I would like to point out that the Supreme Court has established that nudity is NOT obscene nor X-rated. There is nothing about the previous avatar that is sexual. And certainly no real child was involved.
However, since you have requested politely to change it, I have. But, if this forum is going to support the idea that hand drawn or CGI art is not child pornography, it might be wise to evaluate your own response.
I understand that, but please understand what I mean when I say that the forum isnât the place for that content to be posted. We want to be accessible for people all over the world, not just the US and sadly that means having content restrictions.
While I understand that nudity itself isnât per se explicit, having a shot such as the one you previously had, if it were a real child, would have violated the DOST standard and could be perceived as âlasciviousâ.
Thank you for changing your image to something non-explicit.
But just because we advocate for such things doesnât mean we wish to host or provide a direct platform to accommodate them. The Prostasia Foundation is a charity, and its forum ought to reflect that.
And my avatar is a zombie loli. Get some necro in here, too.
The DOST test is ill defined and should be rejected. Criticism of it:
The test was criticized by NYU Law professor Amy Adler as forcing members of the public to look at pictures of children as a pedophile would in order to determine whether they are considered inappropriate. âAs everything becomes child pornography in the eyes of the lawâclothed children, coy children, children in settings where children are foundâperhaps children themselves become pornographicâ.[16]
Robert J. Danay notes, âThe application of these factors, as in Knox , necessitates a drawn out analysis of materials that most people would not, in the past, have considered obscene or even sexual in nature. Through such analyses, police, judges, lawyers, and, ultimately, members of the public are forced to closely inspect increasingly innocuous images of children (and children generally) to determine whether the depicted children might be acting in a sexual manner.â[
Further, Dost only focused on the prong of the Miller Doctrine that deals specifically with appealing to the prurient interest. The other two prongs of the Miller Doctrine, are whether or not the material violates contemporary community standards, and whether or not the material in question has serious artistic, literary, or political value.
Prostasia is a research and advocacy non-profit foundation. You cannot research questions no one is allowed to ask. The foundation should stand behind those principles that it espouses. However, if @Terminus feels that my remarks are not appropriate, I will remove them.
And anyone who canât see that the computer generated image I used is not a real child, needs to get their eyes checked. It was carefully crafted not to violate the law. As for other countries around the world, they are entitled to their opinions, but this organization is based in the US.
Besides, I was just trying to troll the troll, not create a political statement.
Please do keep in mind the audience of this forum.
The Prostasia Foundation may be based out of the US, but we still need to keep the laws of other countries in mind. Prostasia may act as a lighthouse organization of sorts for people experiencing high levels of censorship and repression, and such imagery may make then afraid their government will use it against them.
The image you have currently set isnât offensive, but it can still be shocking. I hope @terminus can weigh in on this and what the guidelines are.
It hasnât been necessary to set guidelines for user avatars until now, but I would say that @Larry has now made his point, and should set his avatar to something less deliberately provocative.
Okay. The current one is me as Captain of the USS Enterprise. (Huge Star Trek fan since 1966)
Just call me âCaptainâ. 
Enterprise isnât a loli, though. If you insist on USS, I suggest Albacore or Cavalla. As for myself, I much prefer KMS, such as U-81 or Z18
omg, Iâve read through these law codes now, and I donât remember ever reading such graphic material about cp, Iâm happy Iâm not a lawyer, {or -for that matter- a prosecutor looking through computer files of a suspect 
}
You know a child protection organization can be taken seriously when its forum members have zombie loli avatars.
I do this to filter out witch-burners, like you, out. Itâs ultimately fruitless from an accused âwitchâ to think that any civil discussion can occur between her and the stupid peasants that wish her harm out of fear and ignorance. Next, youâll be accusing me of turning you into a newt.
âI got better.â 