Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/16/2002 4:44:24 PM EDT
http://www.msnbc.com/news/739373.asp?pne=11947&0ct=-300&cp1=1 cut'n'paste, then post some of your efforts.
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 5:04:24 PM EDT
If you click on [red]BOARD CODE[/red] at the bottom of the reply window it will explain links and other code. Like so.. [url]http://www.msnbc.com/news/739373.asp?pne=11947&0ct=-300&cp1=1[/url] Sgtar15
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 8:49:20 PM EDT
The ban on "virtual child porn" is pretty f*cking stupid. It's one of those laws where (1) pornography is in the eye of the beholder, and (2) "child" is turned into a vague "if it looks like a child, we'll treat it as if it were". I had a girlfriend in college who was 22, but looked 12. Literally. She couldn't buy a drink because nobody would believe her ID. She got thrown out of a convention we went to because they wouldn't believe she was a college student. If I'd ever taken a naked picture of her, I would have been turned in by the developing lab, no doubt about it. Would that count as "virtual child porn"? Or would I have to photoshop her face onto some skinny 19-year-old's body before it would count as "virtual"? And then, what's pornography? Is it any nude photo (as has been judged by local standards in Memphis, TN)? Or is California's standard of "two guys and a dog" the one to use? Dumb, stupid, bad, [red]evil[/red] law. The Supremes were right to strike it down.
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 10:22:25 PM EDT
Top Top