RawAlex

The problem with this situation is that people (and sadly the courts) have been roped in to believing that there can be no such thing as RELATIVE freedoms, just absolutes. You can write ANYTHING, you can write NOTHING. Some first amerndment supporters will stand up and fight for the rights of the Red Rose story site because they think if the courts take a little, they will next take a whole bunch.

There is no "grey", no judgement, no nothing. They see a court saying "yes or no" and that is it. If they say "it's illegal" they feel that every other type of free speech will be affected.

cyberxxx said "So if some movie will has about 99.9% of story line, character development, and a tale to tell but only 0.1% of REAL cp scenes. Would you consider it cp? Personally I would!"

I have to take you to task on this. NOBODY, NOBODY would tolerate a movie that showed actual CP scene. You are attempting to make turn my comments to the extreme, and that isn't the case. The movies mentioned (including Lolita) have no actual sex in them. implied... yes. highly suggestive, yes... but no actual sex. FURTHER, you will not find a single movie in the US right now that even suggests sex with a 6 month old child. While your argument is nice grade school debate tactics, it doesn't hold water. You could have a movie that implied someone had sex with a very young child and it would be disgusting but tolerable in the overall telling of the tale. You could not have a movie that is 2 hours of a man raping a 6 month old child in detail.

Again, it gets back to the problem of attempting to make judgement fit into the bizarre absolutes people try to stand on. CP is bad - no matter HOW it is presented. Suggesting that sex with a minor (especially such young children) is acceptable is bad. However, SANE people can see where dramatic representation of the circumstances of such an event could be part of a movie without being CP.

In all honesty, I would rather give up the right to porn rather than stand behind these sickos.

Alex