Replies

They're cartoons in the sense that Registered's phoneyed up "photos" are cartoons.

I would allow that the usage of a picture of a child at all for one of these things is tantamount to child abuse: what if the kid later discovers that his or her likeness was twisted into one of these filthy scenes? But if an adult is likewise used with his or her consent, then there never was a child to suffer emotional injury.

Morally, it's still horrible, and no child should be allowed to view such pictures, but legally, I have a problem with jumping on the bandwagon that it's the business of government to play mind police to otherwise law abiding adults. I guess it's my libertarian streak showing.

Morally, it's still horrible, and no child should be allowed to view such pictures...

It's not children who are viewing porn. I don't think a young child would know what it was if they saw it. It's the adults I'm worried about.

Let me ask you: Would you like to see a picture of your daughter's face superimposed on a sexually explicit pose? If you don't have a daughter, just imagine that you do.

I have a problem with jumping on the bandwagon that it's the business of government to play mind police to otherwise law abiding adults.

This is not going into anybody's "mind". Child porn is not a mental fantasy. It's something concrete: either computer images, or photographs, or magazines.

I think the Supreme Court incorrectly decided that virtual child porn was acceptable. I wonder if they would feel the same if pictures of their own children were used in these graphically altered images? This was a very bad decision, IMHO. Disgraceful, I might add.