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.'"
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 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*
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
Literally of course. He will return as a pop dancing Zombie.
\u262D = \u5350
these strange cases that have been made possible by the advancement of technology
What technology? Scissors and glue?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
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?
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 - 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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Sourced from NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES, INC.
Sex Offenders Report
There is a widespread misperception that people who commit sexual crimes do it again and again. The research, however, directly contradicts this. Recidivism rates for sex offenses are relatively low, typically running in the 3-13% range, and among the lowest of all types of crimes.
In contrast, the general rearrest rate for people released from prison was 68%. The highest rates were stealing motor vehicles (79%) and possessing or selling stolen property (77%)
The chance that a person convicted of a sex crime will someday commit some other crime greatly exceeds the chance that he or she will commit another sex crime. The second offense may be possession of marijuana, driving drunk or shoplifting â" but it increases the reoffense rate. Such subsequent misconduct carries its own concerns, but it is not the repeat incurable pedophile of myth. Indeed reoffense rates for all crimes among sex offenders is still lower than reoffense rates for all crimes among non-sex offenders. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found:
Child molester rearrest rate for new sex crime against a child: 3.3%
All sex offender rearrest rate for new sex crime against a child: 2.2%16
All sex offenders rearrest rate for any kind of offense: 43%
All offenders rearrest rate for any kind of offense: 68%
Oh, as for rehabilitation of these people? Lets have a look at some more stats.
Margaret Alexanderâ(TM)s 1999 meta-analysis of nearly 11,000 sex offenders from 79 separate studies found that people who participated in treatment programs had a combined rearrest rate of 7.2% compared to 17.6% among untreated individuals (a reduction of 59%).
Karl Hansonâ(TM)s 2000 comprehensive metaanalysis found 10% of treatment subjects reoffended, compared to 17% of untreated subjects (a reduction of 41%).
The Campbell Collaboration meta-analysis of 69 studies of 22,000 individuals found that treatment reduced recidivism by 37%.
Guess that makes you post a bit of a swing and a miss?
If someone is physically handicapped, we go out of our way to help them. If they are blind, we give them guide dogs and sound driven information. If someone is clinically depressed, we try to treat them. Why can you not understand that trying to help and educate sex offenders is so much better than just locking them up and throwing away the key - not even looking at the slippery slope I put up in my original post.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!