Pseudo-Child Porn Legal

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the part of the Child Pornography Prevention Act that prohibited 'computer or computer-generated image or picture, that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.' This means anyone can eroticize your children's photos for autoerotic use.

read more | digg story

When I read this portion of the article, I almost vomited my lunch:

Right now, scores of websites display free, high-tech child/infant pornographic illustrations that are more vile and brutal than could ever be produced by real child photography. The "art" shows children "enjoying" their most horrific tortures, assuaging millions of viewers' consciences and suborning juvenile and adult barbaric copycat crimes.

Horrific!!

Please see the author, Dr. Judith Reisman's website.

So many incidences of children being sexually abused, tortured, and murdered are as a result of perverted predators becoming addicted to child porn. After a while, the images don't "do it" for them anymore, so like Dr. Reisman points out in her article, it leads to these sickos "acting out juvenile and adult barbaric copycat crimes."

You'll have to excuse me from completing this post. I'm terribly nauseous again.