In article <2clj8l.ic4.17.1@news.alt.net>, Sharon Williams
<no@email.spam> wrote:
> I have now found out that the defitinion of a child porn pseudoimage
> does not include 3D computer generated images, in fact it means the use
> of the real picture of a child, and its modification to make it look
> like it is porn.
>
> Using Photoshop to impose the head of a child over the body of an adult
> porn actress would fit this definition and be illegal.
>
> I am always over cautions, I have doubled checked these facts, and
> found the whole child porn law on the internet, so I am pretty sure
> about this.
>
> I will have a look under the bed see if I find anything 3D.
>
>
I've only now added this group to my list of regular groups and I've
come across this posting which, obviously, is very old.
I also see another post from the same poster saying goodbye, so maybe
any response from me will not be seen.
Also, others night have already responded to this post.
However, because of the importance of staying legal, i feel i must post
anyway and say that the above post is incorrect in several critical
ways. Anyone want me to elaborate or is is a dead issue?
|
|