PDA

View Full Version : Elementary School Principal Busted On Child Pornography Charge


Filly
12-23-2007, 11:31 PM
John Stelmack, a Polk Elememntary school Prinicpal was arrested after workers in the school found pictures in his briefcase of a naked girl with THE HEAD OF A TEN YEAR OLD GIRL SUPERIMPOSED on the body. O.K. now here we go with another depraved freak. BTW, he made bail.http://www.wesh.com/news/14912360/detail.html

Taximom
12-23-2007, 11:39 PM
So like a naked "woman" with a "girl's" head on it? ETA: OH, after reading the article the head was of a 10 yr old student in his school!!!!!!!!! :sick:

It really scares me how many of these creeps are in authority positions at schools!!

Taximom
12-24-2007, 12:07 AM
I don't know if you remember, but BTK kept a collection similar to this. He would go through magazines, catalogs and newspaper ads and cut out pics of girls. He even had them organized somehow.

:eek:

Taximom
12-24-2007, 12:26 AM
Here's a little more to make you sick:
According to a Polk County sheriff's report, Stelmack took routine photographs of children in a school setting, including a 10-year-old who attended Scott Lake Elementary last year, and digitally superimposed their faces onto nude images. The identified girl's facial image was on four of the pictures, and another unidentified female child's face was placed on the body of another nude image, the report stated.

"The photographs that Stelmack manipulated into child pornography are graphic and repulsive," Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said. "To think that a school principal, someone who is entrusted with the safety and well-being of hundreds of school children, would do something like this is incomprehensible."

Stelmack is married and has two adult children. He came to Polk County from the New York state school system.

Hmmm, wonder why he left NY. I hope they didn't just pass on a "problem employee". (more at link)
http://www.local6.com/news/14906749/detail.html

Taximom
12-24-2007, 12:42 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22372183/
"It's all a mistake," John "Jack" Stelmack said to reporters outside the jail.
and
During the court hearing Stelmack's wife, Kathleen, spoke about his educational and professional achievements, Assistant State Attorney Brad Copley objected that the material was irrelevant to his questions.
and
The school district had been investigating Stelmack since last Friday, after faculty members complained about Stelmack's level of affection shown toward some students. He has been suspended with pay since that investigation began.
More details about Stelmack's previous work history in New York emerged today.
Stelmack's resignation as principal of Ellicott Elementary in suburban Buffalo, N.Y., was accepted on Feb. 28, 2006, according to 2006 meeting minutes from the Orchard Park Central School District Board of Education.
The resignation was to take effect on June 30 of that year. No reason is given in the minutes for Stelmack's resignation.
The decision came one day after the announcement that a bus driver at his school was arrested on charges of possession of child pornography obtained over the Internet, according to the minutes.
It is not clear in the minutes if Stelmack's resignation was related to the bus driver's arrest.
The 2006 Buffalo case involved bus driver Terryl Noyes, whom U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents accused of downloading sexually explicit images of children believed to be 10 to 12 years old. Noyes was an employee of the bus company that provided service to Buffalo area schools.
According to federal agents, Noyes admitted he would trade with others the images that came from Russian and U.S. Internet sites. He was sentenced in March to more than five years in federal prison, according to news reports.
A criminal background check conducted by the Polk school district on Stelmack revealed only a 1986 arrest for drunken driving. The charge later was reduced to reckless driving.
Ron Ciranna, head of the school district's human resources, said the district hired Stelmack without receiving his full personnel records from New York.
It was a mistake that violated school district policy, which is to review all such records prior to hiring a principal, Ciranna said. (MORE AT LINK)

Unbelievable. Fire the idiots that hired him without checking him out completely and put those poor children at risk.

philamena
12-24-2007, 01:40 AM
Lock himj up for life. He is a very dangerous man.
I'm beginning to wonder if people realize the danger pedophiles pose to society!

Filly
12-24-2007, 01:40 AM
Thanks for all this information, Taximom. Oh, so that's just great that school in Polk hired him before they had all his records for the background check. Ya know too with the wife speaking of all his achievments. Do we care? He's a loon, and a freak. Maybe he did the superimposing stuff cause he couldn't get caught with child porn? Internet wise I mean? That bus driver gets busted and the next day he resigns. I doubt it's a co-inky-dink. Man, how frightening is that all? Creep!

Bobbisangel
12-24-2007, 04:02 AM
I wonder what the workers were doing in his briefcase? How did they know those pic's were in there? Why was he carrying those pictures around with him? That was pretty stupid. You would think he would have had them hidden at home. I'd like to hear this story from the beginning. Did the workers suspect him of having stuff like that with him or did they think he acted strange around the little girls? I hope we hear whether he had this stuff on his computer at home or not. Was he on friendly terms with the workers that found the pictures? Were the pictures of the kids on the bodies of mature women? I think that is kind of odd. He does look like a pervert but so do a lot of people. I'm going to follow this case and hope we hear the rest of the story.

txsvicki
12-24-2007, 04:43 AM
Did I understand the article correctly? It seems that the guy previously resigned from a school, but no reason was listed in the minutes? That does sound very suspicious. The workers at the current school did become suspicious of his overly affectionate ways with kids, and thank goodness that they did. Maybe they heard something through the grapevine about this freak. Someone mentioned btk. He carried those cards he made up to work and said that he had a few with him everywhere he went just to look at if he wanted. Sounds like this nut was doing sort of the same thing.

MeoW333
12-24-2007, 05:59 AM
I hope LE can get to this man's computers at home in time. I wouldn't be surprised is he has more pictures on a hidden laptop somewhere in his house. Laptops are smaller and easier to hide. He probably resigned in NY since he thought he would be under scrutiny next after the bus driver. He must have photoshop.. I hope this guy gets prison time and not a slap on the wrist.

Taximom
12-24-2007, 08:31 AM
I wonder what the workers were doing in his briefcase? How did they know those pic's were in there? Why was he carrying those pictures around with him? (snipped).

I was hoping to find those answers somewhere! I don't know the laws etc, but what right did they have to go in his belongings? PLEASE know I'm not defending him, just wondering how he got caught. I'm sure glad he did though.

UGH. Can you imagine what they must have felt when they saw what was in there? :sick: :mad:

Taximom
12-24-2007, 08:37 AM
Did I understand the article correctly? It seems that the guy previously resigned from a school, but no reason was listed in the minutes? That does sound very suspicious. The workers at the current school did become suspicious of his overly affectionate ways with kids, and thank goodness that they did. Maybe they heard something through the grapevine about this freak. Someone mentioned btk. He carried those cards he made up to work and said that he had a few with him everywhere he went just to look at if he wanted. Sounds like this nut was doing sort of the same thing.

Well, he resigned in NY the day after a bus driver was caught up in a federal child porn sting. Apparently nobody suspected him, but he was probably quite nervous. So NY didn't know a thing about this sicko.

They might have thought he was resigning because he allowed a sicko bus driver to work in the district. Little did they know...

Taximom
12-24-2007, 08:48 AM
I hope nobody here had any children that were in these school districts:
Jack Stelmack
Scott Lake Elementary
Age: 59
Salary: $75,716
Experience: 2004-2006, principal, Orchard Park Central School District in New York; 1999-2004, principal, Olean City School District in New York; 1998-1999, administrative intern, Jamestown City School District in New York; teacher for 13 years in the Elmira City School District in New York.


Minutes from NY school board meeting where they accepted his resignation:
Moved by G. Zimmerman, seconded by M. Fay upon the recommendation of Mark J. Ward, Superintendent of Schools, to accept the resignation of JOHN STELMACK, with regret, as an Elementary Principal at East View, effective November 24, 2004.
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:_0bUcpjO4LAJ:staging.olean.wnyric.o rg/8549092115758/lib/8549092115758/Minutes/2005-06/11-16-04%2520REGULAR%2520MEETING%2520APPROVED%2520MINUTE S.DOC+%22stelmack%22+principal+ny+-pornography&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us&lr=lang_en (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:_0bUcpjO4LAJ:staging.olean.wnyric.o rg/8549092115758/lib/8549092115758/Minutes/2005-06/11-16-04%2520REGULAR%2520MEETING%2520APPROVED%2520MINUTE S.DOC+%22stelmack%22+principal+ny+-pornography&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us&lr=lang_en)

And according to this article, parents in NY were furious because he didn't take any action against the bus driver?
In the Ledger's story, reporter John Chambliss wrote:
Joan Thomas, Stelmack’s replacement in Orchard Park, N.Y **., said the school district there never received any sexual-related complaints about him.... Another time, parents accused Stelmack of not taking any action against a bus driver who was charged with possession of child pronography in his home, Thomas said.
Parents were furious, Thomas said.
“He (Stelmack) didn’t do anything wrong but didn’t do enough,” Thomas said.
This site also lists his autobiography:
(More at link) http://lakelandlocal.com/2007/12/scott-lake-principal-arrested.html

txsvicki
12-24-2007, 05:31 PM
The article said the bus driver was trading the child porn with others. I'll bet the principal was one of them, and they just couldn't prove it. The school district should give all reasons for resignations and make notes for future references just like any other employer would. I don't trust them to be sure all information gets sent on to other school districts.

crypto6
12-27-2007, 02:47 PM
I was hoping to find those answers somewhere! I don't know the laws etc, but what right did they have to go in his belongings? PLEASE know I'm not defending him, just wondering how he got caught. I'm sure glad he did though.

UGH. Can you imagine what they must have felt when they saw what was in there? :sick: :mad:

Taxi: I've got the same questions. What if the laptop were private property?
Did they have the right to search it?

Also the pix? Are they child porn under the law?

Obviously this guy is sick and needs to be away from kids, but can we nail him hard under present law??

Crypto6

Mommyofthree
12-28-2007, 12:16 PM
You hear something a couple weeks ago about the principal who is donating one of his kidneys to a 13 year old girl who's a student that has been battling a rare kidney disease called Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis. He said how he's always been there and wanting to help children and this is something that helps a child so much more and for Christmas. This story made me cry.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/ChristmasCountdown/story?id=4018963

and then you hear about this guy who's a principal and does something twisted like this? Think of all the parents who think that a principal is the number one person in that school that you can count on or trust. I hope he ends up with jail time and not just losing his job.

Mommyofthree
12-28-2007, 12:24 PM
[quote=Bobbisangel;1870034]I wonder what the workers were doing in his briefcase? How did they know those pic's were in there? Why was he carrying those pictures around with him? That was pretty stupid. You would think he would have had them hidden at home. I'd like to hear this story from the beginning. Did the workers suspect him of having stuff like that with him or did they think he acted strange around the little girls? I hope we hear whether he had this stuff on his computer at home or not. Was he on friendly terms with the workers that found the pictures?

Hearing this story, I wonder the same things. Was anything found in his home that incldued the same content? I know they found a few pictures but were they all in his briefcase? What made the staff search through his stuff? Were people suspecting him? and if so what made those people suspect him? Are we sure someone (maybe a member of the staff) didn't plant them there if there is no other evidence?

I think about what I've read and I'm just wondering how much evidence there is. I don't think someone could make something like this up, especially a person in a school environment where parents will now be afraid to send their children to that school or possibly any school. I just wanted to know if there was more to this story....

Taximom
12-28-2007, 12:36 PM
I would think he would be screaming "THOSE AREN'T MINE" instead of "It's all a mistake." He's apparently the one that took the pictures of the children "routinely" at school.

Plus we have the strange and sudden resignation after the bus driver at his old school was caught in a federal porn sting....

Filly
12-05-2010, 05:25 PM
Sentence overturned.

O.K. folks it's O.K. to paste the heads of little kids onto the bodies of half naked women.

Principal Stelmack is back in action. Thanks Florida.



http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/specials/weirdflorida/blog/2010/12/report_judges_say_bizarre_cuta_1.html

Missizzy
12-05-2010, 10:11 PM
I'm sure many missed it as I really didn't know the right place to post it. But there was a VERY disturbing article recently concerning the use of "artificially produced" child porn and the hypothesis that the use of such porn lowers the rate of child abuse. Here's a link:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/209823.php

Link Between The Legalizing Of Child Pornography And Lower Rates Of Child Sex Abuse

Not buying it. Stelmack scares the putty out of me.

Nova
12-05-2010, 10:28 PM
I'm sure many missed it as I really didn't know the right place to post it. But there was a VERY disturbing article recently concerning the use of "artificially produced" child porn and the hypothesis that the use of such porn lowers the rate of child abuse. Here's a link:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/209823.php

Link Between The Legalizing Of Child Pornography And Lower Rates Of Child Sex Abuse

Not buying it. Stelmack scares the putty out of me.

Why is it disturbing (other than the fact that child porn is always disturbing)?

And why don't you buy it, since at least half a dozen countries report similar trends?

Missizzy
12-05-2010, 10:40 PM
Possibly of interest?

http://www.ecpat.net/ei/Csec_pornography.asp

".....Child pornography includes not only the use of real children to make these materials but also artificially created imagery. This ‘virtual’ material is usually referred to as pseudo-child pornography, and includes digitally created images and ‘morphed’, or blended, images of adults and children. ‘Pseudo’ in this sense, however, should be used warily. Its synonymic link to ‘false’ could have the effect of downplaying the exploitative significance of such imagery and its power to normalise images of child sexual abuse and to incite sexual exploitation of children (under the pretext of such pornography not being ‘real’)....."

So, just what does the judge not agree with here? This is from the International Convention of the Rights of the Child.

Missizzy
12-05-2010, 10:43 PM
Nova--It's simple to me. The depiction of children as sex objects is immoral, unethical, and plain wrong. No matter how the images are made, this is harmful to children and to society, IMO.

Studies have shown/proven many things that I happen to believe are way off base, per my own experiences. Plain and simple. JMO

Nova
12-06-2010, 01:08 PM
Possibly of interest?

http://www.ecpat.net/ei/Csec_pornography.asp

".....Child pornography includes not only the use of real children to make these materials but also artificially created imagery. This ‘virtual’ material is usually referred to as pseudo-child pornography, and includes digitally created images and ‘morphed’, or blended, images of adults and children. ‘Pseudo’ in this sense, however, should be used warily. Its synonymic link to ‘false’ could have the effect of downplaying the exploitative significance of such imagery and its power to normalise images of child sexual abuse and to incite sexual exploitation of children (under the pretext of such pornography not being ‘real’)....."

So, just what does the judge not agree with here? This is from the International Convention of the Rights of the Child.

He's an American judge and this is an American case. The definition(s) you cite are from Europe; they don't apply to this appeal.

Check out "Simulated child pornography" on Wikipedia. Per that site, such images are illegal in Germany, but legal in the U.S. unless the images qualify as "obscene" under a different set of standards.

Nova
12-06-2010, 01:13 PM
Nova--It's simple to me. The depiction of children as sex objects is immoral, unethical, and plain wrong. No matter how the images are made, this is harmful to children and to society, IMO.

Studies have shown/proven many things that I happen to believe are way off base, per my own experiences. Plain and simple. JMO

(Emphasis added.) I agree with the sentence I bolded, but not everything that is immoral should also be illegal.

What is the harm when no child is involved in the production of the image? I believe you have to prove harm to surmount freedom of speech protections.

IWannaKnow
12-06-2010, 01:49 PM
Just because it is not illegal does not make it OK in my very humble opinion as a victim of such activities....I don't care what statistics the talking heads quote. Why do they go to so much trouble to manufacture it, then spend hours looking at it if it does not turn them on? Why not look at other types of porn if that is not their cup of tea? That is all they need to fill the nasty little hole in them and they will not perpetrate any children because they got their "fix" from these fake little pictures which are not harming anyone??? I'm with Izzy - I don't buy it.

All the greatest scientists thought the world was flat for a very long time. They were wrong.
In the interest of all the children, I would rather be safe than sorry. I think a child's safety, and right to a decent life trumps freedom of speech in this case, but that is just me.

eta: This is not directed at anyone in particular....just had to voice that opinion.

reen
12-06-2010, 01:56 PM
Sentence overturned.

O.K. folks it's O.K. to paste the heads of little kids onto the bodies of half naked women.

Principal Stelmack is back in action. Thanks Florida.



http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/specials/weirdflorida/blog/2010/12/report_judges_say_bizarre_cuta_1.html

"Unseemly"????? Really. How about "disgusting," "frightening," "vile"? My mind is wide open to lifestyle choices, and I can see where there really aren't laws being broken here, but it really sickens me. Let's hope it doesn't escalate to the point where we hear about him assaulting a child next.

Missizzy
12-06-2010, 02:16 PM
Nova--You are absolutely correct. I was quoting from a European source. I quoted those words as they closely mirror my own philosophy. I believe, though, that several US states lave laws pertaining to artificially produced child porn. I will do some checking. Recently, a man in Missouri was jailed for having "cartoon" child porn.

You bring up a valid point about illegality and immorality. Please consider this article. There are other studies, also. I am not asking you to agree with me. I am merely stating my own opinion and my own experience. Child pornography altered our family's history forever. Even though the rapist/photographer was put away for 10 years, his legacy of pain and shame will remain with us forever.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=9802655

Many who view child pornography act out what they see

".....40 percent of child pornography offenders are "dual offenders," trading in child pornography and sexually acting out on a child. -National Center for Missing and Exploited Children..."


Our children's safety is far too precious to legalize any form of child pornography, IMO.

Missizzy
12-06-2010, 02:21 PM
Unseemly: Not proper or appropriate.

That would be akin to a school principal wearing a tank top and shorts to graduation or smoking in front of the school or using a nasty word in earshot of the kinders.

Stelmack's behavior goes WAY beyond unseemly IMO.

Missizzy
12-06-2010, 02:44 PM
Here's our thread of the case I referred to:

Sugar Creek, MO man indicted for child porn "bondage cartoons" - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Sugar Creek, MO man indicted for child porn "bondage cartoons"


http://www.justice.gov/usao/mow/news2010/cordry.ind.htm

March 4, 2010

"....When [Martin] Cordry was arrested on Wednesday, March 3, 2010, the government’s motion says, he told officers that he had obtained a new computer during the investigation and had used a file-sharing program to obtain additional child pornography. Investigators discovered more than 1,000 cartoon images of sexual assaults of children (including children in bondage) on an external hard drive, as well as 15 child pornography videos on Cordry’s computer...."

and

http://www.justice.gov/usao/mow/news2010/cordry.ple.htm

PRIOR CHILD SEX OFFENDER PLEADS GUILTY TO CHILD PORN,
FACES AT LEAST 15 YEARS IN PRISON

"...According to court documents, Cordry was sentenced to 12 years in prison in 1994 for the rape and sodomy of a 7-year-old victim....."

and

more at link


I will admit that I have no idea if Mr. Cordry's sentence was based on the "real" child porn or the "cartoon" child porn or both. I find it interesting, though, that it is mentioned in both PRs by the Dept. of Justice. They surely didn't mention the fly-fishing or cooking videos he possessed.

Here's another link:

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2451


What Is Child Pornography?

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

~the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

~the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

~the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

much more at link

Makes me wonder if the state will appeal this judge's decision.

Nova
12-06-2010, 02:54 PM
Nova--You are absolutely correct. I was quoting from a European source. I quoted those words as they closely mirror my own philosophy. I believe, though, that several US states lave laws pertaining to artificially produced child porn. I will do some checking. Recently, a man in Missouri was jailed for having "cartoon" child porn.

You bring up a valid point about illegality and immorality. Please consider this article. There are other studies, also. I am not asking you to agree with me. I am merely stating my own opinion and my own experience. Child pornography altered our family's history forever. Even though the rapist/photographer was put away for 10 years, his legacy of pain and shame will remain with us forever.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=9802655

Many who view child pornography act out what they see

".....40 percent of child pornography offenders are "dual offenders," trading in child pornography and sexually acting out on a child. -National Center for Missing and Exploited Children..."


Our children's safety is far too precious to legalize any form of child pornography, IMO.

That article is long on claims ("those who view it, do it") and short on evidence that the behavior is caused by viewing the imagery. In fact, it offers no evidence of the latter.

If 40% are "dual offenders", then that means the majority (nearly 2/3) of those who view child pornography do NOT act out on a child. And it certainly doesn't prove that the 40% were driven by porn to harm children. (ETA: at another site (also provided to me by Missi, BTW) it says an additional 15% of child porn viewers were caught (unsuccessfully) soliciting sex with children. So it's not true that the majority who view it fail to act; a small majority who view child porn also attempt to take equivalent action.)

We don't execute people for drawing depictions of murder. Nor do we assume that everyone who sees such a picture will imitate the same act in real life.

I'm very sorry for the hurt caused to your family, but since you mention rape and photography, I assume the porn in question wasn't simulated.

Yes, children are precious, but the legal question remains: how are they harmed by something in which they do not participate?

Nova
12-06-2010, 03:13 PM
Missi, 18 Section 2256 was struck down by the Supreme Court:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html


HOWEVER, Congress responded with a new law:

http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/



It basically says simulated child porn is illegal if it is "obscene" (has no redeeming artistic merit). I'm not sure how courts have interpreted that and/or whether this case will be a test of the newer statute.

Nova
12-06-2010, 03:24 PM
Just because it is not illegal does not make it OK in my very humble opinion as a victim of such activities....I don't care what statistics the talking heads quote. Why do they go to so much trouble to manufacture it, then spend hours looking at it if it does not turn them on? Why not look at other types of porn if that is not their cup of tea? That is all they need to fill the nasty little hole in them and they will not perpetrate any children because they got their "fix" from these fake little pictures which are not harming anyone??? I'm with Izzy - I don't buy it.

All the greatest scientists thought the world was flat for a very long time. They were wrong.
In the interest of all the children, I would rather be safe than sorry. I think a child's safety, and right to a decent life trumps freedom of speech in this case, but that is just me.

eta: This is not directed at anyone in particular....just had to voice that opinion.

I don't think anyone believes simulated child porn is "okay."

That's why we're talking about legal issues. There's nobody here to argue the "child porn is good" side (whatever that would be).

Missizzy
12-06-2010, 03:49 PM
I believe that children can be harmed by many things in which they do not participate--strictly because others can be negatively changed by those experiences. We are all in this boat together. Our safety and our life experience is inextricably linked to that of our neighbors.

Not all Americans are healthy and stalwart. Many are forever changed, for a variety of reasons, by viewing violence and pornography. Often, when they act out upon what they have viewed, a child is harmed. JMO.

I fully agree with you that this issue is a slippery slope and one which can and will be debated for all time.

FWIW, pornography played two roles in the victimization of our children. First, it was used to lower their inhibitions (by showing them what other children do) and secondly, pornographic photos were taken of them and used to elicit their silence....and shame.

Filly
12-06-2010, 04:33 PM
Filly is no attorney. Filly has not a clue about most laws. Filly speaks of herself in the third person so that should tell you something.;)

This guy weirded me out big time more because one of the photographs (head) was of a student where this guy was the Principal. The other was a student from a former school where he taught.

We lost track of Principal Stelmack, but the good people of People You'll See In Hell updated back in 2009. Lots of law jargon.


http://pysih.com/2009/06/16/update-john-stelmack-is-convicted/

Missizzy
12-06-2010, 04:57 PM
An interesting article with several links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_child_pornography


Simulated Child Pornography

Missizzy
12-06-2010, 04:59 PM
Well, FWIW, Missizzy thinks that Filly is an expert in many many things. Namely good sense.

If I were the parent of the child who's little head was depicted, I would be far more than weirded out. I wonder if the family has any civil recourse available?

Nova
12-06-2010, 06:39 PM
Well, FWIW, Missizzy thinks that Filly is an expert in many many things. Namely good sense.

If I were the parent of the child who's little head was depicted, I would be far more than weirded out. I wonder if the family has any civil recourse available?

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that would depend on whether the image was shared with anyone else, particularly if it were sold.

Nova
12-06-2010, 06:44 PM
I believe that children can be harmed by many things in which they do not participate--strictly because others can be negatively changed by those experiences. We are all in this boat together. Our safety and our life experience is inextricably linked to that of our neighbors.

Not all Americans are healthy and stalwart. Many are forever changed, for a variety of reasons, by viewing violence and pornography. Often, when they act out upon what they have viewed, a child is harmed. JMO.

I fully agree with you that this issue is a slippery slope and one which can and will be debated for all time.

FWIW, pornography played two roles in the victimization of our children. First, it was used to lower their inhibitions (by showing them what other children do) and secondly, pornographic photos were taken of them and used to elicit their silence....and shame.

I agree with everything above philosophically. But whether that means all upsetting imagery can be made illegal is another matter, as you point out with your allusion to the proverbial "slippery slope."

But I am so very sorry your children were victimized. Whatever the contributing factors, and no doubt there were many, I am very, very sorry. I don't have any personal experience in this area, but I often wonder if the threats and the shaming aren't even worse than the physical atrocities.

Nova
12-06-2010, 06:52 PM
I agree with everyone that this principal eroticizing photos of his own students is particularly disturbing.

I taught for many years, but at the college level. Even though my students were technically adults in terms of consent, thinking of them sexually never crossed my mind.

A couple of my former students have gone on to become fairly well-known actors and I see them on TV and movies. They're in their 30s now, but I'm still not comfortable watching them in erotic scenes, particularly ones involving nudity.

So I don't "get" this principal at all.

Missizzy
12-06-2010, 09:31 PM
That's because you have firm ethics, Nova, and respect the issue of authority/balance of power. You will probably, forever more, see your students in their original role in your life. You don't cross the line. You understand and honor boundaries. Sadly, many don't.

JMO

mysteriew
12-06-2010, 10:05 PM
Missi, 18 Section 2256 was struck down by the Supreme Court:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html


HOWEVER, Congress responded with a new law:

http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/



It basically says simulated child porn is illegal if it is "obscene" (has no redeeming artistic merit). I'm not sure how courts have interpreted that and/or whether this case will be a test of the newer statute.

Hooray for that!

In the past the courts have refused to hear or convictions have been overturned if the image was created. I think that some may even have made it to the Supreme courts and the courts have overturned convictions. Something about the created image being "art" vs child porn being exploitative of a minor. I certainly believe it is exploitative esp in this case where a pic of a living minor child was attached to a nude photo.

Wish it had been done in time to convict this guy.

Nova
12-07-2010, 12:37 PM
Hooray for that!

In the past the courts have refused to hear or convictions have been overturned if the image was created. I think that some may even have made it to the Supreme courts and the courts have overturned convictions. Something about the created image being "art" vs child porn being exploitative of a minor. I certainly believe it is exploitative esp in this case where a pic of a living minor child was attached to a nude photo.

Wish it had been done in time to convict this guy.

Yes, the Supreme court did overturn a case on such grounds in the early 2000s. (See link above.)

I can't find when the images in this case were created. Congress wrote a new law in 2003, so timing may not be the issue.

One has to admit this is a strange one, since the bodies engaging in sex were adult, and only the faces were of minors. (No less disgusting, in my view, but it may make a difference in terms of legal status.)

Certainly using anyone's picture in any sort of "collage" is "exploitative" in the English sense of the word (whether or not it is harmful). But whether it qualifies for the legal meaning of the word, I don't know. I don't have a legal dictionary handy, but I would expect the legal definition to include some finding of harm.