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.'"
Re:Interesting...and so's this! (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree that he was a weirdo, but that is not a crime.
Expectations vs Reality... (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole situation sounds bizarre, but I was just reading in the strip-search constitutionality stories about the 'expectation' that a person would understand the constitutionality of their actions.
As we start seeing more of these strange cases that have been made possible by the advancement of technology I wonder if the expectation of understanding defense will be employed.
After all - what legal precedence addressing a situation of this nature has reached a level of widespread understanding that a given individual could be expected to be familiar with the society's legal expectations.
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".
You people are screwed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting...and so's this! (Score:2, Insightful)
illeagle because its offensive? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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?
Prosecuting thought crime not helping (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a generic problem with over-broad laws.
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).
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Make the punishment fit the crime.
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."
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"?
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.
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.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if that were so, possession laws do not require that a person got off on the images. I don't know if it's any different for what this guy's getting charged with.
And even if he was - since they were pasted onto adult bodies, I'm not sure how we can conclude he's getting off on images of pre-pubescents!
Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping (Score:3, Insightful)
Because politicians in all branches of the government pad out their resumes by being "tough on criminals" and the unwashed masses think it has something to do with being tough on crime and just lap it right up.
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.
Re:Sure, that's disgusting (Score:2, Insightful)
A common argument, but it's rubbish - there is no doubt in this case that the images are faked.
If you want to argue for a law on realistic images, that's one thing, but that is no argument for non-realistic images. And there should always be a defence if one can show the image isn't real.
And yes, heaven forbid the prosecutors actually have to do their job, find evidence, and prove someone's guilty. Given that the state already has vastly more resources than the individual (especially when all his or her electronic possessions are confiscated "for evidence" (or more like a fishing expedition)), why should things be made harder for the defendant, who's freedom is at stake?
The laws are in place to protect real minors, not fake minors and no one said that the laws had to be easy to enforce but appanently by including fakes, they made it easy for themselves.
There are many people who believe that fake minors need "protecting" too - either because they think that people who possess these images need to be locked up "in case they then commit abuse", or simply because they're "disgusting".
After all, how do you explain the laws against cartoon porn depicting under 18s in the US, Australia, and soon the UK?
Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping (Score:4, Insightful)
When you suggest that someone who thinks about the nature of crime would actually commit the crime, that doesn't help either. How about just saying that prosecuting people for thinking is something only done by those afraid of thinking?
Re:hehe, overzealous much? (Score:3, Insightful)
As you get older, your sense of "recent" expands more quickly than your definition. This keads to all kinds of unpleasant surprises...
"That wasn't that long ago! It was only... oh dear... a bit over ten years ago... oh snap..."
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.
Re:Sure, that's disgusting (Score:3, 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.
The article doesn't say he published them, and even says they don't believe he ever had any contact with the girls. I also doubt he did publish them or they'd be going after him for distribution as well as sexual exploitation. Remember they like to pile on as many charges as possible (not just in these types of cases, but in general). So do you still think it's sexual exploitation to privately slap someone's head on a nude body? How about if they just fantasize about them nude privately? That'd be just as bad, might as well make that illegal too.
Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Which is probably why the bit you quoted says the law doesn't require them to either prove identity or age. They can just claim they're underage and go after you. Feeling worried yet? This is a horrid law, it basically allows the cops to charge you with child porn/child sexual exploitation based on their whims, not actual evidence.
Re:hehe, overzealous much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (Score:3, Insightful)
One could argue that the basis for that decision is that if there are no real children, and there is no real pornography, then no one was victimized, and thusly no crime was committed. That hasn't stopped people from throwing around accusations of "child pornography" when people write Harry Potter fan-fic. If the underlying issue here is the exploitation of children, you could argue no children were exploited here.
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.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
And the crime is what again? It's not illegal to be aroused by children. (It's not something I condone but as long as it's in check and not harming people it's not an issue.) As for the picture issue, well that's going to be tested but there was no instance of harm. Take your thought crime and shove it.
Re:Sure, that's disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)
I love this argument. Proving someone guilty would be hard. It's so much easier to make them prove their innocence instead. And on the basis of convenience, the constition can safely be ignored.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Letting people who haven't committed a crime walk freely is 'too lenient'?
Good grief.
Total thoughtcrime, already ruled free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
This is bullshit. What a waste of time.
The supreme court has already ruled that this is protected free speech. Why the hell is anybody wasting time harrassing this man? You can't charge people with a crime because you don't like their taste in art.
You can't say "Oh, this means that he's a pedophile, and even though he hasn't done anything to anyone, we think he's thinking about it."
It makes me want to create children faces (or maybe use famous child actors) with their faces affixed to nude bodies (maybe generated ones) in politcal parody cartoons about this and mail it to these backwards asshole prosecutors. See what they do with two controversial activities already ruled as protected.
People who say things like "the guy is clearly a pedophile and should be removed from society" have it totally wrong, you can't charge someone based on a personal assumption - for good reason...That kind of shit would make it easier for all of us to lose our rights and people who say such things have a very limited understanding of freedom and the law.
It's fucking irrelevant what you or I think of how tasteful or disgusting his "art" is - the fact is that he should have the right to create it. Maybe he is a pedophile, maybe he isn't - but you can't brand him that because of "art."
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the coverage I've seen on television, he was interested in what the children would look like as adults. Naked adults.
Is this much different than feeding a photo of the child into an aging program, then removing the adult version's clothes? Or just waiting for the child to become of legal age, taking their picture, and then removing the clothes? Or a child posing nude after achieving adult age? aside photographs as a child? with the child's face pasted on the adult body? How about age regression software?
How many of you out there fantasized about the Olsen Twins becoming of legal age (until they started becoming more like Gelflings)?
Keep in mind, one of these children is a celebrity minor.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:2, Insightful)
In a perfect world, we'd lock up just the dangerous perverts...
I would hate to live in your perfect world. What's next? Locking up all the people who have "perverted" mental problems? What about all those sick people with an extra chromosome? What about all those deviants from *insert country name here*?
I would have thought in your perfect world you would have helped those people who were ill/deficient not locked them up.
Re:It's a complicated issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Once again, however, article (2) appears to be in direct contradiction to the 2002 SCOTUS decision, which ruled that simulated pornography is protected speech. So a conviction seems doubtful, especially if appealed.
Either I am reading this wrong, or this is a Tennessee law passed/revised in 2005. The 2002 SCOTUS decision would merely assert that this is not a federal offense. This is specifically a state crime in Tennessee.
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?
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
should we demand psych treatment for people who enjoy ... furries?
Yes.
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.
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.
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:No one has been harmed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Once again, there are lots of things with a high "eew" factor. To me, watching two men make out is pretty high on that list. Would it then be okay to improson gay people for making people "eew"?
Directly exploiting someone who is incapable of effectively objecting to a particular treatment is definitely very wrong. But using someone's face on another person's body and then using that to somehow humiliate or offend someone else? Now you are approaching the writing of bad language on bathroom walls or creating effigies.
People will say and create things that will offend other people. That is speech. Speech should be free so long as it doesn't cause harm. The definition of "harm" is a problem that is constantly being defined. The woman who used the internet and "caused a young girl to commit suicide" example; is that "harm"? Tough question.
But back to the whole face on another body thing? Perhaps, if anything at all, it might somehow fall under slander or libel or something along those lines. Once again, I have to wonder more about this "sex demon" that seems to get people rather upset. I think we need to take a few steps back and re-evaluate what we are trying to accomplish, whether or not it is worth it or even if what we are trying to accomplish is even possible. For example, if we were to somehow outlaw homosexuality and make it punishable by death, would that prevent homosexuality? Not likely since it is a NATURAL phenomenon as it also happens in animals other than humans. How about outlawing sexuality entirely? No? How can we sell things without sex??? Sex and children? That is becoming increasingly difficult as sexuality and sex are being pushed on kids in subtle ways from every legitimate direction, not to mention the fact that since human children are still human, they have natural curiosities an interests of their own [re: "sexting" with fellow students and the like]. And what about people who, as children, were attracted to other children of the same age and just never grew out of it? There are combinations of these situations approaching infinity. How much of "humanity" is offensive and should be outlawed?
I am not saying that child porn should be legal or that it should be okay to seduce or coerce a minor into doing things they don't know better than to do. What I am saying is that all of these issues should be revisited starting with the very basic questions such as what is "bad" and "unnatural" and "why" followed closely by "what can be effectively done to stop it."
Killing people is usually bad. Molesting children is usually bad. People WILL always kill people. People WILL always molest children. Those are pretty easy and accurate statements to make. But putting faces on adult bodies? Come on! What if it was a face on a picture of two dogs going at it? Is it bestiality?
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.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree - and I'm a victim of childhood sexual abuse, and very much against child porn. But you'll never stop the people who fantasize about sex with children from having those thoughts, and as long as it's just played out in their minds, no child has suffered. I can't see a basis for any criminal conviction.
Re:Interesting...and so's this! (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot: celebrity death news for nerds. News that you wouldn't hear any other place. Nice job reporting there, Gizzmonic.
Guys, if you happen to have a facebook or twitter account, PLEASE let everyone know. We really need to get this news out there. There's a lot of chatter about some protests in Iran, but we really need to show them what the web is actually for: trivial celeb gossip.~
(Not to be insensitive to MJ or his family, but in all honesty, this is fake news, not real news.)
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.
Re:Tennessee Law (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a (Score:5, Insightful)
Show the harm, please (Score:4, Insightful)
Investigators do not believe Campbell had any contact with the three girls, but "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," Assistant District Attorney Dave Denny said
"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."
Great story, but I'm confused about what he did and what he's being charged with. Has the DA described the victim and explained how they're negatively affected in this case? Was this man trying to distribute the mashed-up pictures? Was this man found with the pictures on a personal computer? What happened here?
The whole reason we have laws prohibiting sex with children or erotic photography of children is that we believe that they are immature and are unable to make clear, well-thought-out, rational decisions about their actions. Well, that and the fact that we're a country descended from Puritans and a bunch of churchgoing folk. When considering similar cases in the past, SCOTUS took the eminently reasonable stance that depictions of child pornography that did not involve actual children were legal. This case is very interesting, as it does involve photos of underage children, but as long as the man did not try to distribute the pictures and took reasonable steps to do so, then what persons were harmed?
This case is also very interesting as it seems to hinge on taking two completely legal, distributable components -- a picture of a child and a picture of pornography -- and making something illegal by blending the two. This distinction has an important legal distinction with physical objects all the time, as it is illegal to distribute large quantities of explosives such as ANFO, but legal to distribute fuel oil and fertilizer unblended and separate. With pictures and print, aside from possible slander/libel charges due to misrepresentation, I can't think of any situation in which the mashup of two legally distributable documents would be found to be illegal.
It will be very interesting to see how the court deals with this case.
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.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, in a perfect world, there would be no dangerous perverts.
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.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (Score:3, Insightful)
I am certain that if you film nude children showering themselves (think ~13 girls after school gym) and have a lot of those films you would, and should, be prosecuted for child pornography. (And likely some other charges too, but that is not the point)
Although no one was harmed (according to the list).
A child pornography charge would be somewhat borderline, but recording anyone in the shower without their consent probably violates quite a few other laws anyway.
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?
Alteration in pictures leads to fake person (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:illeagle because its offensive? (Score:3, Insightful)
"You would have to investigate every man who viewed pornography on a computer."
You say that like it's a problem and not the solution to "bad things" morality enforcement is looking for.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
They were abused by having their likeness (a picture of their face) pasted onto someone else's naked body. This is an intangible, virtual abuse, but still an abuse all of its own, esp. if the fellow also distributed said pics.
I read the linked article in its entirety. At no time was there any mention of distribution. As far as I could tell, the guy created these images for his own purposes. He apparently had no contact with any of the girls; one was Miley Cyrus! The article also fails to say how the police and DA became aware of the altered photographs.
Listen to the assistant DA in this case:
Simply the act of grafting the girls' faces onto the adult bodies constitutes "simulated sexual activity" because it is for "sexual gratification?" There's no claim that he distributed the pictures or even told anyone else about them. He's being prosecuted for having made the pictures, period. I'm as opposed to the actual exploitation of real children as the next guy, but I fail to see what crime has been committed here.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
AFAIK such proof does not actually exist. Even though there have been such claims associated with many forms of art.
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.
IIRC in many parts of the US the minimum driving age is below the age of consent. The latter is also often below the minimum age for someone to be a porn model/actor.
Shouldn't operating a machine capable of causing death to bystanders be considered more "adult" than having sex?
which part of "legal" do they have a problem with? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think putting pictures of the faces of your neighbors' children on porn stars is disturbin and wrong. But...
Quote 1:
Quote 2:
Which part of "protected speech" does Ernie Allen not understand? Even if "virtual child pornography" causes someone to commit a crime against children they otherwise wouldn't have, that's the price of free speech. I'm sorry, I don't want to live in a fascist state just so that everybody is maximally safe.
I think they may have a case based on the misuse of the image itself. But the reason for legal action wouldn't be child pornography, it would be that the image of a person is used without their permission in a pornographic context.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
But in this case, it was merely children's faces pasted onto adult bodies. Nobody in their right minds would interpret that as "children engaged in sexual activity".
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
TFA doesn't say whether he uploaded the images or not, but either way - the only arguments against child porn are, as I see it, (1) Think of the Children, which doesn't apply here because no actual children were harmed, and (2) That's Yucky, which IMO is not a valid argument.
Thoughtcrime (Score:4, Insightful)
So what? He didn't publish or distribute these pictures. The cops found them when they were doing a search of his home. Basically he was fantasising, privately. Only pixels were harmed. So no harm to the children's feelings or reputations (until the cops and prosecutors made them public, they did mention some teen star's name).
The process seems to be "This is disgusting, what can we charge him with?" Because the real offence, being creepy, is not actually a crime.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
And gamblers and potsmokers.
Re:Expectations vs Reality... (Score:3, Insightful)
How about mud and a stick? I remember a sculpture (or a photo of one) from an art history class called "the slave girl", depicting a 13ish year old naked girl chained to a post. I don't remember the sculptor's name, iirc it was from just before slavery was abolished in the US.
The model was the artist's young daughter, the piece was a shock-value anti-slavery work. According to art historians, this is Art with a capital "A", yet under today's child porn laws, it would be illegal to possess.
The class was sometime in the late '70s, before these laws were enacted. I'm afraid to google for the damned thing, I don't want to go to prison.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:1, Insightful)
Why should this person even be required pysch treatment? Who are we to say that sexual thoughts about a minor are even morally wrong? Nature would tend to suggest that sexual feelings for anyone over the age of like 12 is completely normal.
Even if what he did WAS illegal, why is it okay to have 18 year old girls be the epitome of sexiness, and then casting a glance at a 17 year old is some sort of morally deplorable thing. And if you think 17 is okay, then why is looking at a 16 year old so much worse? Forcing treatment sounds absolutely unreasonable to me, no matter why he did it.
Re:It's a complicated issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, we evolved in a situation where we would have sex with any woman that looked fertile. A female is "hot" to the extent that she hits the primitive idea of "likely to sexually reproduce with", and a girl doesn't have to be 18 to have a baby.
There are good reasons to not behave as we did in our primitive state, but the desire to impregnate a 15-year-old who has breasts and hips is perfectly natural, dug deep in our psyches, and not going to go away short of a complete redesign of humanity (which would presumably suffer from the second-system effect). We have to deal with that lust somehow, and I'm not convinced that pretending it doesn't exist is always the optimum strategy. Particularly since there's large business interests devoted to convincing us that young teenage girls are sexual commodities.
I don't see any reason to lust after pre-pubescent girls, in an evolutionary sense, but there might be some. Keep trying to get her pregnant until you actually succeed, maybe.
Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Strange that you should mention the instance of my face being pasted to someone else's body and distributed over the internet.
It's actually happened to me. There is, floating around the internet somewhere, a photo that includes me and two of my friends appearing to be about to engage in some gay sex. It was created to be embarrassing, and distributed widely among my friends. Just like the photos in these cases would have to be, it's obviously not my body. Was it intended to be abusive? Sure. It was created by someone who doesn't like me, and posted online to cause me embarrassment.
Does that make it legally actionable? No, and it should not. We have a little thing in this country called the First Amendment that protects the right to say things that are abusive and offensive, with very limited exceptions.
Is it even abusive in this case? The images weren't distributed, the individuals in the photos had no idea that they were ever involved, and likely still don't know. No, it's obviously not abusive. Would it be if they were distributed? It depends on the goal of the distribution - if it was intended to be abusive, it might be. If not, it certainly wouldn't be.
You might be offended by it, but this instance is constitutionally protected. I'd say it doesn't even get past district court level.