is 3d rendered content excemted on childporn law? - GoFuckYourself.com

goldmine · 04-26-2007, 12:27 PM

i just saw a free tour of a 3d rendered paysite with a topless child... is it legal?

Humpy Leftnut · 04-26-2007, 12:29 PM

I would report it

Webby · 04-26-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldmine

i just saw a free tour of a 3d rendered paysite with a topless child... is it legal?

Hard to say... If it is of an actual child (photo imagery), and depending on the context ie is it a "sex site" or something totally innocent? If it is in cartoon or anime form, understand that is excluded under US law.

There is nothing wrong with some image of a child "topless" (who hasn't got pics of their kids etc), - but really depends if it is in some weirdo sexual context.

If it's a adult paysite as you are presumably implying - guess would be there is reason to look further and report it. If it's otherwise, be wary about clogging up the system with fruitless investigations.

goldmine · 04-26-2007, 01:19 PM

its a porn/adult 3d rendered model paysite... i just saw a child with a mosquito bite boobies beside the images of a male and female 3d rendered models doing doggy style

Webby · 04-26-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldmine

its a porn/adult 3d rendered model paysite... i just saw a child with a mosquito bite boobies beside the images of a male and female 3d rendered models doing doggy style

Trying to visualize this one goldmine

Very hard to say, but does sound kinda weirdo. What's the relationship (if any) between doggy style stuff and the child being stuffed into the scenario? You suspect there is actual CP in the site?

Sounds like a graphic artist on a mindbender and no thought to the content

Hard to say without seeing it, but don't "appear" to be an offense as it is (just damned weird!) - but, makes ya wonder what else there is

Webby · 04-26-2007, 01:32 PM

Ah... is this another of these pathetic "pedo fantasy" sites trying to imply there is some form of CP inside?? Basically the type of websites who search the world for "small models" and dress em up as kids. Or... in this instance "keeping it legal" by not showing any CP, but attempting to suggest it?

If in doubt - report it man - they are a waste of good air and need to be "confined" :-)

candyflip · 04-26-2007, 01:34 PM

I don't think anything has been overturned, but I'm pretty sure this stuff doesn't fall under the category of CP, just sick shit for sick shits.

jonesonyou · 04-26-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humpy Leftnut

I would report it

Good Idea.

just a punk · 04-26-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldmine

i just saw a free tour of a 3d rendered paysite with a topless child... is it legal?

If if can see a real child being used on that content it's definitely a crime. If all the persons are drawn it's not. It's wrong and amoral but not illegal. The law protects the REAL KIDS but not the toons and other pokemons till they are not alive.

flashfire · 04-26-2007, 03:03 PM

pokemon porn...lol

Humpy Leftnut · 04-26-2007, 03:10 PM

I think the point of all of this is just that whoever thinks that's acceptable on any kind of adult related website, should be on lists, should be looked into, and should be hassled. It's the least we can do.

just a punk · 04-26-2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by candyflip

I don't think anything has been overturned, but I'm pretty sure this stuff doesn't fall under the category of CP, just sick shit for sick shits.

Absolutely correct! It's sick but not illegal. The law is used to protect the real children but not to punish someone's perverted fantasies. Everyone has a right to be insane motherfucker until he don't realize his fantasies on the real persons.

just a punk · 04-26-2007, 03:35 PM

One more point. Do you think killing people is less evil than CP? So why not forbid all those 3D shooters like Far Cry or Call Of Duty where you shoot the drawn people to dead? Is it crime to shoot the 3D person? I don't think so. But it's definitely a crime if you decide to shoot a real human. The same with CP. Until it's drawn, it can't be a crime as sick and insane it may look (killing the ppl in computer games with guns and knifes is also not really sane thing IMHO...)

Webby · 04-26-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Absolutely correct! It's sick but not illegal. The law is used to protect the real children but not to punish someone's perverted fantasies. Everyone has a right to be insane motherfucker until he don't realize his fantasies on the real persons.

There are plenty other ways of skinning a cat once folks draw attention to themselves :-) Assuming it's not actually "illegal", but just sicko shit - report it anyway and let whatevers follow on

Webby · 04-26-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

One more point. Do you think killing people is less evil than CP? So why not forbid all those 3D shooters like Far Cry or Call Of Duty where you shoot the drawn people to dead? Is it crime to shoot the 3D person? I don't think so. But it's definitely a crime if you decide to shoot a real human. The same with CP. Until it's drawn, it can't be a crime as sick and insane it may look (killing the ppl in computer games with guns and knifes is also not really sane thing IMHO...)

"CP" is really a "nothing" in ranking (basically child pornography) child protection - and sure killing folks is far more serious. The relevant part about "CP" is the offenses which occurred in the production of CP - and, prob not a surprise, children are murdered following child abuse offenses (especially if they can identify their abusers).

notabook · 04-26-2007, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

There are plenty other ways of skinning a cat

That's for damn sure.

BoyAlley · 04-26-2007, 04:34 PM

If it's 100% computer generated imagery it's not CP and it's obviously not covered by 2257 either.

HOWEVER!

Just because it's not CP, because it doesn't depict an actual real-life child, it may still be OBSCENE!!!!!!!!!!

Let's not forget the charges recently filed against the Red Rose Story Archive, which contained only WRITTEN WORD descriptions of fictitious minors engaged in sexual context.

Certainly if the government's position is that written word descriptions of minors in sexual cicrumstance is obsencene, it would certainly be logical to say that they'd view generated imagery as being the same.

nikooo · 04-27-2007, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

If it's 100% computer generated imagery it's not CP and it's obviously not covered by 2257 either.

HOWEVER!

Just because it's not CP, because it doesn't depict an actual real-life child, it may still be OBSCENE!!!!!!!!!!

Let's not forget the charges recently filed against the Red Rose Story Archive, which contained only WRITTEN WORD descriptions of fictitious minors engaged in sexual context.

Certainly if the government's position is that written word descriptions of minors in sexual cicrumstance is obsencene, it would certainly be logical to say that they'd view generated imagery as being the same.

I agree with you.....................

04-26-2007, 12:27 PM	#1
goldmine Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USS Enterprise Posts: 952	is 3d rendered content excemted on childporn law? i just saw a free tour of a 3d rendered paysite with a topless child... is it legal?

04-26-2007, 12:29 PM	#2
Humpy Leftnut Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,292	I would report it __________________ Humpy Leftnut - Pornsumer Reviews

04-26-2007, 01:32 PM	#6
Webby Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Far far away - as possible Posts: 14,956	Ah... is this another of these pathetic "pedo fantasy" sites trying to imply there is some form of CP inside?? Basically the type of websites who search the world for "small models" and dress em up as kids. Or... in this instance "keeping it legal" by not showing any CP, but attempting to suggest it? If in doubt - report it man - they are a waste of good air and need to be "confined" :-) __________________ XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat. Last edited by Webby; 04-26-2007 at 01:33 PM..

04-26-2007, 01:34 PM	#7
candyflip Carpe Visio Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: New York Posts: 43,064	I don't think anything has been overturned, but I'm pretty sure this stuff doesn't fall under the category of CP, just sick shit for sick shits. __________________ Spend you some brain. Email Me

04-26-2007, 03:10 PM	#11
Humpy Leftnut Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,292	I think the point of all of this is just that whoever thinks that's acceptable on any kind of adult related website, should be on lists, should be looked into, and should be hassled. It's the least we can do. __________________ Humpy Leftnut - Pornsumer Reviews

04-26-2007, 01:19 PM	#4
goldmine Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USS Enterprise Posts: 952	its a porn/adult 3d rendered model paysite... i just saw a child with a mosquito bite boobies beside the images of a male and female 3d rendered models doing doggy style

04-26-2007, 03:03 PM	#10
flashfire ICQ 1 6 7 8 5 3 4 9 2 Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 13,098	pokemon porn...lol

04-26-2007, 03:35 PM	#13
just a punk So fuckin' bored Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 32,386	One more point. Do you think killing people is less evil than CP? So why not forbid all those 3D shooters like Far Cry or Call Of Duty where you shoot the drawn people to dead? Is it crime to shoot the 3D person? I don't think so. But it's definitely a crime if you decide to shoot a real human. The same with CP. Until it's drawn, it can't be a crime as sick and insane it may look (killing the ppl in computer games with guns and knifes is also not really sane thing IMHO...) __________________ Obey the Cowgod Last edited by just a punk; 04-26-2007 at 03:37 PM..

04-26-2007, 04:34 PM	#17
BoyAlley So Fucking Gay Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 19,714	If it's 100% computer generated imagery it's not CP and it's obviously not covered by 2257 either. HOWEVER! Just because it's not CP, because it doesn't depict an actual real-life child, it may still be OBSCENE!!!!!!!!!! Let's not forget the charges recently filed against the Red Rose Story Archive, which contained only WRITTEN WORD descriptions of fictitious minors engaged in sexual context. Certainly if the government's position is that written word descriptions of minors in sexual cicrumstance is obsencene, it would certainly be logical to say that they'd view generated imagery as being the same.