object. Similarly, newly-hatched goslings think that the first large moving object that they see is their mother.

Then that would be the result of inadequate parenting. Kids at that age have been searching out forbidden things since time began. It is our job as parents to give them a sound base of what is right and wrong, the behavior expected of them, and good old fashioned common sense (that which is severely lacking in todays society). Then when they do come across things like pornography, and violence in film, or even plain stupidity in entertainment media, they know the difference between what is appropriate behavior and what is not. You also forget, or were unaware, that rape is an act of violence, with the sole purpose of hurting as deeply as possible. Other than the mechanics, it has nothing to do with sex.

If restricting access to forbidden works is justifiable in order to protect children, then we must also restrict access to the Bible, Koran, and Torah ... as it is clear that devout adherents to any of them have - beyond a reasonable doubt - committed heinous crimes against children. Already there are calls bringing charges against the Catholic Church under the RICO act as a criminal conspiracy in the current scandal about buggery. If it is justifiable to forbid images of sex and/or violence, then it follows logically that children must be shielded from images of the cross, certainly of the cruxifiction. Freedom of Religion is guaranteed, in the US, by the same document as Freedom of Expression ... and can be as easily breached. A Good intent excuses not an evil act.

Gordon

Hmmn. I spent a fun morning early this morning reading a whole bunch of Supreme Court opinions on FindLaw - they very kindly reference with a pointer previous decisions referred to. I read most of the CPPA decision, which kindly referenced the 1982 SC decision on child porn, which referenced the 1972 decision that attempted to define 'obscenity.' I also discovered, much to my 'delight' that the 1972 case originated here in good ol' Orange County, CA, the John Birch capital of the US. The cusp of the 1982 decision was that (at least to that point) the creation of those pictures required the abuse of a minor, frequently a child. Since the creation of those photos at that time required a crime, and a particularly henious one by most standards, leading to the kinds of lifelong problems in the victim cited in earlier parts of this thread, the SC (which was still pretty 'liberal' at that point) upheld existing laws forbidding the possession and sale of those images. They were also careful to exclude things like, say, a med school anatomy textbook that showed pictures of a child's genitals. The whole opinion is much more detailed, of course, but that was the gist of it as my spinning brain remembers it. I've never read a whole supreme court decision before, much less three. Interesting the subtle jabs the justices take at one another in them.

Attached Link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-795

Here's the link to the CPPA decision for those interested...like I said, will reference the other opinions.

It will be interesting where this goes from here. The CPPA opinion contained some interesting precedents that will affect any attempt to resurrect this law in another form.

Huolong said: Freedom of Religion is guaranteed, in the US, by the same document as Freedom of Expression ... and can be as easily breached. The trouble is, that the "enemy of freedom" and "enemy of the people" is merely People, Each Other, Overcrowding, too many of one's own kind. In the same way, shepherds say that "the worst enemy of a sheep is another sheep". For example, freedon of religion should not stop the law from imprisoning Muslim imams who preach inflammatory sermons against nonbelievers. But that is getting off topic and too near the topic of another long acrimonious thread that recently had to be deleted.