Is that worse than an animation of it being machinegunned or nuked or hit by a plague ? All of which are legal to animate.
So, your argument is that if I show you enough gay porn, I can eventually turn you gay? I’m intrigued by this notion, but it needs further research. Say, my place, around eight?
Bring a bottle of wine.
You perv. An article about walrus’s liking blow jobs. 
Not what I said. Reread it.
Miller, I think what he meant was that if you’re already gay, then looking at gay porn may lead you to want gay sex. But you started off wanting it or you wouldn’t be gay, so I don’t think it’s a great argument.
Well, there go my plans for the evening.
yes, they are. And adding an actual Cathedral is perfectly legal in a violent game. Legal and right are not mutually inclusive. But I was thinking of exactly that when I posted my remarks.
For reason’s I’ve never understood we allow violent images into our lives with great abandon regardless of the influence on society.
Since we have exhibited a desire to restrict sexual content I would like to keep that line from moving while it’s still possible. Child porn is a line worth defending.
And I’m a beer drinker so it would have to be miller time.
Well, advertising has a specific purpose, and that is to get people to buy a particular product or service. Porn - child or otherwise - doesn’t have that intent.
(Bolding mine)
Whoa, there, pardner! At least for the USA, last I checked an obscene animated/simulated portrayal of an identifiable representation of a real minor, or the sampling an image of a real minor into such a simulation, ** WERE ** both outlawed under parts of the PROTECT Act of 2003 that AFAIK have **NOT ** been court-revoked.
OTOH if I animate a sequence of Dora the Explorer in a 3-some with Boots and Swiper, all I infringe is copyright/trademark (and possibly good taste but that I don’t care about).
The situation of totallly imaginary characters and situations being OK; while use of likeness of identifiable real children even if themselves not involved are NOT OK, is acceptable to me.
What about the argument that virtual child pornography can be used to indoctrinate real children? If it’s used for that purpose isn’t that being an accessory? Like the manufacturer of burglar tools.
Something I have been kicking around for a few days in my head: What if there is a fairly revealing sex-scene in an R-rated mainstream movie in which the actors are in their 20’s, but their characters are supposed to be 17? If marketed poorly, could the producers be charged under this new Supreme Court ruling?
And how do you determine if a computer generated image is an identifiable representation of a specific person? If Hustler puts out a game called Little Debbie Does Dallas and one of the characters looks kinda familiar, its just a computer game.
Since this is criminal law we’re talking about, you’d have to be prepared to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to portray a particular person. And even if you cold prove that, by then you’re really outside the scope of child porn and into areas of slander/libel.
IIRC, the ruling applies to porn.
Is the movie intended to focus on sex acts as the main plot point, or was there only a brief scene of topless teens in a horror movie?
(I sympathise with the whining about how we regulate sex(porn), but not violence. 
)
Very common argument from those advocating for VCP to be treated as the same as real CP.
IMO, *“could, maybe, possibly, imaginably, if it falls into the wrong hands, in the worst-case-scenario…” * is a poor basis when it gets you charged with something that in our society is regarded as just one step short from capital crime, or an offense against humanity .
However, the lack of CP real or simulated has never stopped molesters. Scene: El Perverto’s den aka Principal Uprightgent’s office ( 
) . His next target Suzie sitting on his couch having a lemonade. Playing in the DVD deck: a perfectly legitimate adult-porn video. * “Now, see that, Suzie? That’s what BIG girls do! See how all the men are all being really nice to her when she does that? It’s because that’s what nice BIG girls do! You ARE a BIG girl, aren’t you, Suzie? Why, I think you are, when you’re here you can do all the things Big Girls do and mommy won’t yell at you for it!”* :eek: :eek: :eek:
No need for VCP, which in any case, a modern-day child would probably spot right away “Hey, that’s not real kids, that’s cheap CGI! My PS2 can do better grafix than that!” (BTW, PROTECT also outlawed CGI VCP “indistinguishable from a real photograph of a minor”. Which of course raises the Q: “indistinguishable by who?”)
Now, make no mistake, I am under no illusion that much demand for VCP is created by those who want to see an underage-sex scenario but either still have one last moral limit or consider real CP too damn risky. But AFAIK, in human law a fantasy about a criminal act is still not the same thing as the crime itself until you either try to do it or incite it. Sins of thought are the province of the confessional or the shrink’s couch.
**El Zagna ** - Indeed. In the original example “what about a simulation of your daughter” you don’t even need to try and prosecute for PROTECT, it could be as a threat or a stalking. As things stand now, it’s the investigators, when deciding whether to charge, and then the court, when deciding if to convict, that have to weigh if they buy the producer’s claim that the utter resemblance of “Little Debbie” to someone’s real daughter is a mere freak coincidence, or if the evidence points otherwise.
Captain_C: IIRC, the language in the majority ruling includes references to the effect that a court/prosecutor should take into account how THAT sort of case is **not ** what the legislative intent behind the law was about. The way to stay safe anyway is to NOT market your movie as being about 17 year olds characters having hot nude love scenes (in any case even without this specific law, I can’t imagine anyone **daring ** to produce *The Blue Lagoon * for the US market at any point in the last 10 years, can you?)
Of course, in view of this ruling it ocurred to me, that REAL serious CP purveyors probably would NOT advertise openly under the tag “u can haz preT33n Lolit@$$” anyway but instead must use quite innocuous-sounding filenames exchanged through back-channels behind PGP keys (and in locations well away from ICE’s jurisdiction).
Technology is moving faster than people are anticipating. Lets go back to my fictitious example of Hustler. Little Debbie Does Dallas has an avatar feature that has an import feature. You import a picture of a child’s face (from a yearbook) and now you have a character that can be “gamed” online from anywhere in the world. Wouldn’t take much work to photoshop a different nose or ears. Now your neighbor has similar images of your child to share with people with similar fetishes. And by neighbor I mean anyone who can drive or walk by a school with a high-resolution pinhole camera. You’ll never know who it is and the image will be spread all over the country.
Who needs a hidden camera? Just be one of the flocks of tourists taking pictures at a well-known family-frequented location.
Which leads to my question: You’re in a public place. You’re taking pictures of the crowd. When is it forbidden to use those likeness in a work of art? Could I make a ‘skin’ of that guy in the yellow shirt and upload it to the Sims community and distribute it? What about one of the violinist?
As the law stands, and stood all along even before it was amended, it is illegal to sample even part of a child’s picture into a pornographic image in any way, shape or form.
The burden on prosecution, of course, is to prove that this is what happened.
As to the part of the law that forbids that a character be “identifiable” as a real child, the prosecution would be tasked to have the jury recognize the real-life subject when they look at the sim, I suppose. The defense could claim that this looks like any of a million other kids but I wonder how much that would help…
The answer to this from our excellent legislators has tended towards repeatedly attempting to pass laws that extend to outlawing anything that even remotely looks like minors getting it on, regardless whether it’s fake, and even entirely imaginary images even if no live model was ever used. And the courts have rightfully repeatedly knocked that idea down.
Given the advances in technology I would prefer a standard that sets the bar higher for child related media. My business law classes leave me with little skill to suggest a methodology to achieve that.