AUGUSTA, Maine — Legislative leaders have approved consideration of a bill to conform Maine definitions of pornography to federal law. At issue are sophisticated computer programs that can be used to create pornographic images of children that look real, but are not.
Sen. Brian Langley, R-Ellsworth, got the unanimous support of the ten elected leaders of the legislature to introduce the bill after deadline. He said a recent case in Hancock County led to the measure after a middle school principal told him of an incident at that school.
“Their IT person was arrested for child pornography on their computer and when they delved into it they found it was anime, a cartoon, which is not against Maine law, but is against federal law,” he said.
Langley told leadership his bill, yet to be printed, would simply have Maine law mirror federal law. The measure is sure to generate controversy.
“We looked at that three or four year ago when I was co-chair of the committee,” said Sen. Stan Gerzofsky, D-Brunswick, the only democratic senator on the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. “It was controversial then and failed and I think it will be this time.”
He said the committee at that time had trouble identifying a “crime” since no child had been exploited or abused in making the image. He said even though the image looked real, it was not and the state should be concerned about crimes in the real world, not the cyber world.
“With computer graphics the way they are today, you might not even be able to tell the difference between an animated image and a standard photographic image,” said Sen. Garrett Mason, R-Livermore Falls, the co-chairman of the panel. “This is definitely something we should be looking at.”
He said computer programs are available now for free online that rival the quality of the computer generated images in such movies as Avatar. He said when it comes to child pornography, he believes possessing an image from any source that depicts a child engaged in any type of sex act should be against the law.
Rep. Gary Plummer, R-Windham, the House co-chairman of the panel said the committee will take the time to consider the bill. He expects the measure will come to the committee, even though it has yet to be printed and referred.
“We certainly will deal with it and I agree that we are always playing catch up with technology,” he said.
Plummer said once he has the actual language of the bill he will be in a better position to judge whether the measure is needed. He said the fact it is against federal law means persons possessing such materials can be charged and brought to trial under the federal law.
Rep. Anne Haskell, D-Portland, is the lead Democrat on the panel and is a former co-chair. She agreed the committee should spend the time needed to consider the bill, although she shares Gerzofsky’s concerns that the images, however real looking, are not images of real children.
“Where is the victim?” she said. “We have these laws to try and protect children and if a child was not exploited in making it, where is the victim we seek to protect?”
Haskell said the state has outlawed images that are made by manipulating a photo or other images to animate them or change their appearance but are still based on an actual image of a child. She said the difficulty of the issue is reflected in the number of court cases there have been concerning child pornography, and that courts have ruled differently on specific questions.
The lawmakers all said those that prey on children span all ages and demographic groups and are hard to identify until caught. That is backed up by a study done for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children of 1,713 people arrested for the possession of child pornography in a one year period.
It found those in the sample spanned all income, education, marital status and age demographics.
Forty percent of those arrested were “dual offenders,” who sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the same investigation.
The measure will likely be scheduled for a public hearing in February.
Child porn of ANY kind should be outlawed!!!
let me ask you this:
in the state of Idaho, it is legal to be married at 17 (actually much younger, but I want to use 17 as the example)
If the married 17 year old couple makes videos of their honey moon, is it right that Mr. Married 17 year old go to federal prison? There is NO VICTIM and no laws were broken until he made a video.
IS that video vile and perverted?
It is not always black and white
Not always black and white? Then ban ALL porn on the Internet. The Internet is no place for such perverted filth. The sick individuals that need porn can get it off-line.
Wrong. You are one of the first to decry the erosion of individual rights and yet you suggest a major form of censorship simply because you do not like the media. No, one needn’t be a purveyor nor customer of porn to defend freedom of speech.
Actually, I’m speaking for the children that come across this bunk and are changed for life because of some sick, twisted individual that posted it out there. Pornography is NOT freedom of speech, any more than hate speech is freedom of speech.
“Pornography is NOT freedom of speech” The law would disagree with you, thankfully.
“Then ban ALL porn on the Internet. The Internet is no place for such perverted filth. The sick individuals that need porn can get it off-line.”
Do it in the name of less big government interference in our lives ?
Then after that ban all religious extremism on the internet, too’.
The harm done is similar and the same; “Those sick individuals that need that crap can get it off-line. ” argument applies, so perfectly well to both .
“The Internet is no place for such perverted filth.” Since when do you decide what the internet is for, and what is perverted / not perverted?
That’s the biggest problem with the world and all who inhabit it.
It’s why we have war over oil and religion.
Everybody is free to believe what they believe, and just because we don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not possible no matter how crazy it sounds. They said the same thing about flying machines and the idea of internet back in the 20s, I believe.
Everybody is so concentrated on Black and White that they completely forget that color exists, and makes everything what it is.
If you believe in God, go for it. Nobody can change that no matter how much they kill or argue.
If you appreciate art, go for it. Nobody can change that no matter how much they kill or argue.If you prefer Medium-Rare over Well-Done steak, go for it. Nobody can change that.But nobody is in the position to call somebody wrong for sticking by what they believe in, and no matter how much that’s argued or fought about you can’t take a man away from his beliefs. So who makes any progress?
… and next cartoons, too ?
It is not lost on me how much flack I will get for suggesting that our religious extremists
are is very much like the Islamist ones, in that both fear cartoons so much,
because the point relative to liberty and freedom is already lost on them them both
as they all try to outlaw other people’s sin.
But still it is the truth.
To void this being dismissed by the conservative “christians” as being one of those
“only you liberal non-believers would not understand” thingies, a conservative libertarian is needed here. Clean up on on isle 5 ?
EXACTLY ! , what positive purpose does it serve ! NONE , and dont try to tell me its a matter of freedom of speech because the children being exploited have no say in it !
Even if it’s drawings based on someone’s imagination?
if you are imagining child porn in your imagination , in most cases there just might be an underlying issue that you may need professional help for !
Perhaps, but again, that’s not the issue at hand.
Would you rather, pedophiles fulfill their desires in fantasy, or have them find other outlets to release? Since no one is directly hurt, by animated child porn, it should not be a criminal offense. Legal action would be a waste of tax dollars. Real child porn should stay illegal, do to the fact individuals were exploited to produce it, but fantasy is fantasy. Let’s keep our priorities straight Maine. We need to think logically, not emotionally.
Controversy? I Hope that any State Rep on that committee that thinks it should be legal has it publicly exposed! I see he is the only democrat now. BUT was he the only democrat when it failed to come out of committee before?
It should be outlawed, I think everyone can agree on this one!
This was posted on Facebook and this is the question asked : The Bangor Daily News
Do you think computer-generated pornographic images of children should be outlawed? Take our poll:
I have to say, who ever wrote this question is a JACKWAGON and probably supports pornographic images of children. Shame on you Bangor Daily !!!!!
How do they tell if the cartoon girl is 17 or 18?
Cartoon will have to sign a waiver declaring they are of age?
I’d have to agree with this statement…All the anime I see is of Busty individuals…I wouldn’t call it child porn, just pornographic in a way I guess….
Host of the sex in the Bible is between underage people. Heck it features rape – lets ban the Bible guys!
Who are the ten people who voted ‘no’ (as I’m typing) in the poll above? Sickos
Wow. With a$200-million hole in the state budget, these bozos think their highest priority is to outlaw something that is already illegal. Shades of the whoopie pie debate.
This is nothing more than a bunch of vain nitwits trying to gin up media accolades for themselves.
oh yeah, we need to ban underage whoopie pies from showing the creme filling.
Vile and disturbing yes, but there is plenty of porn out there that meets that definition yet it is still legal. Child porn rightfully gets special status as criminal because it victimizes a child. No child is victimized by the making of these computer generated images. Haskell is correct. Having twisted desires should not be criminal, acting on these desires to someone else’s detriment should be. That is not the case here.
My concern isn’t the computer-generated pictures. It’s the mindset of anyone who would look at it…it’s likely a matter of time before the animation isn’t enough for their sick minds and they prey on the “real thing.”
I feel like this question of whether or not this is legal is very interesting and opens up even more questions. Murder is illegal but video games show computer-generated images of this type of violence all the time yet, they aren’t illegal. Certainly, I am in no way saying that computer-generated child porn should be legal. I think that exploitation of children, whether they be real or virtual is horrendous. But if we’re looking at whether or not computer-generated images are legal or not shouldn’t we also question the legality of virtually putting bullets through peoples heads and beating others with baseball bats? If the poll question were “Do you think extreme violence in video games should be banned?” I’m sure many would say “No, what;s the harm it’s all fake.” It’s interesting to see what our society is willing and not willing to accept.
You know, you do raise a very interesting point. I’m not sure what the difference is, other than the fact that playing video games with violence seems to be something a majority of society finds acceptable. However, I haven’t met many people who find anything to do with young children in the nude or performing sexual acts to be acceptable. It is interesting how and why we humans think though, heh?
OK, so we will have a the law that outlaws cartoons.
“He said computer programs are available now for free online that rival
the quality of the computer generated images in such movies as Avatar.”
Only problem is, as with other such laws (applied to substances), the effect is to make it cheaper, safer, and easier to use real children. The real purpose of the legislation is to ensure that REAL children are subjected to the actions in question.
Reality, and history, dictate that the use of cartoons — mere animation, regardless of degree of reality, and requiring NO actual child be involved — is preferable to the current state of being. However, in the mind of these legislators, the goal is to ensure that children must be used — that there is no alternative. This is standard Republican fare: THE MOST HARM TO THE MOST PEOPLE by all actions and legislation possible. They would — though denied by word, and proved by deed — ensure that children are a necessary resource for an industry which cannot be controlled.
You want to explain to me how gay marriage has anything to do with child pornography? Your comment is so ridiculously ignorant, that I actually feel bad for you.
It doesn’t, there is a certain brand of people called liberal lefties that typically fall into the category of supporting the “anything goes” laws.
Don’t feel bad for me. Feel bad for the kids being exploited and the kids of gay parents who are missing out on a complete childhood.
If you’re so inclined you can support traditional families and vote to ban any kind of child porn, real or computer generated.
This isn’t lib vs. con! It’s the perverted vs. normal.
100% correct.
this is YOUR definition of perverted
vs
YOUR definition of normal
So you think watching or creating CGP is normal?
So if a school kid thinks he’s funny and draws a stick figure of a boy and girl having sex, he’s created child porn? Or maybe he’s a little more artistic and draws the pretty girl next to him without any clothes on, no matter how crude the actual drawing is. What about someone drawing cartoons of Bart and Lisa from The Simpsons? Is that child porn? One state apparently thought so…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/3681599/Judge-rules-characters-in-Simpsons-style-sex-cartoon-are-child-pornography.html
What about Family Guy when their artists depict child characters such as Meg being involved in sexual acts or prostitution? What if a professional painter here in Maine sketches an artistic nude of a child playing on a beach, which already exist in Maine galleries – is that child porn?
Will church illustrations of nude cherubs (among other Christian images) suddenly be deemed child porn? Cartoon depictions of newborn babies? Computer games like The Sims or Second Life, especially when user apply third party patches to allow simulated nudity in such games?
What about popular Disney movies or cartoons where some character, as part of a joke, loses their pants and you can see their butt or even the crack of their butt? Is that child porn? Who will determine the age of abstract characters that don’t exist? How much will it cost taxpayers to pay for expert witnesses to help prosecute kids for the sketches they draw in their journals, or to ensure well-known Maine painters and sketch artists go to prison for their depictions of children? Who will decide what media must be banned in the State of Maine – what TV shows, cartoons, movies, paintings, drawings, videos, etc. will be banned?
What about the picture every parent has of their 0-2 y/o child in the bathtub?
uh, let’s keep it on topic.
Guvnah, this is the topic. Its called a slippery slope. While none of us feel that child pornography is ok in any circumstance; in this case, there was NO child. Only an image created out of thin air with the aid of the artist’s imagination.
As an artist I am very concerned about some of the implications of the “thought police” laws that were are seeing more frequently of late.
Unfortuneatly, it’s not just an image created out of thin air.
It’s an image that depicts vile and unnatural things, done to innocent, defensless children.
Maybe if you had any, or had one that had been the victim of sexual abuse brought on by these images, you would be singing an entirely different tune.
You’re saying that you’re right to be an artist should come at the expense of anybody and everyone, including exploited children?
That’s what we’re getting from your statement. If so, that’s sick.
the act is done to innocent and defenseless computer pixels. or to innocent and defenseless paint. (there are NO children in the examples in the story)
BUT, Really? You want to make this sort of thing illegal?
I would like to see it illegal for you to even have that thought!
go directly to jail… and the only way out of this jail is to prove that you never had THAT thought.
Some people are incapable of thoughts that are the least bit abstract.
What I’m getting is that if you were Muslim, this would be about images of Mohammed.
I see what you’re saying, could be a slippery slope. Also I feel perverts would always find a way around the laws. I mean if it is Computer generated, child porn could easily become smurf porn, or elf porn. If you’ve ever seen Japanese animation everyone looks like children. How do you police that? I do still feel like any form of child porn should be illegal, but how do you police this?
I don’t think that is computer generated Porn.
Most Anime out there does not show explicit anything. The Japanese where this is generated have strict regulation about the use of anything promoting images of genitalia. Yes there are some artists that their work should not be allowed on youtube, and I flag it if I see it. But for the most part, the actual depiction this legality is predicting is like saying we can no say the pledge of alegiance because some yahoo doesnt like what freedom in america stands for.
By the way, since BDN decided its readers aren’t interested enough (or too stupid?) to read the bill, let alone even know the name of the bill, here it is:
LR 2681
Senator Brian D. Langley
An Act to Conform Certain Aspects of Maine Law Regarding Child Pornography with Federal Law
…If anyone finds a link to the actual wording of the bill, please post it here. It is disturbing that nearly 100 people have already voted (on BDN) in favor of the bill when they haven’t even read the text of it, and, until this posting (as of 1/29/12 at 4:45pm EST), didn’t even know the title of the bill.
“Langley told leadership his bill, yet to be printed, would simply have Maine law mirror federal law.”
Then BDN and these lawmakers are totally misleading the public, because Federal Law does NOT ban simulated child porn. It’s been that way for nearly a decade after the US Supreme Court struck it down in 2002:
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-04-16/justice/scotus.virtual.child.porn_1_child-pornography-traffic-and-american-beauty-sexually-explicit-activity?_s=PM:LAW
imvu chat is a example of animated porn
bottom dwellers wouldn’t even take a bite of that guy.
you can buy cards at walmart and target for imvu chat to buy for your avatar for imvu 10000 to 50k credits very addicting and if you buy Access Pass there is porn animations
Wow, this is a tough one. At first glance, it seems like a no brainer, but I am not sure. I can’t believe that there is a much out there, but when I did temp work at a local magazine distributor, I could not believe the hundreds of different porn magazines that are being made. I think people who get into the child porn are very sick, but if a cartoon satisfies them and keeps them away from real kids, well, that is the lesser of the evils. If you regulate what peope draw, isnt the next step banning books? I seem to remember Steven King’s book “It” having a part where kids have sex together. Is it also porn? I am thinking this law should not be put into effect.
You know, I thought it was a no brainer as well, but a lot of people have raised some very interesting points here. Nothing is black and white, that’s for certain. I’m interested in seeing the proposed law and how it reads. Would it really make it illegal to have those bathtub pictures of your children? The artwork of an artist of the baby’s buttocks? etc.? Interesting points that never crossed my mind
I have a few pictures of my son in the bathtub just the same as probably most parents have. As long as they are kept privately and NOT posted nationally or on the internet I don’t see anything wrong with it, it’s certainly not child porn. And, seriously, how many people have been to church and seen child angels in painting and prints? Does that mean that the law will demand that God will have to provide clothing for these images now? Or will these images have to be removed from all churches … hmmm, maybe Gov Lepage would like to order the removal, I hear he’s pretty experienced at having murels removed.
But how can you exploit someone who doesn’t exist?
I guess vitual righteousness is a faith based thing.
What’s to consider????
How can these lawmakers say their law will reflect Federal Law? That is completely false because Federal Law does NOT ban simulated child porn. This article and the lawmakers involved don’t have any idea what they are talking about. Lookup Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002). The US Supreme Court already determined that simulated child porn is LEGAL in this country, and restricting such speech is a violation of Constitutional rights.
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-04-16/justice/scotus.virtual.child.porn_1_child-pornography-traffic-and-american-beauty-sexually-explicit-activity?_s=PM:LAW
I wish our lawmakers and BDN would get a clue. Even if this bill passes, it will just be struck down and found unconstitutional by pre-existing SCOTUS precedent.
you are thinking and using reason, and worse yet, the Constitution and SCOTUS precedent.. None of which belong in this forum.
I like the idea of having the 17 year old computer generated model sign a waiver, pretending to be 18.
I need mental help for asking a legitimate question?
How about answering the question.
Work with sex offendors. Then you will know the answer. Excellent probation officers are strict and they must be. No adult porn can be viewed. It is amazing what can set off a sex offender, even a stuffed animal or childrens toys. Sex offenders aren’t allowed in toy isles of stores or in toy stores. They list goes on and on. Educate yourself there is alot to it. Its more then giving them mental help. I know these rules may not apply for all sex offenders it depends on your parole officer. I am saying an excellent parole officer is strict and these are some of the strictest rules, I’ve seen.
If you do not submit to his religious beliefs then you must be insane.
Go willing to his re-education program, or his thought police… the Avenging Angels …will work their final solution on you, Ryan.
Everybody Must Get Stoned
***ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION (2002)***
I can’t imagine that everyone won’t agree on this one. I don’t care if the kid is real or an animated character, it’s disgusting and vulgar for anyone to remotely find that desirable. Those types of folks don’t need to be in our society, IMO
that is what the First Amendment protects, things that YOU might find vulgar. As long as there are no victims, why are you trying to pass Orwellian thought police law?
See my other posts. I’m not trying to take away your first amendment quite as much as you might think. Though I still do think that anyone (an adult) who would enjoy a child in a sexual setting is a sicko living amongst us
And the same might be said for people who want to have sex with others of the same gender.
This is a slippery slope….
In some people’s minds, yes. But I think there is a tremendous difference in the mental state of a homosexual desiring a relationship between 2 consenting adults and of the one desiring a young child.
Yes, I do agree with that.
But what I’m wondering if allowing computer generated pictures that allow the creator to depict whatever he wants while NOT using real children will reduce the actual incidents of real child pornography.
In any case, there is no child harmed in the pornography we’re talking about. How can a crime be committed if there is no actual victim?
It’s a fine line, there’s no doubt about it. I’m scared of anyone who would look at even animated children in that way. I’m not an expert on mental health by any means, but my gut feeling is that eventually this person would no longer be satisfied with the animation and would seek out a live victim. That being said, however, a sexual predator is still going to do what a sexual predator is going to do.
I guess I have a personal interest in this particular situation (since the IT tech who was noted in the above article was actually at our school. I was sickened. Perhaps I’m a hater for saying it, but after he was arrested and it was brought about that the materials on his computers were only animated, I was still just as disgusted to think that he was around our community’s children every day with the sick mind that he possessed. Maybe I’m wrong for that. Maybe I should give him an award for not involving any of the children and using animation instead, but I’m sure glad he’s out of our school system and, well, in my mind, he will always be a sicko.
Very interesting conversation though. It’s such a fine line between too much government involvement in people’s lives and maintaining one’s freedoms. Tough.
I think all sexual activity is perverted and disgusting. Someone should arrest “God” for his perverted ideas concerning procreation.
It would be cleaner and less complicated to be able to purchase your children by color and gender at the local Walmart.
if there is not a real child who is a real victim, there should be no law.
I agree with the stick figure example. absurdity!
we clowns who THINK and who read laws and help judges adjudicate?
I have a hard time believing that ball point pens can cease to amaze YOU… or a thermos.
traditional marriage?
you realize that the one man, one woman thing is pretty new, and frankly it was just to join two ruling families in order to stop a potential war about 400 years ago.
THEN the peasants started doing it, and “traditional marriage” meant that the woman was the personal property of the man… “who gives this woman to this man” was not a figure of speech.
so… if the woman stepped out of line IN ANY WAY, the man could break her arms or legs or punch her out, and NOBODY could do or say anything about it… it was just like he was breaking some furniture he didn’t like any more.
do you REALIZE that THAT is what traditional marriage was only 80 years ago in the USA?
that said… you are asking that computer pixels arranged in a certain way be the cause of someone going to jail….
and I am wasting my time.
Did you just throw Gay Marriage in there? Where the hell did that come from? : (
I thought this issue was pretty cut and dry, but obviously I was wrong.
My personal opinion, there should not be computer generated porn!
Arrest anyone who ever had a bad thought oops we would not have police. I think anyone that gets off on kids having sex might be sick. It does not mean they would ever hurt a child. Give someone 10 years for looking at a cartoon and let the majority of real abusers go that dose not make any sense. In the real world most cases of reported child abuse will never even go to court. I do not agree with the simulated child porn . But enforcing laws like these will only make it easier for real abusers to get away with there crimes the jails are already over crowded. We need clear definitions before we make laws. A petite 20 year old could easily pass for 15 how do we define the age of the non existant person?
Bunch of sick pups in the world…..
This is a real stupid proposal. Cartoons are not damaged by “abuse” children are not damaged when cartoons are abused.
We have few enough cops on our computer task force. Let them deal with real abuse of real children, and get a cartoon cop to police toontown.
Anime (Japanese Animation) is a form of art with many forms of it including Ghibli, Chibi, 4c, etc. All animation is different, and Chibi is a common form of Anime that is enjoyed by many. Where somebody would enjoy different styles of art such as a Van Gogh or an Andy Warhol, people enjoy different types of Anime.
A 19 year old girl in an anime show could be drawn looking as such, or she can be drawn in “Chibi”, a cuter more younger version of themselves mostly enjoyed in the art community here in America by people with that type of taste.
My little brother, 16, enjoys Chibi. He used to draw his own chibi porn for his favorite shows. His characters were of age, but they all looked 7 years old. I personally wasn’t into that, so I asked him what he found so attractive about it and he always told me it’s the free-form basic style of taking something complex and wittling it down in a different style to give it a different feel. You may find cute images of cupcakes with faces, or little girls with big guns and huge eyes.
Anime is an art style, just as Andy Warhol is different from Van Gogh.
You can fight the case to the end of time, but in the end the biggest defense I think you’ll see popping up the most is the appreciation for the art.
And it can be done with everything and anything.
You can either draw it with pen and pencil, or with your finger on a frosty car window.
It can be made anywhere with anything just with the imagination.
That doesn’t make it real, and that doesn’t mean everybody is into it to get themselves off.
Most commonly you’ll find it’s the appreciation for the art.
Would you rather see a naked woman in clip-art form, or in a form of art you enjoy and appreciate more than that?
Because their questionably aged characters don’t look of age doesn’t mean they’re not.
Don’t get me wrong, if the character he was creating was created to be a naked 7 year old, that’s very wrong. But unless there’s evidence of that, it could be a differently drawn 27 year old or a character he created meant to be older than she looks.
Through that glass, you’re just punishing someone for using their hands and their tools to create an art they appreciate more than others.
When that becomes a crime, I’ll be long gone and standing on top of the world.
Like I said, if his intent was for it to be a naked child, by all means throw him behind bars.
Otherwise, trying to take the art away from the artist would be like arresting people who like cheddar cheese more than pepperjack.
So murder is not all that bad ?
If your argument is so weak as that, it is embarrassing to all us that you post it anyway.
What happen to personal responsibly on the right wing ?
I don’t like slippery slope arguments. Each thing we debate should be on its own merits. That said, the problem with child porn is that children are exploited in its creation and they tend to suffer for having been victimized as such. This proposal, as I understand it, would make it unlawful to create content that in no way exploits any child, living or dead. This, by extension, would suggest that if someone created hand sketches from their imaginations, that would constitute illegal content. This is absurd.
I fully understand why actual images are dangerous to society. I also understand why images or video that is retouched to suggest sexual themes could be damaging as long as the subject is a real person. For fanciful content to be made illegal makes no sense to me at all. I have to wonder where it stops. I want actual child pornographers punished to the full extent of the law, but if no children are actually involved in any way, how is that child porn. Isn’t it just fantasy? Can we really pass laws restricting that?
It seems to me if we want to curtail people engaging in activities that actually exploit children, we should prefer that they pursue their obsessions in ways that harm nobody, such as through digital fantasy. This moves in the direction of policing thought itself. How can you call it child porn if no child was the subject of it?
There have been highly respected authors that have depicted explicit child sex acts, even child molestation as parts of the plots in their books.
Firefly by Piers Anthony would be one good example but there are more.
If computer generated images are not protected why would material in books be protected?
Where do we draw the line and do we return to burning books?
Wouldn’t it be more effective to burn the offenders?
So one mathematical equation and arrangement of pixels is illegal, but the other is just fine? Something doesn’t pass the First Amendment sniff test.