The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
adult nude bodies with kids paces pasted on them- is this child pornography?
Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I'm actually using the 9th to question federal anti-child porn laws.
I'm asking why you need the 9th at all in your questioning of federal anti-child porn laws when you have the 1st staring you in the face telling you to, "Send me in coach!"?
BTW, are you seriously argueing that child porn passes the Millier test?
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
While I think it's sick, I don't think pasting kids pics hurts kids, and therefore, even though I consider it obscene, I don't think we have the moral rights to touch it.
Our point is prevention of abuses, not judging people's fantasies and desires.
Wanting to screw a kid, while sick, is tolerable.
Going ahead and doing so, is not.
No, my argument is that the Miller test is irrelevant, if you accept that child-porn is protected under the 9th, and thus decency requirements are irrelevant - I'm not sure if I believe that yet, I'll have to think about it some more but I'm leaning that way.
Originally posted by David Floyd
No, my argument is that the Miller test is irrelevant, if you accept that child-porn is protected under the 9th, and thus decency requirements are irrelevant
*Ahem*
I'm asking why you need the 9th at all in your questioning of federal anti-child porn laws when you have the 1st staring you in the face telling you to, "Send me in coach!"?
BTW, Child porn is still illegal in the sameway child sex abuse is illegal. Regardless of any possible 9th ammendment claims.
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
I think it should be considered child pornography.
I'm attaching an image so the paperclip shows next to this thread title...
Attached Files
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
I think that creating the child porn should be criminal, since that necessarily implies coercing a child. Distributing (or viewing) child porn, OTOH, should be perfectly legal.
Regarding the legality of child porn laws, the rationale for saying that child porn doesn't fall under First Amendment protection is that its legalization undermines gov't efforts to protect children physical and psychological damage (New York v. Ferber). A justification I don't agree with, BTW.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Since the intent of anti-child pornography laws is to protect children from abuse, and since I don't see how copy-and-pasting faces onto adult nudes constitutes child abuse, I therefore don't see how this can be classified as child pornography.
<p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>
I think the idea behind this is that realistically digitally altered images can be used as a defense.
It can be very difficult to tell if a picture is doctored or real, and if they use legal models who look very young for the fakes, it would be hard to tell them apart from real pictures of older illegal children, so why make work? You know, "Oh no officer, these are just fakes. Yeah, that model sure looks young."
But for drawings? LOL there is no way sketches, cartoons, oilpaintings etc should be 'illegal' no matter what's on them, even if they are drawn in a very realistic way or erotic. There are whole bunchs of Greek and Roman statuary and urns that will have to be smashed...
Case: Ya know those little pissing cherubs? What if someone had two ****ing cherubs (the statues)? Or a painting or whatever.
Terribly bad taste, but not a crime.
All crimes should have a victim or victims. If the depiction is imaginary, not a picture of a real event, then you can't arrest them for that. It's not even 'spreading hate' if it's in private.
"Wait a minute..this isn''t FAUX dive, it's just a DIVE!"
"...Mangy dog staggering about, looking vainly for a place to die."
"sauna stories? There are no 'sauna stories'.. I mean.. sauna is sauna. You do by the laws of sauna." -P.
Originally posted by Seeker
I think the idea behind this is that realistically digitally altered images can be used as a defense.
But for drawings? LOL there is no way sketches, cartoons, oilpaintings etc should be 'illegal' no matter what's on them, even if they are drawn in a very realistic way or erotic.
That creates a can of worms when somebody creates a realistic original digital image (not an altered image, but one made from scratch). Then the defense "Oh no, officer, this isn't an underage model, this is just very realistic CG" would apply just as with the digitally altered images.
Obviously an oil painting and a CG image are two very different things, but then how do you prove that a nude model wasn't used for the painting, and where do you draw the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" pornographic art?
<p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>
Originally posted by loinburger
where do you draw the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" pornographic art?
You'll know it when you see it.
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Originally posted by Tom201
There is no such thing as "unacceptable pornographic art".
Yes, there is. We are discussiong one example of it, right now.
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
That is very difficult. Right now, they can probably detect a 'real fake' if they try hard enough, but as the tech improves you're right who's to say what's real or not?
However, there are images that are pretty uncontestably not real, ie cartoon style drawings, watercolours, pencil, ink, or charcoal sketches, etc.
About the 'real models' thing the question would be real life models doing what? Child models who are simply nudes in paintings, sculptures etc? That famous painting with the two naked boys warming themselves in front of a fire was from life, but I don't think it should be illegal.
Illegeal would be they were having sex, and then he painted it. Hmmm....the 'then he painted it' part shouldn't be illegal though, the 'he made them have sex' part should be...
but what if he had two real models, drew sketches, sent them home, and then used those sketches to draw them having sex? Maybe a sort of fraud or defamation charge....
All things considered, it should be what is happening with the models, and their relations with the artist, that concerns the law, not some pictures.
Thus, an artist can legally paint a picture of kids having sex.
If the kids were imaginary, no legal problem.
If he used real models having sex, child porn (however the act of drawing the picture is not the crime, the child abuse is the crime).
If he used real models, not having sex, (maybe just the faces?) but then combined them using his imagination and an anatomy book, grey area. Again I would say the parents would have fraud and defamation complaints.
This is a difficult area, especially when you're primarily concerned with the real, actual kids and not just some wackos fevered imaginings. I can see why the cops were like '**** it, take em all' but we shouldn't operate that way.
"Wait a minute..this isn''t FAUX dive, it's just a DIVE!"
"...Mangy dog staggering about, looking vainly for a place to die."
"sauna stories? There are no 'sauna stories'.. I mean.. sauna is sauna. You do by the laws of sauna." -P.
This is about exploiting or hurting people, whether it be rape, forced prostitution, or a child being coursed or forced into pornography or sex. The content of the pornography is irrelavant, it's how it was made that is matters.
@DinoDoc
U mean drawing a picture, that has childporn as the theme and is drawn so good that it seems real, but is not <- the important part
And unacceptable meaning it should be forbidden by law?
Than I say again there is no such thing as unacceptable art.
No harm - no crime. easy as that.
I can draw whatever I want, thats non of police business.
Tweet
Comment