Slashdot Mirror
Tennesee Man Charged In "Virtual Pornography" Case
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.'"
No kiddie fondling was ever proven. Can't you give him a break in death?
I agree that he was a weirdo, but that is not a crime.
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?
RIP Michael Jackson!
"Engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream." -Sheldon
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.
That doesn't make it illegal.
(yes, you could possibly get him for sexual harassment, but not child porn.)
Gizzmonic made no accusations. He simply said, regardless of your position on kiddie fondling, which I presume would include inviting them into your bed after filling them full of wine and drugs, you have to admit Michael Jackson was an icon.
Say what you will about dangling children over balcony railings, the man was a pop star!
...three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females.
I guess he should have done it the other way around then. Right?
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".
How we know is more important than what we know.
Ehm, *Cough* Thought Crime *Cough*
Are these legal:
Cut and paste picture, one from a kid's face and one from an adult's privates?
Two ajacent pictures side by side?
Two pictures in the same photo album?
Two pictures in different albums on the same bookshelf?
Two pictures in different parts of the same house?
Two pictures in different parts of the same planet?
There needs to be a safe harbor line somewhere.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
He may be dead, but he will be immortalized by Thriller
I want to be retired when I grow up.
Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......
Wait a sec. I don't think I should go any further with this.......
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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.
Literally of course. He will return as a pop dancing Zombie.
\u262D = \u5350
The question is: what kind of a "thing"?
He professed to love children -- in the conventional sense -- just as many other people do. And he was weird. But people put those two things together, and think "he was doing weird things with children", which does not necessarily follow, at all. If you have real evidence that he was a child molester, then bring it forth. Otherwise, you are doing nothing but pretending that your suspicions are fact.
Even if you didn't like his plastic surgery addiction and kiddie fondling
and that implies that he did actually fondle kids.
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!
No kiddie fondling was ever proven.
He settled out of court. Big difference.
Can't you give him a break in death?
Yeah because now that hes dead.. kiddle fondling doesn't seem so bad.
Lets forgive Saddam Hussein too.
Ironic that (AFAIK) the first time this well-known /. meme/troll is actually true, it still gets modded flamebait. I only have one mod point left, or I'd mod you up Informative lol.
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?
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?
Terrific, Chattanooga made the news.
It had to be some weirdo... not our new residential fiber-optics rollout, not our fuel cell research, not our biofuel companies, not our new VW plant... virtual porn.
That quote looks like an admission to pedophilia. He has a "thing" for children. But that is not the same thing as molesting them. There was never any strong evidence AFIK that he molested. Pedophilia does not equate to child molestation if the pedophile does not act out on the impulse. THere is no harm in that.
It's quite possible that he did molest those children, but it's also quite obvious that he's still a child himself.
Being subjected to the abuse of his father and the warped reality which comes with fame and stardom will do that. You can't have a look at his face and his Peter Pan complexes without knowing that he has problems other than loving children too much.
Children tend to be sexually curious and M.J. is no exception.
He should have shopped adult heads on little girl bodies. Then he could have told the cops they were super models.
So assuming that pedophilia is a kin to vampirism...
The original has died, now the others go back to being "regular" people?
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
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.
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!
The CNN video on the subject: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/06/25/jvm.miley.scare.cnn shows not only the sensationalism of television, but people's willingness to ignore ideas of free speech to "protect the children".
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
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
Different laws obviously but this bloke was found guilty.
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.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Now that he's dead he's no longer able to face his accuser (namely you).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...Summer Glau, 27...Natalie Portman, 18...Sarah Michelle Geller,21 ...
I think we need to see the nude photographs of said actresses to properly evaluate your claims. Please provide links.
Who did Saddam Hussein fondle?
Next, the maker of Photoshop is indicted for aiding and abetting DIY kiddie porn. This is just stupid.
These laws are meant to be there to protect children. No children were harmed in the making of these images. This is essentially thought-crime.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Still unconfirmed. One source says his heart was never revived. CNN is reporting that it was, and that he's in a coma.
Satan
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.
Can you imaging going to jail for a long time and being a registered sex offender for playing with photoshop and some photos of Miley Cirrus? It's outragous!
That law is bizarre... how the hell can they call a person a minor without proving they're a minor? That's sort of a major piece of evidence...
"This person had a picture of Pamela Anderson (naked and petrified), who -- as we all know -- is a minor. You must find him guilty of possession of kiddie porn because we don't actually have to prove that she's a minor for you to convict!"
Jonnie Cochran would be so proud.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I like how this story comes up right after MJ's death.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
What I don't understand is why this guy is being prosecuted for pasting together a picture of Miley Cyrus on a nude body, when there is (was) an actual 20 year old adult HAVING SEX with her. Isn't that statuary rape? Oh... but they are rich and famous so it's ok?!
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
your post in the subject, and part in the body.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The guy is clearly a pedophile which should be enough to remove him from society.
And the lawyer for the defense said:
"If the training bra don't fit, you must acquit!"
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
someone tries to tell me how to post on Slashdot.
You can't say he never warned us!
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
Maybe there's a reason Steve Jobbs went to Tenesee, they seem to specialize in transplants...
when someone whines about it.
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.
If nothing else, perhaps we need copyright law expanded to permit damages when someone uses images of you for specific profit, or penalties if used in the commission of a crime. Ok, I like the second thing better. Let's stick to that.
The reality is that this stuff is harmful, unless someone goes to the extent of creating a lifelike completely artificial child's face. And then even you may create a face that is too close in appearance to a real child's face... And we go down the same road.
SCOTUS made a mess of this.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This are only charges.
Last year someone already got 20 years for something similar: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199
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.
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
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.
You actually support this stupid shit?!
FRA: STFU GTFO
Brass Eye put the head of a child on a nude body. Arrest them!
I know of at least 2 under-18 mothers who would argue that one ;)
So if someone were to, say, photoshop a porn star's body by replacing the head with a dog's, by this logic it is now bestiality? Or would that require two dogs caught mid-coitus with, say, Rene Zellweger's head superimposed? No, wait, because in that scenario logically Rene Zellweger would have to be arrested for bestiality, no, wait again ... Oh nevermind.
I keep having to remind myself that with over 6 BILLION humans on the planet, these kinds of weird cases are bound to come up. This behavior will usually be private, until of course the cops become involved - at which point it becomes a public circus.
... if they also punish him virtually only, and without using any actual virtual punishment device.
Everytime I wondered how retarded they are, I know know that they can't be *that* retarded. So it must be something else. Guess what...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I happen to be one of the men breast-feeding an 8-year old daughter. SCROTUS should be disbanded because they're threatening my rights! I better go talk more about this on 4Chan /h/
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."
"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to trials of people by the state. When a citizen accuses another it's "preponderance of evidence". Which way do you think evidence preponderates, did he or did he not fondle young boys?
For me, at least, his multiple settlements out of court costing him tens of millions of dollars in total is preponderance enough.
A: You're guilty if they want you to be.
B: At least in Norway, you're guilty if they appear to be under 18. There's no defense if you can legally prove thay are over 18. Yes it's true, I read a court verdict where the defendant clearly referred to "Tiny Tove" Jensen, a Danish porn actress that was provably 18+ during her entire career yet played many dubious roles. Thoughtcrime at its best.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
OK, you are technically correct, the making and existance of these photos didn't hurt anyone. Then again, by the same logic, neither does it hurt anyone to sexually pose and photograph a child who is too young, too asleep, or too mentally incapacitated/profoundly retarded to be aware of what photography is. Obviously, those things are illegal, exploitive, and has a high "ewww" factor to boot.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
:wq
So, just paste an Of-Age woman's face on a child's body and BAM no more is it illegal.
Prosecutor can go pursue gang bangers or mafia and risk themselves and their family members to possible violent retaliation that could go on for years, -OR- they can chase down some sicko for disgusting deeds that is otherwise legal and get themselves a lot of positive press as 'protectors of innocent children.' Do point out which one of these two is much easier (not to mention safer) for prosecutors with political aspiration.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
It doesn't matter to you that actors in their late 20s playing teenagers aren't actually convincing?
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Right. And O.J. is innocent too.
Funny? People think Pelosi Porn is funny? More like disgusting and perverted!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Bing!
Glau
Portman
Geller
And the lameness filter says I have too few characters per line! Go Taco, go!
Kid-proof tablet..
If the guy wanted to see nude children, wouldn't he just accuse one of smuggling ibuprofen?
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.
I blame it on the boogie
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Can't he make his child porn in Sims 3 like a normal person?
agreed, since it's the only time I ever actually read the subject, I always have to go back up to see what they said.
There is precedent:
Bars get punished for letting people get drunk if those people happen to drive and hurt someone.
Parents get punished for leaving guns unlocked if their kids find them.
Drivers get punished for leaving pets and kids in a car because the kid or dog *might* suffer, even if it's 80 degrees and it was only 5 minutes.
Even if you can claim these examples aren't really the same, I'm sure you can think of your own examples if you try.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What about anatomically correct Cherub statues of naked little babies/kids that have wings and some are even pissing out into fountains?
I saw we confiscate the books of marble statue sellers and any one who ever bought a cherub statue gets put on the sex offendersw list and maybe some jail time.
I know what people will say, "Oh well they are sculptures, or statues, and they are angelic too!"
Oh so throwing a pair of marble chicken wings on a obscene statue of a naked frolicking child makes everything okay?????
Anyone with a lawn cherub: BAM!!!! compulsory 4 year sentence in federal pound them in the ass prison and permanent residence on the sex offender list.
Maybe the mistake the creepy scary looking idiot in the article made was not putting a pair of clipart wings on his poorly photo shopped creation.
Oh and don't get me started on how wrong a certain cover to a certain VanHalen Album is!
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Parent is totally correct. People need to take a deep breath and THINK before they start demanding irrational behavior from their government officials!
Simply take the emotional issue and switch the topic to another activity and think about how much sense it makes.
Its bad enough to be convicted of INTENT but to go after for IMPLIED intent is a thought crime. 1984. Even if you allow implied intent, there is more reasonable doubt in such a accusation which should make conviction nearly impossible (assuming the system even works.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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.
why would someone who engages in this type of behavior not commit the actual crime in the future?
Because it might increase the risk of getting caught?
It is amazing how a troll made a post in an attempt to go off-topic, yet it is actually on-topic. Just like this case, in regards to protecting the children, you are innocent till accused of child molesting/porn/etc.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
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.)
It doesn't matter to you that actors in their late 20s playing teenagers aren't actually convincing?
That's a rather subjective thing to say. Besides, if age were as objective as you seem to think it is, tell me - why, when buying alcohol or tobacco, do you have to show an ID? why not just install eye-level video cameras?
And on the subject of Summer Glau... she looks a whole lot younger than Jewel Staite yet if you look it up on wikipedia or imdb you'll see that she's actually a year older. But I suppose you, with your magical powers of discernment, knew that?
And then there are these cases:
31-Year-Old Poses as H.S. Student
Twenty-nine Year Old Neil Rodreick Poses as 7th Grader
But I guess their peers are just idiots, huh?
He didn't die, he just went home.
Using the Freedom of Speech while I still have it.
What about Inappropriate VR suit and glove sex?
One could commit all sorts of abominations with yourself and not involve children, animals or furries.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
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.
"Multiple settlements"? That may be so, but I only heard of one.
imagine the perp....
"yeah i went on your schools website, downloaded a bunch of kids faces, pasted them onto porno bodies using software, and jerked off and came all over the screen. your daughter i like especially"
oh wait, slashdotters don't have kids. or consciences.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/06/25/jvm.miley.scare.cnn and we just found out why he's getting charged for this.
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.
coding is life
How many people are betting that drugs caused that heart attack?
Who do you think we are? Agents of the State? We have no such obligations. This is America, we can still make serious accusations about a public figure, as long as we're not intentionally lying about him. And in this case, I'm pretty sure that everyone who believes he was a child molester -- believes this sincerely -- even if they don't have absolute proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt.
And as long as no one tries to take the law into his own hands, we're still entitled to our opinions -- I would hope.
Yes, we could, but I do not care either way. He can't defend himself right now, but it's not like these accusations didn't come out before his death and it's not like if he was still alive right now -- he would respond to our accusations on this bulletin board anyway.
And by the way, I'm not a doctor, nor am I qualified to make such a judgment, but I'd also say he was probably mentally ill. Make of this what you will.
they might as well skip the show trial and go right to stake burning. they're moving in that direction anyway.
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be pornography," Clarence Thomas.
wait I need a shower.
Hey "interkin3tic," you might wanna dilute that Loc-Tite that's sealing up your butthole there. It's really doing a number on your bowels. You gotta loosen up, my man, you know! Like MJ would have wanted you to.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Worried? I just burned all my Buffy paraphernalia and I'm not even in TN.
Now what if this man was a 13 year old girl who was accused of having this pictures and stuffing them in her underwear, should her school officials be allowed to strip search her, and should she go to jail????
That's precisely what the law doesn't say. Instead, it requires the prosecution offer proof the person is a minor, but not necessarily their exact age. I repeat, the DA still has to prove the child was a minor, and that requirement HAS NOT BEEN DROPPED from this law, but quibbling over whether the child was, for example, 11 or 12 at the time of the violation isn't something where the DA has to offer proof. Do it differently, and you get possible cases where the child is a Jane Doe, and where you can bring forward a dozen medical experts who would testify the infant in question can't be more than nine months old, and the accused would still get to have the whole case dropped. The people who are misreading this clause as saying there's no need to prove the person is a minor are demanding a good clause be changed into a bad one, one that would make acquittals for not proving the child's age exactly, count as "guilty but getting off on a technicality".
By the way, that part of the Tennessee law is copied exactly from the system used by both New York and California to keep John Doe/Jane Doe status from blocking prosecution. That part of the law has been used by SCOTUS as an example of how to do it right, and if the Supremes find any part of the Tennessee law unconstitutional, it is incredibly unlikely to be that part, or the 41 other states that have adopted the same model for many of their laws will all need to rewrite about 20 to 30% of their entire legal codes. I have my doubts about some parts of the Tennessee law, but not that part.
Who is John Cabal?
Heres what it boils down to folks. Real picture of a minor's face Real picture of a adult or an appropriate age body = not real pornographic. If ANY alteration of a picture/video has taken place then it is not in the original makers name a.k.a photoshoped. If the picture is not real then it is plainly not real, therefore the person in the picture is not real which leads to the pornographic picture in question being not real. EVEN IF you take the face of a minor and add it to the body of the exact same person 20 years ago it is still considered alteration and therefore the person is not real. There is no differance between this so called pornographic picture and japanesse cartoon pornography of minors becuase it is as simple as this, the person is the picture IS NOT REAL.
not really, there is a girl who is 16 who still has the body of an infant. she simply doesn't age. in many municipalities she could star in pornography based on her age. (she has the mentality of an infant too, which would make it illegal to be sexually involved with her, though). in two years she will be legal everywhere (based solely on age) but still appear as an infant.
but i agree. no one should go to jail unless a court can actually prove they did something that harmed another. people forget our legal system (U.S.) was set up specifically to allow guilty people go free in some circumstances in order to prevent the courts from having the ability to jail the innocent.
Three words: Gary Coleman porn.
The state at least have a defensible idea of what the age of the "victim" is a case like this, the same as they should have an idea of how fast a person charged with speeding is going.
but that's the real "threat" from the government. Film or depict SMG as "Buffy" having sex with a vamp and under the new rules it's a crime because you "called" her 15. That's why they're so careful on the shows like 90210 or Gossip Girl to avoid the "in bed" scenes where their of-age actors might possibly be depicting teens, they have the drama before and after and talk about it graphically but don't show people being "nice" to each other because it might "look" like sex.
Is it still illegal to take pictures in NYC?
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
The geek bends Orwell's words to his own purpose without the slightest hint of irony.
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.
Generally the best way to evaluate a difficult problem in any field is to look at extremely similar events as well. If you come to radically different conclusions on nearly identical issues your thought process is likely flawed. So lets try another one...
1.)I know a douchebag. Occasionally, after being in his presence, I imagine myself punching him. I cant help it, primal rage at his douchebagginess forces these thoughts.
2.)In an attempt to relieve said rage, I photoshop a picture of me punching a punching-bag onto a picture of said douchebag, thereby making it look like I punched him.
3.)One day, I actually punch the douchebag in the face.
Is number 2 assault? Definitely no. Are number 2 and 3 remotely equivalent? I think most would argue no. Would number 2 be enough to get a restraining order against me? Probably.
This doesn't seem to pass the sniff test, as a similar situation fails in equivalency. If the parties involved feel threatened or defamed they have other private legal recourse.
On a personal note, I think this is a bit creepy, and I might not want to hang around that guy. I somewhat understand the prosecutors discomfort with whats being done here. But thats no excuse for some zealot to bend moral equivalency to the breaking point. I suspect those pushing this know darn well they are legally crippled, and are instead trying to spread fear by ruining this mans life with a high profile case. After all, something doesn't have to be illegal (or even have to have taken place) if simply being accused of it will destroy your life. Thats as good a deterrent as any legislation. A lot of witches found that out, as did homosexuals. If there is justice in the world these law enforcement officials will lose their jobs, but we are talking about Tennessee...
As I was recently reminded over dinner, during which we had a conversation about the FDA. The FDA, of course, was originally intended to monitor the purity of food and drugs, but mission creep and self-righteousness has turned it into the arbiter of which medical care a person may pursue.
When I suggested that the government has no right to decide what medical care I should be allowed to have, I was asked who SHOULD have that right. I replied that *I* have that right. They laughed.
Americans are already slaves - and PROUD of it. They love Big Brother.
My family has been in America for nearly 400 years, but I consider myself an American in name only.
He will return as a pop dancing Zombie.
Again? Let's hope his nose doesn't fall off this time.
Which means that if you can't figure out the age of the person, you'd better not have any pictures of them in the nude, since you're the one who has to prove that you are innocent. Somehow I feel this violates a really basic part of the justice system.
And I wonder if people are allowed to have nude pictures of their kids, under this type of law, by the way. It sounds like a risky thing to do.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
That makes an interesting question for the cops prosecuting this case: If the perp had taken a photograph of the 15 year old Buffy (played by the 21 year old SMG), and used her head shot on a nude model, would that be child porn? What about if he pasted the 15 year old buffy onto a nude photo of the 21 year old SMG? Creepy!
I thought it was one of the usual xxx is dead . :) and only now i find out it was not
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.
and it was clear to me in the bald mountain sequence in fantasia: the demon dips his hand into the volano's molten lava and scoops out shimmering female forms, which then dissolve into writhing grotesques:-(
obviously the the work of a joyless misogynist...
Ok, I am not a pedophile, but this is taking things too far, someone photo shops some obvious fake pictures of heads on top of women's bodies, and it gets taken to court, I really hope the judge throws this one out without so much as a glance...this is pushing the envelope too far!
BUT - There was no crime here! Nobody was harmed in anyway. Child pornography harms a child. If no child was harmed, how can a crime related to child pornography have occurred?
Unless the first image your mind made when you read the summary is also a crime. Get ready for the thought police. We must all be fitted with mind-reading-helmets next week.
Any psych treatment would need to be voluntary.
WTF? Really? Next will be going to jail for possession of a picture that depicts a cop being shot or something. We are getting more ridiculous every day.
We're not all the same. It isn't an illness. It is a difference.
Big deal, pay more attention to a criminal and he/she is less likely to commit further crimes. That does not show that 'treatment' works.
You could achieve better results by cutting their legs off and calling that treatment.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. etc.
osama does have some valid criticisms of our popular culture:-{ a society that eroticizes the lack of a secondary sexual characteristic should not be surprised at an increase in pedophilia...
It would be pretty close to an admission of guilt if our legal system worked properly... and we all had unlimited free time...
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Offtopic aside: It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment What the fuck? Slashdot, making sure that only the slowest thinkers may post comments at their natural pace. This place is participating in a serious fucking race to the bottom... And is only a few paces behind Digg.
Not really, half of digg is "funny pictures" and more immature stuff. The comments that get dugg up are usually clever short jokes, no real discussion of any sort really goes on there, it is mostly a race to see who gets the most diggs, who can refer to memes cleverly, and being the
first to post an obvious joke related to the story. I have been pretty pleased that slashdot hasn't degenerated into a succession of "MOAR, EPIC WIN, EPIC FAIL" posts (an emulation of the chans, not even original to digg).
Take a deep breath drinkypoo ! It will be alright!
music lover since 1969
I'm on the verge of driving up to the courthouse and on the way buying a playboy magazine, a people magazine, construction paper, scissors and elmer's glue. Then sitting on the courthouse steps and recreating similar images just to show how stupid this law is.
No kiddie fondling was ever proven. Can't you give him a break in death?
"Proven in court" and "actually took place" are two different things. Just because something isn't proven doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just ask O.J. I don't look down on Michael Jackson for being a weirdo, that is his right. But I don't share the same feeling on his interactions with children. And no, I can't pretend those things didn't happen just because he isn't alive now. Those kids are still alive, and "giving him a break" would be pretty insulting to them.
"But this one goes to 11!"
So out of curiosity, if someone took, lets say, a picture of a naked woman's body, and pasted a dog's head over her head, and obviously in the process of "getting it on", would it be considered bestiality?
science.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?id=4989379&op=view
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.
"The difference is that if the picture is of a six-year-old, it is pretty clear the person is a minor"
"For a toddler, it's obvious, but what about someone in high school?"
Are you sure? Another /. article from today talks about a girl who looks like an infant but is 16. In 2 years do you think people will look at her and think anything but "baby"?
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/1342215/Doctors-Baffled-Intrigued-By-Girl-Who-Doesnt-Age?art_pos=4
What about Hallie Kate Eisenberg, who played the little girl in the pepsi commericals? She looked like a 6 year old with the vocabulary/intelligence of a teenager- because she was a teenager! Or Gary Coleman who played a child well into his adult years.
Although I'm all for fighting child pornography, I think that the government needs to provide evidence that a person used in pornography is truly under the age of 18. It falls into that whole 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'.
Yeah this prosecution makes sense. As much sense as me getting charged for animal cruelty for target practicing with printout targets of farm animals. Maybe for ther encore these prosecutors would like to take up the serious loopholes with regards to "Assault with intent to do serious physical harm" or "attempted murder" laws that those dastardly crash test engineers use to avoid prosecution for placing human likenesses (IE Crash Test Dummies) in vehicles that are about to be slammed into a wall.
Although I'm all for fighting child pornography, I think that the government needs to provide evidence that a person used in pornography is truly under the age of 18.
Agreed. Note, you did not say "I think that the government needs to provide evidence that a person used in pornography is truly a particular age."
The obvious solution is to make such things illegal and to declare everything that isn't normal a mental disease and force a cure upon them, changing who they are in the process.
How about a case where someone clips parts of a picture taken 20 years ago, today, and slaps it onto a nude adult body? Since the "victim" was actually an adult at the time the "crime" took place, would there even be a crime at all? What if the "victim" here knowingly supplies the 20 year old photograph of themselves as a child to the offender in question? And does the "victim" become the "offender" by exploiting themselves at a younger age with an image that was taken for completely unrelated purposes?
8==8 Bones 8==8
Well, I'm surprised that nobody's signed up in his name yet at least. Don't tell me the global recession is finally hitting the slashdot trolls!
+1, Funny? Come on. What the parent said is pretty much true - allegiations alone can seriously damage your reputation, possibly forever. Even the best of arguments won't help as the (currently ongoing) Tauss case has shown in Germany: Even someone who has "investigates child pornography" in his job description and who needs to look at the stuff to do said job can be dragged to court and subsequently slaughtered by the press for posession. As only reporting half of the story does not count as libel, the press have to fear little to no repercussions.
(Just to clarify: Tauss resigned from his position over differences about the methods used to combat child porn. Certain politicians then immediately revoked his right to posess child porn and reported him to the police. The thing the courts are deciding right now is not whether he posessed child porn but whether it was actually illegal for him to do so. Nonetheless, most media only get to "Tauss is on trial for posessing child porn" and will undoubtedly never clarify.)
In short: As soon as you end up in court over anything involving child porn you can essentially kiss your reputation goodbye, even if you are found to be innocent or the judge throws out the entire case. You don't even need a court case if someone just points at you and yells loud enough for a newspaper to print it.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
I maintain that the Smooth Criminal scene from Moonwalker was better, even though the rest of the movie was just bad. Okay, except for the part where he turns into a giant robot and kills a dozen mooks. The cognitive dissonance is almost palpable.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Seeing that in Moonwalker he already established that he is a Transformer (capable of transforming into a Lancia Stratos prototype, a starship, a very lifelike android and of course a robot) it's not that much of a stretch to assume he went back to Cybertron. Either that or he ran out of Energon.
I actually have trouble placing him. His heavy armament, his actions during the Smooth Criminal segment and the fact that one of his forms is a starship suggest Decepticon, although him going out of his way to protect the children would suggest Autobot. Of course he has no insignia whatsoever and his human mode reminds me of Animated's Sari Sumdac. Perhaps he is some kind of experimental Decepticon and the children are Sari-type protoforms he was to recruit. Yeah, that makes sense.
Did anyone see a suspicious red-blue truck nearby prior to his death? Maybe he was after further protoforms and the Autobots intervened.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Assuming I have it -- I can take your picture and paste it on whatever the fuck I want, with or without your consent, at any time, in the privacy of my home. And there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it even if you know about it. Nobody has rights to say what can be done with a picture of them like that. There IS no age of informed consent for such acts. Total moron argument.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
...so you're full of shit. QED.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Look up news outlets from Chattanooga and look this person up.