Tennesee Man Charged In "Virtual Pornography" Case 639
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.'"
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:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sure, that's disgusting (Score:2, Informative)
A photographer can't publish your photo without your written consent.
That's not always the case. Photojournalism is the clear exception, but not the only one.
Regardless, unless you know something the article doesn't, publication doesn't enter into the picture here, and so the fact that you need a model release for it is a red herring, as is your statement "Publishing an image of my face on someone else's naked body certainly seems like exploitation to me."
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".
Old news! (Score:3, Informative)
There was a similar case in Australia earlier this year:
http://www.areanews.com.au/news/local/news/general/griffith-man-guilty-on-child-porn-charges/1403310.aspx [areanews.com.au]
Different laws obviously but this bloke was found guilty.
Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (Score:3, Informative)
Would have to define 'depiction' i suppose. Go too far and the old Simpsons porn parodies would qualify. And how do you define 'real porn' as opposed to 'not real porn'
What is next to become illegal, discussing it?
When did it all go so wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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
Re:Interesting...and so's this! (Score:4, Informative)
and kiddie fondling, you have to admit...
Well HE certainly never admitted to it.... only doled out a lot of cash, twice, but that's not an admission of guilt.
tip of the iceberg (Score:2, Informative)
This are only charges.
Last year someone already got 20 years for something similar: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199 [msn.com]
Upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Also, this is not just a US thing, it's happening everywhere in the West.
Example from The Netherlands here [tweakers.net].
They claim there images could be used to persuade children into engaging in sexual contacts.
If you're ever wondering why we're all saying goodbye to our privacy, look no further:
http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/materials/Sexual_Fascism_in_Progressive_America.php [reformsexo...erlaws.org]
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.
Re:Sure, that's disgusting (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps this is merely defamation of character...
Even that isn't supported by what the article said, because there's no indication in the article that he actually distributed them.
From here [abbottlaw.com]:
Element (2) wouldn't have been satisfied if he just had them lying around his home.
But I certainly think the guy done wrong (if he did the act that's alleged).
Wrong? Probably. At least very creepy. A criminal or civil offense? Probably not.
Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenatchee_sex_ring [wikipedia.org]
TennesSee (Score:2, Informative)
It appears none of the mods mave noticed the big misspell in the title of the summary. Tennessee has 2 S's. Yes, I am from TN, so maybe it just seems more glaring to me.
Re:illeagle because its offensive? (Score:1, Informative)
Tennessee Law (Score:3, Informative)
He's being prosecuted under the TN law, part of which is included in the article, which gives some background regarding SCOTUS' ruling and the rush of states to rewrite the virtual part of the law.
This or a case like it may go back to the Federal Courts on constitutional grounds and, eventually, back to SCOTUS. Whether they would revisit such a case is open to question.
Re:It's a complicated issue (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sure, that's disgusting (Score:3, Informative)
yes they can. about the only time they cannot is when you are clearly the subject of the image AND it is for commercial promotion. that is to say your likeness cannot be used to endorse a product, service, or cause without your consent.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Informative)
Is that why prostitutes are locked up? There are plenty of victimless crimes around here.
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.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Informative)
Sex offenders in Miami-Dade County cannot live within 2,500 feet of a place where children congregate; apparently this bridge [npr.org] is one of the few places that qualifies.
Not thoughtcrime at all (Score:1, Informative)
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.
1 Recruit a child for a photo session.
2 Photoshop the head of the child on a similar child-like body of an adult.
3 Distribute the composite photo as a pornographic photo of a child.
The child.
For the illusion to be convincing you will of course have had to pose the boy or girl very carefully.
You will have taken equal care in the selection and positioning of your adult model.
It's a process that stinks of fraud and sexual abuse from start to finish.
4 Profit
These are actions not thoughts.
These actions have the potential to do enormous harm to the child. You wouldn't stand a chance defending yourself against a charge of criminal libel, of criminal misconduct involving a minor. A new article on criminal libel [typepad.com]
The geek bends Orwell's words to his own purpose without the slightest hint of irony.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, a very insightful comment above says that they're very unlikely to repeat offend.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Informative)
I have to call into question your report or facts.
There are so many situation in which people are classified as sexual offenders in which the particulars are so unique to the case it just wouldn't happen again. Take the sexual offender registry lists. A few years ago, we were looking at our county's listings and out of 141 registered offenders, something like 60 or 70 of them were situations involving high school sweethearts over the past 20 years in which one person was older then the other and reached past the legal age of consent before the other had. In my state, the law is 18 years of age unless your within 2 years of each other in which consent is at 15 or both under the age of consent but above 15 years of age. This creates a very real situation where a freshmen can date a junior during high school but they could be in violation of the law if their birthdays are set apart enough and the junior was held back a grade.
There was also 10 or 15 sexual battery charges in which sexual contact wasn't involved at all. Evidently beating or smacking around your other half because they were withholding sex or cheating on you is still a sexual offense. Then there are cases where people stole the underwear of people they had a crush on and after finding it to be illegal beyond a petty theft, would never do it again. Then you have the voyeurism in which someone gets caught with their pants down while pissing behind the bushes or two consenting adults get too frisky while parted somewhere and the cops catch them in the act (* something about a car in the middle of nowhere with the windows all fogged up and rocking from side to side that always makes a cop want to investigate).
In my county's case, we determined that out of the 141 registered sexual offenders, and yes, you can have sexual offenses that you don't have to register for which do carry jail time, there was only 40-60 people of real concern. So by applying sane interpretations of what would be a qualifying sexual offense, over 58% of the sexual offenders who have to register can be eliminated and I have no idea how many sexual offenders who aren't required to register could be excluded too. So lets ignore the those who don't register and the fact that quite a few of the registered offenders are still in jail/prison and see what this 3% to 13% would look like just with the specifics of not likely to ever happen again applied.
The 3% of the 141 comes out to 4.23 people, the 13% comes out to 18.33 people. without those people who's situation is so specific that it isn't likely to ever happen again, those same 4.23 people now become 7% and the 18.33 becomes 30.5% if we look at my high end estimate of 60 offenders I needed to be concerned over. If I got really liberal and picked the low end of 40 offended to be concerned about, the 3% becomes 10.5% and the 13% becomes 45.8% If we exclude those who don't need to register or the 15 year old's boning the their 14 year old girlfriends (statutory rape), Equalize all the offenses to match guidelines between the different states (like age of consent on one state being different then another) I'm sure this number would jump considerably.
That's sort of the problem with organizations like the NCIA. They will present the evidence to their favor, I weeded most of it out and turned to my favor. We can ignore the very real fact that a good portion of sexual related offenses wouldn't ever happen again because of circumstances surrounding the offense (like age of consent issues when you dated the same person since the 7th grade, or sleeping with a drunk girl making advances on you then later regretting is and you getting popped with a felony). But if we don't ignore it, then the numbers mentioned look a lot different and the no tolerance applications could be specifically targeted to repeat offenders or perhaps even those most likely to repeat offend. But the NCIA has an invested interest in pushing things other then jail and will pretend the problem is less severe then it actually is in order to advance it's goals.
Already Happened in Florida. (Score:1, Informative)
John Stelmack, elementary school principal, found guilty of child porn for pasting pictures of students faces onto adult nude bodies. He faces up to 25 years at his sentencing July 25,2009.
Read about it here. [theledger.com]