Comment Precedent (Score 1) 498
In the case of "virtual porno" there's something I haven't seen considered yet. Supreme Court cases set a precedent. When I think of what's at stake in this case, I think hentai or two CG characters of questionable age getting their groove on. What happens down the road, then, when technology allows quick and dirty photorealism?
The question, at that point, becomes why is it illegal? Is it because of what it depicts, or because of how it was created? What is at stake isn't freedoms to see child porno, but in what manner it can be created.
The time when photorealistic CG is easily created is fast approaching, and a Supreme Court ruling will be the final word on how that technology can be used in many situations. I'm not exactly sure I like the idea of rendered kiddie porn, but I know I like the idea of how a ruling forbidding it can be applied as precedence even less.
The question, at that point, becomes why is it illegal? Is it because of what it depicts, or because of how it was created? What is at stake isn't freedoms to see child porno, but in what manner it can be created.
The time when photorealistic CG is easily created is fast approaching, and a Supreme Court ruling will be the final word on how that technology can be used in many situations. I'm not exactly sure I like the idea of rendered kiddie porn, but I know I like the idea of how a ruling forbidding it can be applied as precedence even less.
