mcgrew writes "CNN reports that 'A Tennessee man is facing charges of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor for what authorities say are three pictures — none of them featuring an actual child's body. Instead, according to testimony presented at Michael Wayne Campbell's preliminary hearing in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on Wednesday, the photos feature the faces of three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females, CNN affiliate WDEF reported.'"
Tennessee's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor, "the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor."
I wonder if that's been tested. It sounds scary, in that it assumes the "minor" part.
Actually, I read recently about a case where a guy (Christopher Handley, I think his name was), was sentenced to 15 years for simply possessing a japanese cartoon depiction of such. I don't think it has to be real anything... if it oogs somebody out, you're going to jail.
ruled that in order for something to be "child pornography", it had to be depictions of (1) real children, and (2) real pornography.
This is interesting, though, if the faces were of real children. Which side of the line does that land on?
The article mentions that, and has this little tidbit: Nearly every state, however, has adopted a law in response to the Supreme Court decision in the case, Fitzsimmons said. For instance, Tennessee's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor, "the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor." So somehow they took "it has to have real children and be real pornography" and decided to go with "we don't have to even bother proving that it's really a real person or that they're really underage". That's pretty damn scary. Although this other bit here may explain it a lot: "It's definitely on the increase," said Justin Fitzsimmons, a former prosecutor and senior attorney with the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, part of the National District Attorneys' Association. "People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence." How the hell are you supposed to sexually exploit a child using digital evidence? Fiddling with a photo in Photoshop != sexual exploitation in my book. This is really starting to sound more and more like a fucking witch hunt.
Interesting you should say that. I just recently finished reading "Witch Hunt", which is about the "Child Sex Ring" debacle that happened in Wenatchee, WA, in the '90s.
All it took was one overzealous police officer, in conjunction with some overprotective "Child Services" employees of the state, to ruin something on the order of 23 families. The book is out of print, but it is still available on Amazon. It was written by an attorney. I highly recommend it to people who think "it can't happen here", or "if they were arrested, they must be guilty of something." What happened in Wenatchee seems almost unbelievable... but you better believe it.
IMO, a bigger travesty of justice has seldom if ever occurred in the United States.
I am aware that there were other tragedies... but the scope of this one was rather large. In any case, while I did not specifically say so, I was referring to mass court convictions of innocent people, based on no evidence. While the Red Scare led to the abuse of an awful lot of people, some of them were in fact communists (whatever that was worth at the time), and while what was done to them and the "innocent" people was bad, it does not equate to decades in prison for child sex abuse (you know what they do to those people in prison), the ripping apart of families, and heavy psychological damage to otherwise innocent children.
By the way, see the reply near this one: FYI, the Wikipedia entry on "Wenatchee sex ring" is incomplete in some places and inaccurate in others.
Kathryn Lyon, the author of "Witch Hunt", is herself an attorney and rented a home in Wenatchee specifically to observe what was going on. She and some others kept meticulous records (which apparently the police department and "Child Protective Services" refused to do). When a local pastor tried to object to what was being done to families without any evidence, he found himself and his wife charged with multiple counts of sexual molestation of children. (They were eventually acquitted.) When a child welfare worker also tried to intervene, he found himself similarly charged. When they spoke up about the case, a reporter from Spokane was also threatened with charges, as was Lyon herself.
I am aware that worse things have occurred. But not many.
Well, the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (i.e., no children were actually abused or molested), then it is protected speech. I would think that a child's face pasted on an adult's body would fall into that category. But IANAL, and it is pretty close to the line.
Well, the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (i.e., no children were actually abused or molested), then it is protected speech. I would think that a child's face pasted on an adult's body would fall into that category. But IANAL, and it is pretty close to the line.
Why is that "pretty close to the line"? You said yourself, if it doesn't involve children who were actually abused or molested than it is protected speech. So why, pray tell, would this fall anywhere near the line?
There's images of real children (their faces). They were too young to give informed consent for those images being combined with the other images (adult women's bodies). (That last point technically assumes the faces weren't very old footage and in the interm the children hadn't grown up enough to give legal consent of course, and there could be other factors, such as whether anyone actually recognized a face and thought the photos were actually all of the person that went with the face, not composites.).
I.E. means 'id est', and the usual English translation of that is to hold it to mean 'that is'. I.e. is properly used when you intend to restate an idea, or expand upon it.
E.g. is an abbreviation for the Latin 'exempli gratia'. The normal English equivalent is 'for example'. If you mean to clairify by an example, and that example doesn't limit what other cases might also exist, e.g is correct.
While Jane Q Public used i.e., the original supreme court ruling didn't. Instead, it talked about possible harm to real minors, and used actual abuse or molestation as two examples of such harm, not as a limiting definition enumerating all possible harm connected to the production of material. Jane probably should have used 'e.g.'
Here's a bit from the SCOTUS decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) " Section 2256(8)(C) prohibits a more common and lower tech means of creating virtual images, known as computer morphing. Rather than creating original images, pornographers can alter innocent pictures of real children so that the children appear to be engaged in sexual activity. Although morphed images may fall within the definition of virtual child pornography, they implicate the interests of real children and are in that sense closer to the images in Ferber."
(Ferber refers to a still standing older state child pornography law Ferber v. New York. The Supreme court is holding in this paragraph that morped images that start with some innocent image of a real child are not the same situation as the 'higher tech' virtual images that are implied to exist by the first sentence and already mentioned in other parts of the decision).
Note that the court said "implicate the interests of real children", which could include many other situations than actual abuse or molestation. Presumably, the effects on the child's interests would have to be negative, although that's not really spelled out, and presumably the normal legal principles about proportionality and gravity apply, so if casting Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon had been a dumb career move, it wouldn't be enough to trigger a charge against her mother.
I am not a Lawyer either, but if you read this, it looks like Ferber v. new York, and the Miller standard that is referenced in this decision, are defining lines, and this new Tennessee case really does get pretty close to those lines if not over one or both.
These laws were designed to prevent stirring the flames of child molesters. It wouldn't matter if the faces were photographed thirty years ago and the women gave consent to use their childhood pictures.
Frankly I am at the point of thinking that even if some of this type of art actually could be proven to cause the death of children at times perhaps it should still be allowed. After all, the food served at fast food joints or allowing people to use cars also cause deaths to kids and neither fast food nor automobiles are essential elements of life.
Social engineering is a slippery beast and logic is not behind the desired consequences that people feel must occur.
The problem is, lawmakers and the public are trying to make photoshops into a crime equivalent to actual child pornography. Yes, that is thought crime, and yes, it is here. Welcome to the brave new world.
As a parent of a three-year old, I largely agree with your sentiment. However, should we demand psych treatment for people who enjoy BDSM? What about furries?
Where exactly do you intend to draw the line with acceptable fetishes that demand medical treatment, and ones that don't?
I'm not sure humans control the fetishes they enjoy, but almost rather they simply discover them.
I don't think we have a very good understanding of how the brain operates in this capacity, so I'm not sure we even have the capability to treat pedophiles aside from chemical castration.
Even worse, we sell lingerie aimed at tweens, and market teenagers as sex symbols while watching "To Catch a Predator" and decrying men sleeping with teenages are vile scum. There is a weird double-standard here.
When Kevin Smith wrote a column saying he wasn't interested in the then 16-year old Brittany Spears, and how he felt it was wrong to market teenagers as sex symbols, he got hate mail saying every healthy man on the planet wants to sleep with young teenagers.
I think society doesn't want to make this a bigger issue because they can't deal with it consistently or coherently. Instead they pass laws forbidding sex offenders from living in their towns, adding additional punishment for crimes already punished. The Supreme Court actually ruled that neither ex posto facto nor double jeopardy apply. So apparently pedophiles don't get Constitutional rights.
Statistically they are the most likely to repeat offend. So clearly, we're not dealing with the issue in any successful or meaningful way.
If they did it specifically to push the limits of the law, they need to be given a sentence of having to clean parking meters or something else tedious and annoying that makes the point that this isn't a good thing.
Testing the law is not illegal and if the acts to test it are not deemed illegal, then no punishment is necessary, IMO.
I'm not exactly clear why this guy ought to be put in jail. He had some bad thoughts.
Who else has bad thoughts?
Movie and TV producers who make media featuring simulated murder, robbery, or other criminal behavior.
Video game producers who make games featuring simulated murder, car jacking, or other criminal behavior.
Authors who write books featuring simulated...
You get the point. Why should someone be punished for imagining something? As long as nobody is actually harmed in the making of fiction, it's just fiction. As soon as we make fiction illegalh, we will definitely have come into the age of the Thought Police.
Sourced from NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS
AND ALTERNATIVES, INC. Sex Offenders Report [ncianet.org]
There is a widespread misperception that people who commit
sexual crimes do it again and again. The research, however,
directly contradicts this. Recidivism rates for sex offenses are
relatively low, typically running in the 3-13% range, and among
the lowest of all types of crimes.
In contrast, the general rearrest rate for people released from prison was 68%. The highest rates
were stealing motor vehicles (79%) and possessing or selling stolen property (77%)
The chance that a person convicted of a sex
crime will someday commit some other crime
greatly exceeds the chance that he or she will
commit another sex crime. The second offense
may be possession of marijuana, driving drunk
or shoplifting â" but it increases the reoffense
rate. Such subsequent misconduct carries its
own concerns, but it is not the repeat incurable
pedophile of myth. Indeed reoffense rates for
all crimes among sex offenders is still lower than
reoffense rates for all crimes among non-sex
offenders. For example, the U.S. Bureau of
Justice Statistics found:
Child molester rearrest rate for new
sex crime against a child: 3.3%
All sex offender rearrest rate for new
sex crime against a child: 2.2%16
All sex offenders rearrest rate for
any kind of offense: 43%
All offenders rearrest rate for
any kind of offense: 68%
Oh, as for rehabilitation of these people? Lets have a look at some more stats.
Margaret Alexanderâ(TM)s 1999 meta-analysis of
nearly 11,000 sex offenders from 79 separate
studies found that people who participated in
treatment programs had a combined rearrest
rate of 7.2% compared to 17.6% among
untreated individuals (a reduction of 59%).
Karl Hansonâ(TM)s 2000 comprehensive metaanalysis
found 10% of treatment subjects
reoffended, compared to 17% of untreated
subjects (a reduction of 41%).
The Campbell Collaboration meta-analysis of
69 studies of 22,000 individuals found that
treatment reduced recidivism by 37%.
Guess that makes you post a bit of a swing and a miss?
If someone is physically handicapped, we go out of our way to help them. If they are blind, we give them guide dogs and sound driven information. If someone is clinically depressed, we try to treat them. Why can you not understand that trying to help and educate sex offenders is so much better than just locking them up and throwing away the key - not even looking at the slippery slope I put up in my original post.
I have to seriously disagree. That is like saying "killing someone is never acceptable and making images of someone being killed even though they aren't really being killed is likewise unacceptable."
Is the issue here just the "sexuality"? Is that the fierce demon we are all trying to keep away from our children? If that's true, then Disney needs to be completely dismantled for what it has been doing lately. (Interestingly enough, one of the faces being used was Miley Cyrus...)
I think what is needed is some serious exploration of what we are *really* targeting and punishing and *why*. And seriously, if it is the act of creating what some might consider to be art, then what is next? Punishment for merely imagining sexual situations with a child and admitting it to someone in some way? Is that ALSO worthy of punishment?
The lines and the causes are in some SERIOUS need of clear definition. It's easy for people to get outraged and upset over nothing or very little.
Keep in mind -- NO ONE HAS BEEN HARMED. NO ONE. Whether or not something should be done and if so, what? That's yet another question, but I think the lines should be defined.
If these pictures ever get in the wild and someone recognizes the child and tells the child or parents, or worse, doesn't tell them but starts calling the kid a slut without explaination, then someone will get hurt.
So what you're saying is that it's OK to punish someone for something that someone elsemight do?
As best I understand it, the Supreme Court ruled that if no children were actually harmed (abused, molested, made to perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexually explicit manner), then the material constitutes protected speech.
It appears to me, as a layperson, that this falls into that category.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that "virtual child pornography," in which no children were actually harmed, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime.
"We see it all the time," Allen said. "It makes it harder for law enforcement. It makes it tougher for prosecutors."
Well yeah, prosecuting someone for something that isn't a crime would be "tougher".
Well yeah, prosecuting someone for something that isn't a crime would be "tougher".
Yeah, this actively pisses me off. There's nothing here to go on especially in light of the 2002 decision. Even prior to that, it's questionable since he's using/adult bodies/ in the images.
Hm - on re-read, it looks like they haven't actually filed charges yet? This leaked before the GJ handed down an indictment?
Then there's NCMEC:
Since then, "more and more of these guys are using morphed images, image manipulations" in an attempt to circumvent prosecution, Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said Wednesday.
I'm sorry, isn't that THE POINT of your organization dude? You don't want real children to get exploited. And you have the sheer temerity to complain because they're/not/ exploiting children "in an attempt to circumvent prosecution"?
"It's definitely on the increase," said Justin Fitzsimmons, a former prosecutor and senior attorney with the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, part of the National District Attorneys' Association. "People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence."
Wait, what? ARRRGH! How the hell can you possibly sexually exploit a child when there's no child involved? Have we invented a new form of logic here?
If you are a purveyor of stick-man pornography, please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD make your stick men big! Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.
Oh! And be sure to include scale objects in your drawing so that everybody knows that you're drawing a big stick man. Ummm . . . I mean scale objects extrinsic to the stick man.
Now, go on and enjoy your stick-man / stick-woman pornography!
Yep, seems like a tautology to me - he's guilty. Note they didn't convict him of sexual abuse of a minor, or making child pornography, or anything like that.
Does this mean I think he should be convicted of a crime - maybe. The problem is the use (I assume) of the word "exploitation" in a crime. It can be interpreted to mean almost anything. It's like being convicted of being "too douchy". How douchy is too douchy?
When you prosecute thought crime the same as if the person had actually committed the crime why would someone who engages in this type of behavior not commit the actual crime in the future?
Precisely. If there is a law against something that I personally would be inclined to break, and I am accused of and punished for breaking that law even when I didn't, then there would be no motivation to prevent me from actually doing it in the future.
For instance, Tennessee's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor, "the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor."
How can you prove that the person in a picture is a minor if you can't figure out their age? For a toddler, it's obvious, but what about someone in high school? Summer Glau, 27, played a 15 year old in Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles. Nathalie Portman was 18 when she played a 13 year old in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Sarah Michelle Geller was 21 when she played a 15 year old Buffy Summers in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. There's a pretty wide margin of error if all you have to go by is a picture.
While "the state is not required to prove the [...] age of the minor", it does not say "the state is not required to prove that the person is a minor". The difference is that if the picture is of a six-year-old, it is pretty clear the person is a minor. An apparent 15-year-old, however, will need something more to prove that the person is a minor. If the law said that minority did not need to be proved, then the law would be saying that any pornography is child pornography, on the word of the state.
There is certainly a mens rea of harm to a minor involved when someone has the faces of children pasted on adult bodies such as in this case. So, the actual reason we have child pornography laws in the first place (to protect minors) is served by this case. In fact, using the child's face even fits the actual crime of "exploitation" of a minor. It's even aggravated
However, this really is a crime. Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?
Well...
(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in: (1) Sexual activity; or (2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive. (b) A person violating subsection (a) may be charged in a separate count for each individual performance, image, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, videocassette tape, or other pictorial representation. (c) In a prosecution under this section, the trier of fact may consider the title, text, visual representation, Internet history, physical development of the person depicted, expert medical testimony, expert computer forensic testimony, and any other relevant evidence, in determining whether a person knowingly promoted, employed, used, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to participate in the performance of or in the production of acts or material for these purposes, or in determining whether the material or image otherwise represents or depicts that a participant is a minor. (d) A violation of this section is a Class B felony. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting prosecution for any other sexual offense under this chapter, nor shall a joint conviction under this section and any other related sexual offense, even if arising out of the same conduct, be construed as limiting any applicable punishment, including consecutive sentencing under  40-35-115, or the enhancement of sentence under  40-35-114. (e) In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor. (f) A person is subject to prosecution in this state under this section for any conduct that originates in this state, or for any conduct that originates by a person located outside this state, where the person promoted, employed, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to engage in the performance of, or production of, acts or material within this state.
Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?
Problem is, there's zero evidence to support the claim that viewing child pornography incites child abuse of any kind. And there's growing evidence that suggests that the actual effect might be the reverse - that viewing child pornography might actually be a substitute for actual sexual contact with children.
It's unlikely that further research will be funded, though, if it seems likely to reach the "wrong" conclusions.
If you're stimulated by pictures of mature secondary sexual characteristics, you aren't likely to be all that interested in little girls.
If you selected specific children's faces to characterize the sexual image, then you likely are.
You are both guessing. Who knows which one of you is right. However the law is not supposed to be about guesses but about facts. How would you like to be put in jail after having 5 or 6 drinks at home because "you might have gotten in your car and driven drunk"?
The article doesn't even say how they found them in the first place, but why the hell do people get so bent out of shape what others look at? Its none of mine, or your fucking business.
Don't prosecutors have anything better to do, then pretend to be a nanny to some adult?
It's a _picture_. It's such threat to society that it threatens the heart of civilization! I mean look at all the killing, and raping it does!!! Oh wait, _people_ do those things... -- "One man's fetish is another man's turnoff."
Originally, laws against child porn were passed under the assumption that a child was involved in a sex act "without their consent". In other words, right up until back in the 70's, you could buy porn where "children" were "raped" (note the use of quotations... both of those terms have changed since back then, a lot) in regular porn shops.
It was assumed, that spreading "child porn" meant that you had been involved in it's creation. That's spurious to begin with, even 40 years ago. The purpose of child porn laws was to prevent "sexual damage to children".
Soooo.... Now children aren't even needed... so there's no real crime (rape) being effected.
STOP!!! I know that you're thinking. "People who like to watch 'underage' porn can't be stopped from acting on what they've seen"... Really? How much porn have you watched? How much of it have you gone out and re-enacted? Truth of it all, you've jerked off tons of times, then looked at the screen (or even live pussy), and said "Nah... I'm done". . . . I'm hearing crickets here.
"It makes it harder for law enforcement."... Yeah, that's the constitution smacking you in the face with it's dick. It's SUPPOSED to be harder for "law enforcement"; distrust of government is encoded into the constitution.
A man was charged with "aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor" even though - no minors were sexually exploited - no minors were aggravated - there was no sex portrayed in the pictures - one of the girls whose face is in a picture is not even a child - the person did not even know these girls and had no contact with them - And, "... Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said Wednesday." And for some bizarre reason a person who is involved with "missing and exploited children" feels the need to comment about this matter, as if what he has to say is even relevant to the case.
The real stinger is in this comment:
"We see it all the time," Allen said. "It makes it harder for law enforcement. It makes it tougher for prosecutors."
, from the same fanatic of the NCMEC mentioned above. It's obvious that he just wants to see innocent people put in jail. No Logic, no Rationale; just mindless and hateful punishment. He is an obvious advocate for the penal colonies operated in the US. It's sick.
Hey everyone, I just heard the sad news on talk radio today. Michael Jackson, the talented pop star, was found dead in his Santa Monica hospital this afternoon.
It's not child porn, but I think the article said "exploitation of a minor". This makes sense... it's kind of like slander, I think. A photographer can't publish your photo without your written consent. How much worse is this? Publishing an image of my face on someone else's naked body certainly seems like exploitation to me.
Did he publish? I can't see that in the article - even if he did, I think child porn would be the wrong law to use, because it's a different thing, nowhere near as serious as sexual abuse, and it would also set the precedent for simple possession being illegal.
Reading the article though, the mentality of people in positions of authority is worrying:
"when you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity,"
Slashdotters rejoice! Can't get laid? Well just "affix" a picture of a woman next to you, and you can take part in "simulated" sexual activity. (Will he go to a simulated prison? Thought not.)
"It's definitely on the increase," said Justin Fitzsimmons, a former prosecutor and senior attorney with the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, part of the National District Attorneys' Association. "People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence."
Generally, what is seen is the "Photoshop effect," in which people use the face of a child on an adult body or vice versa in an effort to get around the law, he said.
Yes, just think of all these poor photographs being abused!
I love the way they talk of it like it's a loophole. It's as much of a loophole, as me paying for items in a shop is a "creative" way round being done for shoplifting...
I'm reminded of the UK's Brass Eye [wikipedia.org] - the thing is there's an amusing part where they actually overlay a child's face onto a adult's body! It's done rather unrealistically, with the photos of different proportions, but it's not like these bad photoshop jobs that people are being done for sound realistic either. Whilst I've never heard the legality of Brass Eye being questioned, I honestly wonder that if an individual was found with the same images in their private possession, they'd be done for child porn.
Still, the UK is already moving on - now we're criminalising adult porn (even if consensual and simulated).
You have to understand the legal arenas in which the cases you look at are decided. The strip-search case involved a state actor who engaged in conduct arguably prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. That gave rise to a 1983 action (a suit for damages based on a violation of your Constitutional Rights). In those kinds of cases, there is a defense called qualified immunity. It can be invoked by state actors to say "The rule I broke was not well settled by the Supreme Court. I did not know I was violating your rights. Because I did not know, and there was no way for me to know, I should not be held liable."
But that defense only comes up where a state actor is sued for violating someone's rights. This case involves a criminal prosecution against a private citizen. The private citizen does not have a "I didn't know" rule. In fact, the general rule is that ignorance of the law is not a defense. He can still defend himself by arguing that Tennessee's law is unconstitutional, but he cannot say that he did not know that what he was doing was illegal.
This is like that hentai guy. I think material like this may be grounds for investigating someone to see if they have actual illegal porn. But I don't see how this is a crime. I don't want thought police, but there should be no gray area when actual children are involved.
Is seeing a man with a bunch of gold chains walking around in a slum grounds for investigating him to see if he's got stolen goods? Rich guy in poor area? Maybe follow him home and search his house. Where there's smoke, there's fire, right?
Wrong. Teach your children that when someone says or does something sexual, they tell you. Go from there. That's really all that needs be done. Stop inventing opportunity thought TV shows. Stop freaking out about Internet predators when the vast majority of sexual abusers are relatives and close family friends.
When you've got evidence of a crime, investigate. When you've got evidence of what you think might possibly suggest a mind-set of criminal nature... relax. Paranoia State does more harm than good.
First off, the 'harm' that is caused by child porn is of many types:
- Obvious, physical abuse
- Ditto, emotional abuse
- Recognized in depictions later in life, more emotional abuse
Woops. I wonder how the children, the pictures of whose faces were used, would feel if they were sent these photos. Or if their parents received them.
This is harm. He's gonna lose this one.
So if I photoshopped a picture of a minor and smeared virtual poop on his/her face that would also be emotional abuse? Or if I photoshopped the photo of a skinny girl's head on a fat girl's body? I suppose that would qualify as harm as well.
Do you support outlawing any visual image which may possibly cause emotional harm? Including editorial cartoons of course, as well as any altered picture on the internet which could conceivably be construed as insulting.
The reality is that this stuff is not harmful unless you consider that a bunch of small-minded control-freaks like yourself want to imprison people for creating derivative artistic works. SCOTUS did not make a mess of this, and people like you scare the hell out of me.
As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (Score:5, Informative)
This is interesting, though, if the faces were of real children. Which side of the line does that land on?
Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if that's been tested. It sounds scary, in that it assumes the "minor" part.
Parent
Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, I read recently about a case where a guy (Christopher Handley, I think his name was), was sentenced to 15 years for simply possessing a japanese cartoon depiction of such. I don't think it has to be real anything... if it oogs somebody out, you're going to jail.
Parent
Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (Score:5, Insightful)
ruled that in order for something to be "child pornography", it had to be depictions of (1) real children, and (2) real pornography.
This is interesting, though, if the faces were of real children. Which side of the line does that land on?
The article mentions that, and has this little tidbit: Nearly every state, however, has adopted a law in response to the Supreme Court decision in the case, Fitzsimmons said. For instance, Tennessee's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor, "the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor." So somehow they took "it has to have real children and be real pornography" and decided to go with "we don't have to even bother proving that it's really a real person or that they're really underage". That's pretty damn scary. Although this other bit here may explain it a lot: "It's definitely on the increase," said Justin Fitzsimmons, a former prosecutor and senior attorney with the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, part of the National District Attorneys' Association. "People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence." How the hell are you supposed to sexually exploit a child using digital evidence? Fiddling with a photo in Photoshop != sexual exploitation in my book. This is really starting to sound more and more like a fucking witch hunt.
Parent
Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (Score:5, Informative)
All it took was one overzealous police officer, in conjunction with some overprotective "Child Services" employees of the state, to ruin something on the order of 23 families. The book is out of print, but it is still available on Amazon. It was written by an attorney. I highly recommend it to people who think "it can't happen here", or "if they were arrested, they must be guilty of something." What happened in Wenatchee seems almost unbelievable... but you better believe it.
IMO, a bigger travesty of justice has seldom if ever occurred in the United States.
Parent
Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, see the reply near this one: FYI, the Wikipedia entry on "Wenatchee sex ring" is incomplete in some places and inaccurate in others.
Kathryn Lyon, the author of "Witch Hunt", is herself an attorney and rented a home in Wenatchee specifically to observe what was going on. She and some others kept meticulous records (which apparently the police department and "Child Protective Services" refused to do). When a local pastor tried to object to what was being done to families without any evidence, he found himself and his wife charged with multiple counts of sexual molestation of children. (They were eventually acquitted.) When a child welfare worker also tried to intervene, he found himself similarly charged. When they spoke up about the case, a reporter from Spokane was also threatened with charges, as was Lyon herself.
I am aware that worse things have occurred. But not many.
Parent
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (i.e., no children were actually abused or molested), then it is protected speech. I would think that a child's face pasted on an adult's body would fall into that category. But IANAL, and it is pretty close to the line.
Why is that "pretty close to the line"? You said yourself, if it doesn't involve children who were actually abused or molested than it is protected speech. So why, pray tell, would this fall anywhere near the line?
Parent
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's images of real children (their faces). They were too young to give informed consent for those images being combined with the other images (adult women's bodies). (That last point technically assumes the faces weren't very old footage and in the interm the children hadn't grown up enough to give legal consent of course, and there could be other factors, such as whether anyone actually recognized a face and thought the photos were actually all of the person that went with the face, not composites.).
I.E. means 'id est', and the usual English translation of that is to hold it to mean 'that is'. I.e. is properly used when you intend to restate an idea, or expand upon it.
E.g. is an abbreviation for the Latin 'exempli gratia'. The normal English equivalent is 'for example'. If you mean to clairify by an example, and that example doesn't limit what other cases might also exist, e.g is correct.
While Jane Q Public used i.e., the original supreme court ruling didn't. Instead, it talked about possible harm to real minors, and used actual abuse or molestation as two examples of such harm, not as a limiting definition enumerating all possible harm connected to the production of material. Jane probably should have used 'e.g.'
Here's a bit from the SCOTUS decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
" Section 2256(8)(C) prohibits a more common and lower tech means of creating virtual images, known as computer morphing. Rather than creating original images, pornographers can alter innocent pictures of real children so that the children appear to be engaged in sexual activity. Although morphed images may fall within the definition of virtual child pornography, they implicate the interests of real children and are in that sense closer to the images in Ferber."
(Ferber refers to a still standing older state child pornography law Ferber v. New York. The Supreme court is holding in this paragraph that morped images that start with some innocent image of a real child are not the same situation as the 'higher tech' virtual images that are implied to exist by the first sentence and already mentioned in other parts of the decision).
Note that the court said "implicate the interests of real children", which could include many other situations than actual abuse or molestation. Presumably, the effects on the child's interests would have to be negative, although that's not really spelled out, and presumably the normal legal principles about proportionality and gravity apply, so if casting Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon had been a dumb career move, it wouldn't be enough to trigger a charge against her mother.
Here's the whole thing:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html [cornell.edu]
I am not a Lawyer either, but if you read this, it looks like Ferber v. new York, and the Miller standard that is referenced in this decision, are defining lines, and this new Tennessee case really does get pretty close to those lines if not over one or both.
Parent
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
These laws were designed to prevent stirring the flames of child molesters. It wouldn't matter if the faces were photographed thirty years ago and the women gave consent to use their childhood pictures.
Frankly I am at the point of thinking that even if some of this type of art actually could be proven to cause the death of children at times perhaps it should still be allowed. After all, the food served at fast food joints or allowing people to use cars also cause deaths to kids and neither fast food nor automobiles are essential elements of life.
Social engineering is a slippery beast and logic is not behind the desired consequences that people feel must occur.
Parent
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, lawmakers and the public are trying to make photoshops into a crime equivalent to actual child pornography. Yes, that is thought crime, and yes, it is here. Welcome to the brave new world.
Parent
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a parent of a three-year old, I largely agree with your sentiment. However, should we demand psych treatment for people who enjoy BDSM? What about furries?
Where exactly do you intend to draw the line with acceptable fetishes that demand medical treatment, and ones that don't?
I'm not sure humans control the fetishes they enjoy, but almost rather they simply discover them.
I don't think we have a very good understanding of how the brain operates in this capacity, so I'm not sure we even have the capability to treat pedophiles aside from chemical castration.
Parent
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even worse, we sell lingerie aimed at tweens, and market teenagers as sex symbols while watching "To Catch a Predator" and decrying men sleeping with teenages are vile scum. There is a weird double-standard here.
When Kevin Smith wrote a column saying he wasn't interested in the then 16-year old Brittany Spears, and how he felt it was wrong to market teenagers as sex symbols, he got hate mail saying every healthy man on the planet wants to sleep with young teenagers.
I think society doesn't want to make this a bigger issue because they can't deal with it consistently or coherently. Instead they pass laws forbidding sex offenders from living in their towns, adding additional punishment for crimes already punished. The Supreme Court actually ruled that neither ex posto facto nor double jeopardy apply. So apparently pedophiles don't get Constitutional rights.
Statistically they are the most likely to repeat offend. So clearly, we're not dealing with the issue in any successful or meaningful way.
Parent
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they did it specifically to push the limits of the law, they need to be given a sentence of having to clean parking meters or something else tedious and annoying that makes the point that this isn't a good thing.
Testing the law is not illegal and if the acts to test it are not deemed illegal, then no punishment is necessary, IMO.
Parent
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
we have a few judges that are either too lenient (let them go until they actually molest children)
I know it bothers you, but in this country we have the notion that you can't lock someone up unless they actually harm/try to harm someone else.
Parent
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who else has bad thoughts?
You get the point. Why should someone be punished for imagining something? As long as nobody is actually harmed in the making of fiction, it's just fiction. As soon as we make fiction illegalh, we will definitely have come into the age of the Thought Police.
Parent
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Informative)
Sourced from NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES, INC.
Sex Offenders Report [ncianet.org]
There is a widespread misperception that people who commit sexual crimes do it again and again. The research, however, directly contradicts this. Recidivism rates for sex offenses are relatively low, typically running in the 3-13% range, and among the lowest of all types of crimes.
In contrast, the general rearrest rate for people released from prison was 68%. The highest rates were stealing motor vehicles (79%) and possessing or selling stolen property (77%)
The chance that a person convicted of a sex crime will someday commit some other crime greatly exceeds the chance that he or she will commit another sex crime. The second offense may be possession of marijuana, driving drunk or shoplifting â" but it increases the reoffense rate. Such subsequent misconduct carries its own concerns, but it is not the repeat incurable pedophile of myth. Indeed reoffense rates for all crimes among sex offenders is still lower than reoffense rates for all crimes among non-sex offenders. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found:
Child molester rearrest rate for new sex crime against a child: 3.3%
All sex offender rearrest rate for new sex crime against a child: 2.2%16
All sex offenders rearrest rate for any kind of offense: 43%
All offenders rearrest rate for any kind of offense: 68%
Oh, as for rehabilitation of these people? Lets have a look at some more stats.
Margaret Alexanderâ(TM)s 1999 meta-analysis of nearly 11,000 sex offenders from 79 separate studies found that people who participated in treatment programs had a combined rearrest rate of 7.2% compared to 17.6% among untreated individuals (a reduction of 59%).
Karl Hansonâ(TM)s 2000 comprehensive metaanalysis found 10% of treatment subjects reoffended, compared to 17% of untreated subjects (a reduction of 41%).
The Campbell Collaboration meta-analysis of 69 studies of 22,000 individuals found that treatment reduced recidivism by 37%.
Guess that makes you post a bit of a swing and a miss?
If someone is physically handicapped, we go out of our way to help them. If they are blind, we give them guide dogs and sound driven information. If someone is clinically depressed, we try to treat them. Why can you not understand that trying to help and educate sex offenders is so much better than just locking them up and throwing away the key - not even looking at the slippery slope I put up in my original post.
Parent
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to seriously disagree. That is like saying "killing someone is never acceptable and making images of someone being killed even though they aren't really being killed is likewise unacceptable."
Is the issue here just the "sexuality"? Is that the fierce demon we are all trying to keep away from our children? If that's true, then Disney needs to be completely dismantled for what it has been doing lately. (Interestingly enough, one of the faces being used was Miley Cyrus...)
I think what is needed is some serious exploration of what we are *really* targeting and punishing and *why*. And seriously, if it is the act of creating what some might consider to be art, then what is next? Punishment for merely imagining sexual situations with a child and admitting it to someone in some way? Is that ALSO worthy of punishment?
The lines and the causes are in some SERIOUS need of clear definition. It's easy for people to get outraged and upset over nothing or very little.
Keep in mind -- NO ONE HAS BEEN HARMED. NO ONE. Whether or not something should be done and if so, what? That's yet another question, but I think the lines should be defined.
Parent
Re:No one has been harmed? (Score:5, Insightful)
If these pictures ever get in the wild and someone recognizes the child and tells the child or parents, or worse, doesn't tell them but starts calling the kid a slut without explaination, then someone will get hurt.
So what you're saying is that it's OK to punish someone for something that someone else might do?
Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense at all.
Parent
Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (Score:5, Insightful)
It appears to me, as a layperson, that this falls into that category.
Parent
the photos feature the faces of... (Score:4, Funny)
...three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females.
I guess he should have done it the other way around then. Right?
hehe, overzealous much? (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that "virtual child pornography," in which no children were actually harmed, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime.
"We see it all the time," Allen said. "It makes it harder for law enforcement. It makes it tougher for prosecutors."
Well yeah, prosecuting someone for something that isn't a crime would be "tougher".
Re:hehe, overzealous much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well yeah, prosecuting someone for something that isn't a crime would be "tougher".
Yeah, this actively pisses me off. There's nothing here to go on especially in light of the 2002 decision. Even prior to that, it's questionable since he's using /adult bodies/ in the images.
Hm - on re-read, it looks like they haven't actually filed charges yet? This leaked before the GJ handed down an indictment?
Then there's NCMEC:
Since then, "more and more of these guys are using morphed images, image manipulations" in an attempt to circumvent prosecution, Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said Wednesday.
I'm sorry, isn't that THE POINT of your organization dude? You don't want real children to get exploited. And you have the sheer temerity to complain because they're /not/ exploiting children "in an attempt to circumvent prosecution"?
"It's definitely on the increase," said Justin Fitzsimmons, a former prosecutor and senior attorney with the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, part of the National District Attorneys' Association. "People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence."
Wait, what? ARRRGH! How the hell can you possibly sexually exploit a child when there's no child involved? Have we invented a new form of logic here?
Parent
You people are screwed. (Score:5, Insightful)
So if he takes the head of Goofy (Score:5, Funny)
Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......
Wait a sec. I don't think I should go any further with this.......
Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT! (Score:5, Funny)
If you are a purveyor of stick-man pornography, please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD make your stick men big! Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.
Oh! And be sure to include scale objects in your drawing so that everybody knows that you're drawing a big stick man. Ummm . . . I mean scale objects extrinsic to the stick man.
Now, go on and enjoy your stick-man / stick-woman pornography!
Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT! (Score:5, Interesting)
-----
|/ |
| 0
|
| |
| / \
/ \
===========
Or virtual snuff porn? You decide.
[Note to UK police officers reading this - Mr Hangman is at least 18 years of age.]
Parent
Sexual: Check (Score:5, Funny)
Exploitation: Check, probably.
Minor: Check.
Yep, seems like a tautology to me - he's guilty. Note they didn't convict him of sexual abuse of a minor, or making child pornography, or anything like that.
Does this mean I think he should be convicted of a crime - maybe. The problem is the use (I assume) of the word "exploitation" in a crime. It can be interpreted to mean almost anything. It's like being convicted of being "too douchy". How douchy is too douchy?
Prosecuting thought crime not helping (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a generic problem with over-broad laws.
Parent
the state is not required to prove the actual age (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA:
For instance, Tennessee's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor, "the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor."
How can you prove that the person in a picture is a minor if you can't figure out their age? For a toddler, it's obvious, but what about someone in high school? Summer Glau, 27, played a 15 year old in Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles. Nathalie Portman was 18 when she played a 13 year old in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Sarah Michelle Geller was 21 when she played a 15 year old Buffy Summers in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. There's a pretty wide margin of error if all you have to go by is a picture.
Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
It's a complicated issue (Score:5, Interesting)
There is certainly a mens rea of harm to a minor involved when someone has the faces of children pasted on adult bodies such as in this case. So, the actual reason we have child pornography laws in the first place (to protect minors) is served by this case. In fact, using the child's face even fits the actual crime of "exploitation" of a minor. It's even aggravated
However, this really is a crime. Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?
Well...
(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in:
(1) Sexual activity; or
(2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive.
(b) A person violating subsection (a) may be charged in a separate count for each individual performance, image, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, videocassette tape, or other pictorial representation.
(c) In a prosecution under this section, the trier of fact may consider the title, text, visual representation, Internet history, physical development of the person depicted, expert medical testimony, expert computer forensic testimony, and any other relevant evidence, in determining whether a person knowingly promoted, employed, used, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to participate in the performance of or in the production of acts or material for these purposes, or in determining whether the material or image otherwise represents or depicts that a participant is a minor.
(d) A violation of this section is a Class B felony. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting prosecution for any other sexual offense under this chapter, nor shall a joint conviction under this section and any other related sexual offense, even if arising out of the same conduct, be construed as limiting any applicable punishment, including consecutive sentencing under  40-35-115, or the enhancement of sentence under  40-35-114.
(e) In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor.
(f) A person is subject to prosecution in this state under this section for any conduct that originates in this state, or for any conduct that originates by a person located outside this state, where the person promoted, employed, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to engage in the performance of, or production of, acts or material within this state.
[Acts 1990, ch. 1092, Â 7; 2005, ch. 496, Â 4.]
Well, looks like we can!
Re:It's a complicated issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?
Problem is, there's zero evidence to support the claim that viewing child pornography incites child abuse of any kind. And there's growing evidence that suggests that the actual effect might be the reverse - that viewing child pornography might actually be a substitute for actual sexual contact with children.
It's unlikely that further research will be funded, though, if it seems likely to reach the "wrong" conclusions.
Parent
Re:It's a complicated issue (Score:4, Insightful)
You are both guessing. Who knows which one of you is right. However the law is not supposed to be about guesses but about facts. How would you like to be put in jail after having 5 or 6 drinks at home because "you might have gotten in your car and driven drunk"?
Parent
Scary CNN Video (Score:4, Informative)
The CNN video on the subject: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/06/25/jvm.miley.scare.cnn [cnn.com] shows not only the sensationalism of television, but people's willingness to ignore ideas of free speech to "protect the children".
When did it all go so wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
oh noes! a _picture_ threatens society! (Score:5, Insightful)
The article doesn't even say how they found them in the first place, but why the hell do people get so bent out of shape what others look at? Its none of mine, or your fucking business.
Don't prosecutors have anything better to do, then pretend to be a nanny to some adult?
It's a _picture_. It's such threat to society that it threatens the heart of civilization! I mean look at all the killing, and raping it does!!! Oh wait, _people_ do those things...
--
"One man's fetish is another man's turnoff."
Original purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
Originally, laws against child porn were passed under the assumption that a child was involved in a sex act "without their consent".
In other words, right up until back in the 70's, you could buy porn where "children" were "raped"
(note the use of quotations... both of those terms have changed since back then, a lot) in regular porn shops.
It was assumed, that spreading "child porn" meant that you had been involved in it's creation.
That's spurious to begin with, even 40 years ago.
The purpose of child porn laws was to prevent "sexual damage to children".
Soooo....
Now children aren't even needed... so there's no real crime (rape) being effected.
STOP!!!
I know that you're thinking.
"People who like to watch 'underage' porn can't be stopped from acting on what they've seen"...
Really?
How much porn have you watched?
How much of it have you gone out and re-enacted?
Truth of it all, you've jerked off tons of times, then looked at the screen (or even live pussy), and said "Nah... I'm done".
.
.
.
I'm hearing crickets here.
"It makes it harder for law enforcement."...
Yeah, that's the constitution smacking you in the face with it's dick.
It's SUPPOSED to be harder for "law enforcement"; distrust of government is encoded into the constitution.
Lost Innocence (Score:5, Insightful)
A man was charged with "aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor" even though
- no minors were sexually exploited
- no minors were aggravated
- there was no sex portrayed in the pictures
- one of the girls whose face is in a picture is not even a child
- the person did not even know these girls and had no contact with them
- And, "... Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said Wednesday." And for some bizarre reason a person who is involved with "missing and exploited children" feels the need to comment about this matter, as if what he has to say is even relevant to the case.
The real stinger is in this comment:
"We see it all the time," Allen said. "It makes it harder for law enforcement. It makes it tougher for prosecutors."
, from the same fanatic of the NCMEC mentioned above. It's obvious that he just wants to see innocent people put in jail. No Logic, no Rationale; just mindless and hateful punishment. He is an obvious advocate for the penal colonies operated in the US. It's sick.
Re:Interesting...and so's this! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey everyone, I just heard the sad news on talk radio today. Michael Jackson, the talented pop star, was found dead in his Santa Monica hospital this afternoon.
It's the best news Gov Mark Sanford could have.
Parent
Re:Interesting...and so's this! (Score:5, Funny)
Literally of course. He will return as a pop dancing Zombie.
Parent
Re:Interesting...and so's this! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sure, that's disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not child porn, but I think the article said "exploitation of a minor". This makes sense... it's kind of like slander, I think. A photographer can't publish your photo without your written consent. How much worse is this? Publishing an image of my face on someone else's naked body certainly seems like exploitation to me.
Parent
Re:Sure, that's disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Did he publish? I can't see that in the article - even if he did, I think child porn would be the wrong law to use, because it's a different thing, nowhere near as serious as sexual abuse, and it would also set the precedent for simple possession being illegal.
Reading the article though, the mentality of people in positions of authority is worrying:
"when you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity,"
Slashdotters rejoice! Can't get laid? Well just "affix" a picture of a woman next to you, and you can take part in "simulated" sexual activity. (Will he go to a simulated prison? Thought not.)
"It's definitely on the increase," said Justin Fitzsimmons, a former prosecutor and senior attorney with the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, part of the National District Attorneys' Association. "People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence."
Generally, what is seen is the "Photoshop effect," in which people use the face of a child on an adult body or vice versa in an effort to get around the law, he said.
Yes, just think of all these poor photographs being abused!
I love the way they talk of it like it's a loophole. It's as much of a loophole, as me paying for items in a shop is a "creative" way round being done for shoplifting...
I'm reminded of the UK's Brass Eye [wikipedia.org] - the thing is there's an amusing part where they actually overlay a child's face onto a adult's body! It's done rather unrealistically, with the photos of different proportions, but it's not like these bad photoshop jobs that people are being done for sound realistic either. Whilst I've never heard the legality of Brass Eye being questioned, I honestly wonder that if an individual was found with the same images in their private possession, they'd be done for child porn.
Still, the UK is already moving on - now we're criminalising adult porn (even if consensual and simulated).
Parent
Re:Not completely related but... (Score:5, Funny)
RIP Michael Jackson!
[Bender] He's defiling young angels now. [/Bender]
Parent
Re:Expectations vs Reality... (Score:5, Insightful)
these strange cases that have been made possible by the advancement of technology
What technology? Scissors and glue?
Parent
Re:Expectations vs Reality... (Score:4, Informative)
That's not going to happen.
You have to understand the legal arenas in which the cases you look at are decided. The strip-search case involved a state actor who engaged in conduct arguably prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. That gave rise to a 1983 action (a suit for damages based on a violation of your Constitutional Rights). In those kinds of cases, there is a defense called qualified immunity. It can be invoked by state actors to say "The rule I broke was not well settled by the Supreme Court. I did not know I was violating your rights. Because I did not know, and there was no way for me to know, I should not be held liable."
But that defense only comes up where a state actor is sued for violating someone's rights. This case involves a criminal prosecution against a private citizen. The private citizen does not have a "I didn't know" rule. In fact, the general rule is that ignorance of the law is not a defense. He can still defend himself by arguing that Tennessee's law is unconstitutional, but he cannot say that he did not know that what he was doing was illegal.
--AC
Parent
Re:illeagle because its offensive? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is like that hentai guy. I think material like this may be grounds for investigating someone to see if they have actual illegal porn. But I don't see how this is a crime. I don't want thought police, but there should be no gray area when actual children are involved.
Is seeing a man with a bunch of gold chains walking around in a slum grounds for investigating him to see if he's got stolen goods? Rich guy in poor area? Maybe follow him home and search his house. Where there's smoke, there's fire, right?
Wrong. Teach your children that when someone says or does something sexual, they tell you. Go from there. That's really all that needs be done. Stop inventing opportunity thought TV shows. Stop freaking out about Internet predators when the vast majority of sexual abusers are relatives and close family friends.
When you've got evidence of a crime, investigate. When you've got evidence of what you think might possibly suggest a mind-set of criminal nature... relax. Paranoia State does more harm than good.
Parent
Re:There is a 'harm' here... (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I photoshopped a picture of a minor and smeared virtual poop on his/her face that would also be emotional abuse? Or if I photoshopped the photo of a skinny girl's head on a fat girl's body? I suppose that would qualify as harm as well.
Do you support outlawing any visual image which may possibly cause emotional harm? Including editorial cartoons of course, as well as any altered picture on the internet which could conceivably be construed as insulting.
The reality is that this stuff is not harmful unless you consider that a bunch of small-minded control-freaks like yourself want to imprison people for creating derivative artistic works. SCOTUS did not make a mess of this, and people like you scare the hell out of me.
Parent