Support NeoGAF

[DarthWoo]

I've got to leave for PR class in exactly a minute, but here's a brief post:

It is the participants that are the problem. With the real pictures, especially in underage stuff, you're causing substantial damage to them in creating the pictures, whether voluntary or not, or something like that, so said the court. The emphasis is on the participants in the image, not the viewers. There are some who are still fighting to push their fundie morality onto these things though.

Time for class, have a nice day.

 

[belgurdo]

Kevin Taylor

Best porno comic artist ever. His women shouldn't be able to walk

 

[tmdorsey]

Best porno comic artist ever. His women shouldn't be able to walk

Yes he is, before seeing his work I thought I could never be into this kind of stuff. The way he draws those women, jeez. Also what's good about his comics is the personalities of the women. They are pretty much nymphos and love every minute of it.

 

[FoneBone]

What if you were a very talented artist, and drew an almost photorealistic image of a woman being drilled by a horse. Would that still be fine? How would that be different from a real photo? Apart from the participants, the image being presented to viewers is almost identical.

The bottom line is, if you make that illegal, you're essentially prosecuting the thought behind the creation of the image.

 

[mrklaw]

but taking normal photos of kids and putting their heads on porn models bodies is illegal. Those participants are not adversely affected when the photos are taken, so how is that different?

 

[DarthWoo]

but taking normal photos of kids and putting their heads on porn models bodies is illegal. Those participants are not adversely affected when the photos are taken, so how is that different?

You'll find that in such cases the distinctions become many and wily. In the Ashcroft case I mentioned, they refer to a section of a statute that prohibits virtual depictions that were made using "computer morphing." I guess this is the most applicable to your example, as they described it as taking innocent pictures, and altering them digitally (Photoshop and such) into sexual situations. They believe that the interests of real children were involved when this was the case.

Edit: Thus, that is why they did not address that part of the statute (leaving it alone pretty much meant it was still Constitutional, and so those kinds are still illegal) while striking down the parts about other types of virtual creations.