Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[MontagK505]

I'm not assuming any such thing. The context (museum) makes the curator's(?) intent clear. If, however, the photograph was pornographic (see definition above), then that alters the whole context, and the curator's motives.

Your own post:
Regardless, what would be the point of publishing photos of a nude Brook Shields at age 10, if not to sexually arouse?

Sounds like an assumption to me.


So it has to involve touching to cross the line for you! I'm tempted to say you're sick, but yet again I put your comment down to ill consideration. That said, you're clearly one of those peope with the propensity to teeter on the edge (given that I've spelled out where the line is drawn on numerous occasions now), and if you end up facing an accusation don't expect any sympathy from me, especially as you've prejudiced your possible excuses simply by participating in this thread!

I was using this as example of how one could define kiddie porn without the use of the word intent.

I'm not interested in your temptations. You do seem to be over-reacting a bit over what is meant to be a simple discussion. You are assumeing an intent on my part simply because I raise questions.

How convenient. Go ahead and create your images!

Does that mean I have your permission?

Strawman. Regardless, do you know for a fact that the artist intended to sexually arouse?

If the painting is the only evidence how do you deterime intent? If a virtual computer image is the only evidence how do you deterime intent?

 

[Southwind17]

If the painting is the only evidence how do you deterime intent?

Simple - by considering all of the circumstances (the painting itself is not the only evidence). Whilst not impossible, it's difficult to see why somebody seeking sexual gratification from child pornography would go to the length of producing or commissioning a painting. There are, I'm sure, much easier, quicker, cheaper and more realistic options.

If a virtual computer image is the only evidence how do you deterime intent?

Simple - by considering all of the circumstances (the image itself is probably not the only evidence), remembering, of course, that "intent" (to sexually arouse) relates to the actual nature of the image, not what might be done with the image after creation, such as distribution. If the image is deemed to be child porn (by applying the accepted definition (intent to sexually arouse - determined by the nature of the image)), then mere possession (at least in the UK, unless I'm mistaken) is a criminal offence. Similary, in the UK possession of a fire-arm (generally) is a criminal offence. No intention to use it need be shown. Such intention is inferred from simply possessing it, as it similarly is concerning possession of child porn, i.e. intent to view it. There does not need to be an intent to harm a minor. Mere possession of child porn (in the UK) is deemed, generally, to be inextricably linked to the harming of minors, essentially because the vast majority of child porn, I think I'm safe in claiming, comprises more or less sexually explicit images of actual children.

 

[MontagK505]

Sadly there is history of individuals and families who have been harassed because of these types of innocent photos.

See Wal-Mart Sued After False Child Porn Allegations

<snip>

This is a good example of non-objective law. It also puts some poor Wal-Mart sod in the position of having to think like a porn-cop. (A mental strain for sure)

Can we prove the pictures were taken with the intent of sexual arousal?

 

[Southwind17]

This is a good example of non-objective law. It also puts some poor Wal-Mart sod in the position of having to think like a porn-cop. (A mental strain for sure)

To be accurate, it's not really a good example of anything, other than possibly sloppy reporting at best and biased reporting at worst, if you take the time to consider it critically. The most pertinent aspect of the article is this:

The Wal-Mart employee that was processing the photos noticed that about seven of the 144 photos showed a “portion or outline or [sic] genitalia.” The employee turned this in to the police as a possible child pornography case. The police then took the children into protective custody. The children were not allowed to see their parents for several days and were not returned to their home for a month.

My observations based on what we read:

Seven of the photos seemingly appeared suspicious to the employee. Apparently they showed "a portion or outline [of] genitalia". This suggests that the employee felt that the subject matter of the seven photos was the genitalia and not the children per se, but we cannot be sure.
Did the employee acted over-zealously or mischievously? We cannot say unless we see the photos.
What happened during the time between the employee reporting to photos and the police taking the children into custody? We don't know. "A lot" is probably way more likely than "nothing at all".
Were the children not allowed to see their parents for several days because that's necessary standard practice in such cases? Who knows, but it seems perfectly possible.
Were the children not allowed to return home for a month because that's necessary standard practice in such investigations? Who knows, but it seems perfectly possible.

You honestly cannot conclude anything much at all about the righful or wrongful actions of the Authorities based on what the article presents. What you can conclude, though, based on what we read, contrary to your conclusion, is that we cannot deem it a good example of non-objective law.

Can we prove the pictures were taken with the intent of sexual arousal?

We simply cannot form a view without seeing the pictures. It seems unlikely, on the face of it, but we simply cannot say.

Now that, my friend, is critical thinking in action!

ETA: Interesting that Wal-Mart was sued. Anybody know whether it succeeded?

 

[quadraginta]

This is a good example of non-objective law. It also puts some poor Wal-Mart sod in the position of having to think like a porn-cop. (A mental strain for sure)

Can we prove the pictures were taken with the intent of sexual arousal?

I'm unconvinced that absence of intent is an exonerating factor, either in production or distribution. At least in the U.S. I've already cited one example where it did not prove to be. The failure of that particular case to actually go to trial may not have been a benefit to free speech.

There certainly seems to be sufficient evidence that an absence of intent has no bearing on the substantial discouragement of images, or even particularly impedes the initiation of legal proceedings. In the Stewart case it seems it was merely the intimidation resulting from the threat of legal action which forced a capitulation. In the Calvin Klein billboard episode it didn't require even that.

In the case of Jacqueline Mercado, the breast feeding mom, the state alleged intent even though the one image they found fault with was only one among many family photos, and took the couple's children. Half a year later they dropped the charges, but the couple didn't get their children back for a year.

I didn't look particularly hard to find the examples I did. I have every confidence that with little more effort I could have discovered plenty of others.

 

[MontagK505]

I'm unconvinced that absence of intent is an exonerating factor, either in production or distribution. At least in the U.S. I've already cited one example where it did not prove to be. The failure of that particular case to actually go to trial may not have been a benefit to free speech.

There certainly seems to be sufficient evidence that an absence of intent has no bearing on the substantial discouragement of images, or even particularly impedes the initiation of legal proceedings. In the Stewart case it seems it was merely the intimidation resulting from the threat of legal action which forced a capitulation. In the Calvin Klein billboard episode it didn't require even that.

In the case of Jacqueline Mercado, the breast feeding mom, the state alleged intent even though the one image they found fault with was only one among many family photos, and took the couple's children. Half a year later they dropped the charges, but the couple didn't get their children back for a year.

I didn't look particularly hard to find the examples I did. I have every confidence that with little more effort I could have discovered plenty of others.

According to SW you can't be sure of anything without actually seeing the pictures.

Now that my friend, is critical thinking in action!

 

[JFrankA]

It depends on the context. Everything depends on context. That's why we have different "degrees" of murder, for example.

Not quite true when it comes to porn. Porn is context AND interpretation. That's why one can't say "I can't say what murder is, but I know it when I see it".

Also, there are no "degrees" of porn. Either people feel it's meant to be arousing or it's not. Period.

Just like a toy doll, eh. So what? Does the model also start off as a minor? Does the model inevitably end up in a suspicious context? Get real JFRankA. I do like you, but you're dogmatism here is just starting to irritate me a little. BTW - how's Germany?

I think you have the wrong idea as to what Poser is. It isn't a game. It's a human model creator, used for games, images, movies, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poser

If you do a search for pictures made with poser
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pictures+made+with+poser

you'll see what it can do.

The way it works, though is that the model starts naked. You have to adjust the body to what you want it to be, then pose it, then clothe it, finally put it into a setting. Not because of anything sexual, it's just the way the program works.

Not my definition, JFrankA. It's the legal definition, I believe.

Sorry. Again, I know you are stating what the law states, but I'm pointing out where it's flawed.

My point exactly, and the point that prosecutors should, and presumably do, generally, consider when deciding whether to indict. Clearly, if you're the holder or creator of such an image then the picture, scene and context are all readily apparent and you should know where you stand legally.

Not always the case. There are times where an owner/creator of a picture has no intent to arouse, but others see intent to arouse. That is what I am talking about.

Jeez JFrankA - what's wrong with you man - that woman of yours drained all the sense out of you?!

Woah. What does my girlfriend have to do with this???

Forgotten this pretty good article already that you posted?!

I haven't. I have also said I don't agree with the decision that SL made. They punished two adults in an adults only environment, who were role playing and no one under age was involved with. Why is that a good thing?

Sensationalism from you JFrankA? Surely not!

???? I don't mean to sensationalize. In fact, I feel it's sensationalism when someone who has picture, with no "intent to arouse" or when two adults are enjoying a fantasy in an adult-only setting gets called on "child porn" when there isn't.

That sounds like sensationalism to me.

I can't view the first picture, but I can the second, and based on that one it's obvious that you're (inadvertently, I'm supposing) being selective with the definition of porn. Allow me to reiterate:

pornography books, magazines, films, etc. dealing with or depicting sexual acts in a more or less explicit way, intended to arouse sexual excitement.

See the bit that you're now conveniently overlooking? (you don't really want me to go defining "sexual acts" for you now, do you?! )

Did you even see this bit of sensationalism? The picture of Miley and her father was seen as "intent to arouse". It was a big deal.

You serious JFrankA? So why the maxim "beyond reasonable doubt", then?!

Again, there's a difference between between murder and asking someone if a picture has the intent to arouse. One can be based on fact while the other on opinion.

BTW - what happened to the "thank you" for the free porn?!

[/quote]

My bad. Sorry. Thank you. Actually at the moment, I'm having fun with...live..porn....

Germany's fine. Cold, but fine. I just love being anywhere with my girl.

 

[sugarb]

How did we move to child pornography? I've apparently fallen way behind. Anyway, if there is anything really "wrong" with porn, this is where it would be, in my opinion. Child pornography.

I find it odd...please no one take offense, I am going to explain...but I find it odd that there is any quibble over what is or is not child pornography. Not surprising though, if we remember the 80's at all.

Does everyone remember, in the 80's, where there was this "witch hunt" mentality against day cares? I realize that sexual abuse may have happened in some cases, but for the most part, there seemed to be a national hysteria, and all of the sudden people were teaching children about "touches" and "private places" and were pretty much completely paranoid. It seemed, to me, reasonable to expect children to say things after adults spent hours telling them about "bad" places, and "bad" people, and how "bad" people wanted to hurt them. Even if they were not true! To relate it to my own childhood, I guess it would be like always being told about how "the boogeyman" was going to get me. And sure enough, I started "seeing" the boogeyman in every closet or behind every door, or just waiting to get me if I even thought about being a nosy little kid and plundering in things that I wasn't supposed to plunder in. (Dresser drawers. As a little child, I loved to plunder through dresser drawers.)

There still exist photos, taken in the early to mid 70's, of myself and my sisters in the bathtub. We were all under 5 years old. There still exist photos of us as toddlers, without shirts on, just in diapers. What was wrong with that? Little boys ran around with only a diaper or shorts, and no one thought anything of it. We weren't even close to sexual development, so looking at us was no different than looking at a little boy, was it? Especially considering our hair was kept short back then.

Now, an 8 year old? I see no reason for an 8 year old, or any school aged child, really, to be photographed naked...but...there do exist people who are photo freaks, and they want a photographic record of the life of their child. I'm okay with that. Within reason...although I think it should be considered how that child will feel about their parents taking such photos once they reach certain ages. Then again, isn't it the job of parents to embarrass their children? That's what I've heard, anyway...

It concerns me a lot when people argue about how far they can go before something is child pornography. To me, that is a line, a place, NO ONE should go. Childhood sexual abuse is horrific (trust me), and I think that it is only because society finally started recognizing it that people (parents and other relatives mostly, not necessarily pedophiles, just your general sickos) started getting prosecuted for it. It has always gone on, but...our society used to be a little bit different. Private business was private business, you weren't supposed "to tell" about anything bad going on in your house...kind of a holdover from a time when things were more about the "image", or perhaps "what people would think". Children were, basically, just property then. It took a long, long time for that to change, didn't it?

There are parents who have had to explain themselves over nude bathtub photos. The same nude photos that were commonplace in our families for generations. In fact, I have a very old photograph of my mother, as a toddler, naked, sitting in a washtub of water way back when our family still lived in a rural cabin with no electricity. There was no bathtub, just a well pump. Nothing "sexual" about that photo at all. It's actually a very good representation of Appalachian poverty, I think...and an adorable picture of my mother before she had problems, a photo I cherish. I have an even older (and not very good quality, I guess because it was early 1900's) photo of my grandmother and aunts and uncles as small children, bathing in the creek by that cabin. Naked. Nothing sexual about it.

But then we got paranoid. I think after the sixties and seventies, there was a sort of...mmm...regression back to more puritanical thinking? I said that poorly, but someone can probably better phrase it. Then, of course, the hysteria over daycare centers. And no one realized when they told each and every child about the "bad" people, many children would imagine a lot of people as "bad". We can't blame the children for that. And so...child nudity became...taboo? A no-no. Funny that, since all around here people still let their toddlers play outside with just a diaper on nice summer days.

But. There are sickos. And child pornography isn't an imaginary boogeyman. I have very strong feelings about this, and I really mean no offense, but it really does disturb me that anyone would even think that drawings representing children, pornographic, should be okay. At one time, I tried to find a way to be okay with that. After all, it wasn't a *real* child. But ultimately, I don't know, it just seems...sick. Too far. Too...too something.

General opinions. Now I'll try to catch up on the whole thread.

 

[MontagK505]

Quote by JFrankA:

Again, there's a difference between between murder and asking someone if a picture has the intent to arouse. One can be based on fact while the other on opinion.
Murder usually requires a corpse or at least evidence a corpse exists.

Virtual porn only requires you offend somebody. Oh and don't forget intent to arouse thats a big no no. No real objects required!

 

[quadraginta]

To be accurate, it's not really a good example of anything, other than possibly sloppy reporting at best and biased reporting at worst, if you take the time to consider it critically. The most pertinent aspect of the article is this:



My observations based on what we read:

Seven of the photos seemingly appeared suspicious to the employee. Apparently they showed "a portion or outline [of] genitalia". This suggests that the employee felt that the subject matter of the seven photos was the genitalia and not the children per se, but we cannot be sure.
Did the employee acted over-zealously or mischievously? We cannot say unless we see the photos.
What happened during the time between the employee reporting to photos and the police taking the children into custody? We don't know. "A lot" is probably way more likely than "nothing at all".
Were the children not allowed to see their parents for several days because that's necessary standard practice in such cases? Who knows, but it seems perfectly possible.
Were the children not allowed to return home for a month because that's necessary standard practice in such investigations? Who knows, but it seems perfectly possible.

You honestly cannot conclude anything much at all about the righful or wrongful actions of the Authorities based on what the article presents. What you can conclude, though, based on what we read, contrary to your conclusion, is that we cannot deem it a good example of non-objective law.


We simply cannot form a view without seeing the pictures. It seems unlikely, on the face of it, but we simply cannot say.

Now that, my friend, is critical thinking in action!

ETA: Interesting that Wal-Mart was sued. Anybody know whether it succeeded?

We can conclude, since the charges were dropped, that the state concluded their case lacked sufficient merit, or at least sufficient evidence. Since the only evidence was seven or eight photos out of 140 or so from a family vacation we can reasonably conclude that the evidence found wanting was those photos. We can conclude that the state concluded, after some dithering, that there was nothing wrong with the pictures.

The Demarees are not only suing WalMart. That in fact is the minor of their two suits and one which does not promise of success. The grievance with WalMart involves the store's failure to warn them of a policy of surrendering photos to the authorities.

What the WalMart employee may have thought about the photos is irrelevant, since it was store management which elected to pass the photos along, and the city and state which elected to take action concerning them. In fact WalMart has also been embroiled in a separate unrelated suit where they fired an employee for surrendering photos to authorities without consulting management. That employee sued for wrongful termination.

The Demarees are also suing the state of Arizona, the Arizona Attorney General, and the city of Peoria. This one has more potential. In addition to the removal of their children for a month they were placed on a sex offender registry , Lisa Demaree was suspended from her job for a year, and they incurred over $70,000 in costs defending themselves. The core of their suit against the state appears to derive from actions by state investigators, and defamatory statements that they made to friends, family, co-workers, and employees during the course of the investigation.

The suits are ongoing. Currently there seems to be a problem with reluctance on the part of the city to surrender relevant documents, and apparently some suggestion of tampering with documents that they have released.. Stay tuned.

 

[MontagK505]

<snip>

But then we got paranoid. I think after the sixties and seventies, there was a sort of...mmm...regression back to more puritanical thinking? I said that poorly, but someone can probably better phrase it. Then, of course, the hysteria over daycare centers. And no one realized when they told each and every child about the "bad" people, many children would imagine a lot of people as "bad". We can't blame the children for that. And so...child nudity became...taboo? A no-no. Funny that, since all around here people still let their toddlers play outside with just a diaper on nice summer days.

But. There are sickos. And child pornography isn't an imaginary boogeyman. I have very strong feelings about this, and I really mean no offense, but it really does disturb me that anyone would even think that drawings representing children, pornographic, should be okay. At one time, I tried to find a way to be okay with that. After all, it wasn't a *real* child. But ultimately, I don't know, it just seems...sick. Too far. Too...too something.

General opinions. Now I'll try to catch up on the whole thread.

I agree actual harm to children (sexual or otherwise) should be dealt with harshly. And photos of child porn are evidence of such abuse.

The issue being discussed right now is bath-tub pix and virtual porn that might show the intent to arouse a pedophile.

In my opinion, the present hysteria may be driven by several factors:
Two main ones:

Fanatical DA's trying to make a name for themselves. And fear of litigation if you let a crazy fall through the cracks.

The problem is, innocent people get caught up in this. This could create a legal backlash that actually impedes operations against real pedophiles. Worrying about the level of soap suds covering nude children sitting in a bathtub might be diverting resources that could be used elsewhere.

 

[sugarb]

I agree actual harm to children (sexual or otherwise) should be dealt with harshly. And photos of child porn are evidence of such abuse.

The issue being discussed right now is bath-tub pix and virtual porn that might show the intent to arouse a pedophile.

In my opinion, the present hysteria may be driven by several factors:
Two main ones:

Fanatical DA's trying to make a name for themselves. And fear of litigation if you let a crazy fall through the cracks.

The problem is, innocent people get caught up in this. This could create a legal backlash that actually impedes operations against real pedophiles. Worrying about the level of soap suds covering nude children sitting in a bathtub might be diverting resources that could be used elsewhere.

I think your ideas as to what drives the hysteria is probably pretty accurate...and I'd probably put more emphasis on your second main factor than the first.

Innocent people, certainly. Again, I don't understand the bathtub pictures or half naked toddlers playing. Isn't that NORMAL? Little tiny kids that age are adorable, not sexual...parents obviously really look forward to the classic and NORMAL baby taking a bath photos. I'm with you on that. There IS no harm in that, or for goodness sakes, we'd pretty much ALL be victims and all of our parents pedophiles, right? LOL. That one is bizarre.

There is something I find ironic with regards to the hysterical folks wanting more and more regulation with regards to porn. (I've never seen anyone arguing for allowing child porn, by the way...except the drawings, and yes, I think those cross a line--at least for my personal comfort zone, which certainly I don't expect EVERYONE to abide by). There are so, so many laws already on the books, and as our economies have weakened, it wouldn't be far-fetched to say that at least part of the problem is that we demand more and more of our law enforcement, legislators, courts, etc, but stop at the idea of actually paying more taxes to fund them so that they can DO what is being demanded. Whenever some of us argue that in reality, as far as porn and minors, the responsibility to protect children should BEGIN with the parents, we're shouted down and told we're unreasonable. I recall a thread here not too very long ago where we were even told that it was wrong of us to expect parents to know how to work filtering software! To restrict what their own children can see!

So to me, in many instances, arguments regarding porn always at some point seem to reach the point of bizarre. There's too much finger-pointing, and too little willingness to fund what would be needed to fight to enforce just the laws already there. Many times, it seems to me that the arguments are fairly disingenuous. Sometimes I think that a lot of people who hate porn just like discussing it, and that's their little taste of the forbidden (although I'm sure that opens me up for attack...but it really does seem that way sometimes).

We have gone way too far when parents have to worry about that bath time picture most of our parents and grandparents and probably great grandparents took, that famous picture that we always try to make sure our first girlfriends or boyfriends don't get to see, lol.

 

[RandFan]

I agree actual harm to children (sexual or otherwise) should be dealt with harshly. And photos of child porn are evidence of such abuse.

The issue being discussed right now is bath-tub pix and virtual porn that might show the intent to arouse a pedophile.

In my opinion, the present hysteria may be driven by several factors:
Two main ones:

Fanatical DA's trying to make a name for themselves. And fear of litigation if you let a crazy fall through the cracks.

The problem is, innocent people get caught up in this. This could create a legal backlash that actually impedes operations against real pedophiles. Worrying about the level of soap suds covering nude children sitting in a bathtub might be diverting resources that could be used elsewhere.

In the interest of intellectually honesty, I've been somewhat on the other side of this issue as it relates to artists that have been involved in controversy regarding photographing nude children including Mapplethorpe and others.

Though I do think we should be concerned about possible abuse or exploitation (I'm not certain children can truly consent when it comes to public nudity photos) I also think we should be very, very concerned about the hysteria that often surrounds the issue. I think we should defer to the experts and court system to determine what is and is not harmful. I don't think mob mentality (see Satanic Panic and Sex abuse witch hunts) should be the basis of investigation and prosecution.

 

[sugarb]

In the interest of intellectually honesty, I've been somewhat on the other side of this issue as it relates to artists that have been involved in controversy regarding photographing nude children including Mapplethorpe and others.

Though I do think we should be concerned about possible abuse or exploitation (I'm not certain children can truly consent when it comes to public nudity photos) I also think we should be very, very concerned about the hysteria that often surrounds the issue. I think we should defer to the experts and court system to determine what is and is not harmful. I don't think mob mentality (see Satanic Panic and Sex abuse witch hunts) should be the basis of investigation and prosecution.

Oh, I had forgotten about the Satanic Panic, RandFan. You might find this funny (or not, I don't know. I kinda did). At my last therapy session, we were talking about childhood, and some of the oddities in it. Without realizing how it would sound, I made a comment about some of the rituals we were exposed to as kids (our parents and some of their friends did these rituals worshipping Nature or something like that)...and the lady I see started to get very upset. As soon as I saw her expression change, I realized what she must be thinking, so I quickly assured her that it wasn't anything Satanic. I had truly not realized how what I was saying must have sounded...but it was heard, for some reason, immediately, as ritual=Satanism.

I was so embarrassed, and when I came home, I decided that it would probably be best to be a LOT more careful about how I talk about things. In many people's minds, those hysterias still exist, I think.

 

[Belz...]

Laws are seldom written with clear language, so how could their interpretation be clear?

If they were clear we wouldn't need so many lawyers, eh ?

 

[Belz...]

Good point. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. If I create a virtual nude of a woman/girl who might look like she was 14/16 have I broken the law?

To me, that would make no sense, whatsoever. No real people are involved. How can you break the law doing nothing to no one ?

 

[RandFan]

Oh, I had forgotten about the Satanic Panic, RandFan. You might find this funny (or not, I don't know. I kinda did). At my last therapy session, we were talking about childhood, and some of the oddities in it. Without realizing how it would sound, I made a comment about some of the rituals we were exposed to as kids (our parents and some of their friends did these rituals worshipping Nature or something like that)...and the lady I see started to get very upset. As soon as I saw her expression change, I realized what she must be thinking, so I quickly assured her that it wasn't anything Satanic. I had truly not realized how what I was saying must have sounded...but it was heard, for some reason, immediately, as ritual=Satanism.

I was so embarrassed, and when I came home, I decided that it would probably be best to be a LOT more careful about how I talk about things. In many people's minds, those hysterias still exist, I think.

It's amuzing if at least in part because I had therapy in the early '80s and my therapist was steering me towards repressed memories because I had sex additions. I honestly tried to remember but it just didn't happen.

No, my disfunction was a manic depressive father and the Mormon church.

 

[MontagK505]

Just for the record everyone! I have no intention using Poser to re-create the nude photos of Brook Shields when she was 10yrs old.

The fact is, some people are a little crazy on the issue of kiddie porn and if you question how the law gets applied to virtual art, it's suggested you are a closet kiddie porn producer.

<snip>


So it has to involve touching to cross the line for you! I'm tempted to say you're sick, but yet again I put your comment down to ill consideration. That said, you're clearly one of those peope with the propensity to teeter on the edge (given that I've spelled out where the line is drawn on numerous occasions now), and if you end up facing an accusation don't expect any sympathy from me, especially as you've prejudiced your possible excuses simply by participating in this thread!

<snip>

Classic example. (post #1085)
All I was doing was giving an example of a possible guideline.

This is also a fine example of critical thinking in action!

 

[sugarb]

Just for the record everyone! I have no intention using Poser to re-create the nude photos of Brook Shields when she was 10yrs old.

The fact is, some people are a little crazy on the issue of kiddie porn and if you question how the law gets applied to virtual art, it's suggested you are a closet kiddie porn producer.



Classic example. (post #1085)
All I was doing was giving an example of a possible guideline.

This is also a fine example of critical thinking in action!

I don't mean to sound like an idiot, but I don't even know what Poser is...so I just skimmed over those posts. I'm not a big technical person?...so...it sounded techie to me. Well, and kind of reminded me of Barbie dolls.

Anyway, I never thought you were actually producing closet kiddie porn, I just thought you guys were giving examples and discussing "virtual" porn (is that what it's called?)

 

[MontagK505]

I don't mean to sound like an idiot, but I don't even know what Poser is...so I just skimmed over those posts. I'm not a big technical person?...so...it sounded techie to me. Well, and kind of reminded me of Barbie dolls.

Anyway, I never thought you were actually producing closet kiddie porn, I just thought you guys were giving examples and discussing "virtual" porn (is that what it's called?)

Sorry, I was refering to SW post#1085.

I didn't think you were accusing me producing kiddie porn.

Here's the information on poser:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poser