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.'"
I wonder if that's been tested. It sounds scary, in that it assumes the "minor" part.
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!
A game of hang man...
/|\
-----
|/ |
| 0
|
| |
| / \
/ \
===========
Or virtual snuff porn? You decide.
[Note to UK police officers reading this - Mr Hangman is at least 18 years of age.]
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.
This is like that hentai guy. I think material like this may be grounds for investigating someone to see if they have actual illegal porn. But I don't see how this is a crime. I don't want thought police, but there should be no gray area when actual children are involved.
Is seeing a man with a bunch of gold chains walking around in a slum grounds for investigating him to see if he's got stolen goods? Rich guy in poor area? Maybe follow him home and search his house. Where there's smoke, there's fire, right?
Wrong. Teach your children that when someone says or does something sexual, they tell you. Go from there. That's really all that needs be done. Stop inventing opportunity thought TV shows. Stop freaking out about Internet predators when the vast majority of sexual abusers are relatives and close family friends.
When you've got evidence of a crime, investigate. When you've got evidence of what you think might possibly suggest a mind-set of criminal nature... relax. Paranoia State does more harm than good.
"Oh no... he found the
I have to seriously disagree. That is like saying "killing someone is never acceptable and making images of someone being killed even though they aren't really being killed is likewise unacceptable."
Is the issue here just the "sexuality"? Is that the fierce demon we are all trying to keep away from our children? If that's true, then Disney needs to be completely dismantled for what it has been doing lately. (Interestingly enough, one of the faces being used was Miley Cyrus...)
I think what is needed is some serious exploration of what we are *really* targeting and punishing and *why*. And seriously, if it is the act of creating what some might consider to be art, then what is next? Punishment for merely imagining sexual situations with a child and admitting it to someone in some way? Is that ALSO worthy of punishment?
The lines and the causes are in some SERIOUS need of clear definition. It's easy for people to get outraged and upset over nothing or very little.
Keep in mind -- NO ONE HAS BEEN HARMED. NO ONE. Whether or not something should be done and if so, what? That's yet another question, but I think the lines should be defined.
There's images of real children (their faces). They were too young to give informed consent for those images being combined with the other images (adult women's bodies). (That last point technically assumes the faces weren't very old footage and in the interm the children hadn't grown up enough to give legal consent of course, and there could be other factors, such as whether anyone actually recognized a face and thought the photos were actually all of the person that went with the face, not composites.).
I.E. means 'id est', and the usual English translation of that is to hold it to mean 'that is'. I.e. is properly used when you intend to restate an idea, or expand upon it.
E.g. is an abbreviation for the Latin 'exempli gratia'. The normal English equivalent is 'for example'. If you mean to clairify by an example, and that example doesn't limit what other cases might also exist, e.g is correct.
While Jane Q Public used i.e., the original supreme court ruling didn't. Instead, it talked about possible harm to real minors, and used actual abuse or molestation as two examples of such harm, not as a limiting definition enumerating all possible harm connected to the production of material. Jane probably should have used 'e.g.'
Here's a bit from the SCOTUS decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
" Section 2256(8)(C) prohibits a more common and lower tech means of creating virtual images, known as computer morphing. Rather than creating original images, pornographers can alter innocent pictures of real children so that the children appear to be engaged in sexual activity. Although morphed images may fall within the definition of virtual child pornography, they implicate the interests of real children and are in that sense closer to the images in Ferber."
(Ferber refers to a still standing older state child pornography law Ferber v. New York. The Supreme court is holding in this paragraph that morped images that start with some innocent image of a real child are not the same situation as the 'higher tech' virtual images that are implied to exist by the first sentence and already mentioned in other parts of the decision).
Note that the court said "implicate the interests of real children", which could include many other situations than actual abuse or molestation. Presumably, the effects on the child's interests would have to be negative, although that's not really spelled out, and presumably the normal legal principles about proportionality and gravity apply, so if casting Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon had been a dumb career move, it wouldn't be enough to trigger a charge against her mother.
Here's the whole thing:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html
I am not a Lawyer either, but if you read this, it looks like Ferber v. new York, and the Miller standard that is referenced in this decision, are defining lines, and this new Tennessee case really does get pretty close to those lines if not over one or both.
Who is John Cabal?
I am aware that there were other tragedies... but the scope of this one was rather large. In any case, while I did not specifically say so, I was referring to mass court convictions of innocent people, based on no evidence. While the Red Scare led to the abuse of an awful lot of people, some of them were in fact communists (whatever that was worth at the time), and while what was done to them and the "innocent" people was bad, it does not equate to decades in prison for child sex abuse (you know what they do to those people in prison), the ripping apart of families, and heavy psychological damage to otherwise innocent children.
By the way, see the reply near this one: FYI, the Wikipedia entry on "Wenatchee sex ring" is incomplete in some places and inaccurate in others.
Kathryn Lyon, the author of "Witch Hunt", is herself an attorney and rented a home in Wenatchee specifically to observe what was going on. She and some others kept meticulous records (which apparently the police department and "Child Protective Services" refused to do). When a local pastor tried to object to what was being done to families without any evidence, he found himself and his wife charged with multiple counts of sexual molestation of children. (They were eventually acquitted.) When a child welfare worker also tried to intervene, he found himself similarly charged. When they spoke up about the case, a reporter from Spokane was also threatened with charges, as was Lyon herself.
I am aware that worse things have occurred. But not many.