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.'"

7 of 639 comments (clear)

  1. the photos feature the faces of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females.

    I guess he should have done it the other way around then. Right?

  2. So if he takes the head of Goofy by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......

    Wait a sec. I don't think I should go any further with this.......

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  3. Re:Interesting...and so's this! by Arthur+B. · · Score: 5, Funny

    Literally of course. He will return as a pop dancing Zombie.

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
  4. Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT! by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you are a purveyor of stick-man pornography, please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD make your stick men big! Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.

    Oh! And be sure to include scale objects in your drawing so that everybody knows that you're drawing a big stick man. Ummm . . . I mean scale objects extrinsic to the stick man.

    Now, go on and enjoy your stick-man / stick-woman pornography!

  5. Re:Not completely related but... by pak9rabid · · Score: 4, Funny

    RIP Michael Jackson!

    [Bender] He's defiling young angels now. [/Bender]

  6. Sexual: Check by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Exploitation: Check, probably.

    Minor: Check.

    Yep, seems like a tautology to me - he's guilty. Note they didn't convict him of sexual abuse of a minor, or making child pornography, or anything like that.

    Does this mean I think he should be convicted of a crime - maybe. The problem is the use (I assume) of the word "exploitation" in a crime. It can be interpreted to mean almost anything. It's like being convicted of being "too douchy". How douchy is too douchy?

  7. Re:Interesting...and so's this! by AshtangiMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Satan