1179 users online (159 members and 1020 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the sunshine.
    Posts
    9,875

    Judges say bizarre cut-and-paste porn not illegal

    Photos of girls' faces on nude adult women are 'unseemly' but not illegal, a judge wrote http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,3675507.story

    In an opinion, a judge described such images as "unseemly" but said possessing them is not illegal because "the only sexual conduct in the images is that of an adult."

    http://www.theledger.com/article/201...news/101209901
    A three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland ruled photographs he had were not child pornography because the nude bodies shown were those of an adult. Photos of the faces of children, some of them Scott Lake students, had been placed on those bodies, but none of the photos actually showed children nude.

    AND SOME OF THESE KIDS WERE STUDENTS AT HIS SCHOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'D HAVE A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST HIM SO FAST!!!!! ANYONE ELSE AS NAUSEATED????? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    I'm Sorry......... WHAT THE &%(*?????? Does anyone else find this totally unaceptable??????? UNREAL!!!!!!!!!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    In the cooooold!
    Posts
    4,633
    totally unaceptable! and gross

    Beautiful Rox.
    Sept. 18, 1997 - May 26 2012
    Rest peacefully my love I'll forever miss you.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the sunshine.
    Posts
    9,875
    There needs to be a new Legislative Bill introduced after this case.....that ANY image whether computer generated....cut and paste......."morphed" etc.....that depict a minorr face on an adult body are UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!

    THis will require parents to demand it!!!!!!!

    I swear I am spitting nails right now. I have said this before and been accused of being overprotective. THIS is exactly what I was referring to.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    In the cooooold!
    Posts
    4,633
    This world is getting sicker and sicker.
    moo

    Beautiful Rox.
    Sept. 18, 1997 - May 26 2012
    Rest peacefully my love I'll forever miss you.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SoCal LB area
    Posts
    4,748
    I agree. Anything - even animation or illustration - cut and past - that depicts children in a sexual nature should be considered a crime against children period. This obsession with children and sex seems to be getting more widespread and don't tell me it's just because we hear about it more now. Uh uh. Not buying that. People are losing their moral compasses left and right...they are doing more drugs and losing their way and looking for cheap thrills. I don't believe all of these guys are born pedos either. I think some just get turned on by viewing it because they have ZERO boundaries for right and wrong...they like taking things to the next level of excitement and if it feels good then it must be OK. God help us all.
    __________________
    Disclaimer: I have a JD, but I am not licensed to practice. Therefore, do not interpret anything contained in my posts as legal advice - they are my personal opinion only.

  6. #6
    mikeysmommom's Avatar
    mikeysmommom is offline "A grandchild fills a space in your heart that you never knew was empty...."
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    4,621
    Judges like this one should be investigated IMO.If he is a judge who is voted in he needs to be voted out.Sick minds are all around us and getting worse.
    I Love You MOM 6/16/32 - 5/30/09





    Justice for Travis 5/8/13

    Justice For Emma
    Stacey Barker - Guilty - Murder 1 - 5/24/11
    25 to Life - Sentenced 6/17/11

    Justice Denied for Caylee Marie Anthony
    July 5,2011

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cajun Country, Louisiana
    Posts
    7,598
    Quote Originally Posted by sleutherontheside View Post
    There needs to be a new Legislative Bill introduced after this case.....that ANY image whether computer generated....cut and paste......."morphed" etc.....that depict a minorr face on an adult body are UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!

    THis will require parents to demand it!!!!!!!

    I swear I am spitting nails right now. I have said this before and been accused of being overprotective. THIS is exactly what I was referring to.
    That is a very broad law you are proposing! I would be guilty of breaking it, too, because I have a picture of an adult bag-pipe player in his kilt, and I replaced his face with that of my (then) 10 year old son......

    I know what you mean, though. It is horribly disgusting to think of anyone getting his jollies by using images of children to do so......however, I'm not sure quite yet how I feel about this particular case. If the bodies are adult, then it's not really like the viewer is seeing children involved in sexual activity.

    I need more coffee and time to think.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    36,301
    Quote Originally Posted by kgeaux View Post
    That is a very broad law you are proposing! I would be guilty of breaking it, too, because I have a picture of an adult bag-pipe player in his kilt, and I replaced his face with that of my (then) 10 year old son......

    I know what you mean, though. It is horribly disgusting to think of anyone getting his jollies by using images of children to do so......however, I'm not sure quite yet how I feel about this particular case. If the bodies are adult, then it's not really like the viewer is seeing children involved in sexual activity.

    I need more coffee and time to think.
    Here's where the distinction lies for me. If you cut and paste a child's head on a bagpipe player your photo is suggesting the viewer see the child as a bagpipe player wearing a kilt. Result = humor

    If you cut and paste a child's photo onto a naked adult body you are suggsting the viewer see the child as a sexual adult. Result = Inappropriate.
    Websleuths now on Facebook

    Welcome to all new members. Thank you for joining the conversation. Please take a moment to become familiar with the TOS and rules, etiquette and information.

    mni wiconi - Lakota for Water is Life.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    10,492
    Hate to tell everyone this, but internet activities are still "new" as far as our legal system is concerned. There are no strong laws, few cases tried. It is a rapidly developing area, but not as rapid as the internet is. Very sticky for any Judge or jury. Much debate and needed cases to even begin. Don't know how to explain this properly, perhaps someone that explains better can help me out here again.

    Unless I have included a link, it is my opinion and only my opinion that I am expressing.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    36,301
    I know that the legal system is light years behind the internet and all the "new" sorts of crimes it engenders. I know that this poses a sticky wicket for judges and LE.

    I understand all of this and yet am nonetheless frustrated by the problem.
    Websleuths now on Facebook

    Welcome to all new members. Thank you for joining the conversation. Please take a moment to become familiar with the TOS and rules, etiquette and information.

    mni wiconi - Lakota for Water is Life.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    I find this just as disgusting as anyone else does.

    HOWEVER, I thought the rationale for making child porn illegal was that in acquiring the images, one helps support the abuse of the children depicted. In other words, by criminalizing the "demand," one discourages the "supply."

    I assume this sort of argument is necessary to overcome the "free speech" protections that apply to other sexual imagery.

    In this case, the "supply" doesn't require abusing children.

    Like it or not, we can't really make sexual fantasy illegal, even when it disgusts us. What we can and must do is make sure children aren't forced into sexual situations to satisfy somebody's perversion. But that didn't happen here.

    Am I correct that the man in question kept the images for his personal use? Because if he sold or maybe even if he merely distributed them to others, then other torts might attach; these might be civil rather than criminal.

    If I'm all wet in my understanding of the legal issues (quite possible), I will be happy to be corrected.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In a place called Vertigo
    Posts
    17,676
    Just as sick as looking at child porn to me but he really put some effort into his project. This is too sick for me to understand. As far as I'm concerned, it is a crime.

    Nova, in this case, I can't really cut this guy any slack at all. He is on the edge but on the wrong side.

    Goz

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Gozgals View Post
    Just as sick as looking at child porn to me but he really put some effort into his project. This is too sick for me to understand. As far as I'm concerned, it is a crime.

    Nova, in this case, I can't really cut this guy any slack at all. He is on the edge but on the wrong side.

    Goz
    Oh, I agree. I sure hope it was clear I am NOT defending him morally, just wondering aloud whether what he is doing can be made a crime.

    Child porn is not an area of expertise for me, so I may be all wrong as to how child porn laws are justified.

    But thinking about sex with children can't be criminalized; nor can talking about it (except under special circumstances, such as with a child herself). It is perfectly legal to advocate that statutory rape and child porn laws be changed.

    I know it's illegal to put children in sexual situations and photograph them, or to traffic in such photos after they have been taken.

    But, for example, is it illegal to draw imaginary child pornography, i.e., without using any underage models. If so, I wonder how that is different from speech on the subject.

    Here's Wiki on the subject:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulat...ld_pornography



    "Simulated child pornography" does present some of the legal problems I mentioned. If Wiki is correct, it is banned in Germany, but legal in the U.S. UNLESS (big "unless") is also qualifies as "obscene" under a different set of tests.

    (ETA I never actually looked at his images. They don't interest me. Only the legal questions do.)
    Last edited by KateB; 06-17-2015 at 08:54 PM. Reason: repair url tag.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In a place called Vertigo
    Posts
    17,676
    Thanks Nova:

    Now, I hate to admit this, but my one crazy brother takes cut outs of
    say I Dream of Jeannie, Barbara Eden and puts another woman's face on her clothed body....I find this oddly disturbing even though they are dressed. Who has the time, and what kind of hobby is this? I guess I'm not into this weird kind of game some nuts are playing.

    Goz

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cajun Country, Louisiana
    Posts
    7,598
    Quote Originally Posted by tlcox View Post
    Here's where the distinction lies for me. If you cut and paste a child's head on a bagpipe player your photo is suggesting the viewer see the child as a bagpipe player wearing a kilt. Result = humor

    If you cut and paste a child's photo onto a naked adult body you are suggsting the viewer see the child as a sexual adult. Result = Inappropriate.
    I "almost" totally agree with you on both points. I just wanted to point out that the poster who proposed enacting legislation did not state that the results had to be inappropriate! or illegal....
    On point two, I think seeing the adult body engaged in sexual activity diminishes, rather than enhances, the chances of actually imagining the child engaged in sexual activity. Lastly, IMO, inappropriate is not the same as illegal.......

    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    I find this just as disgusting as anyone else does.

    HOWEVER, I thought the rationale for making child porn illegal was that in acquiring the images, one helps support the abuse of the children depicted. In other words, by criminalizing the "demand," one discourages the "supply."

    I assume this sort of argument is necessary to overcome the "free speech" protections that apply to other sexual imagery.

    In this case, the "supply" doesn't require abusing children.

    Like it or not, we can't really make sexual fantasy illegal, even when it disgusts us. What we can and must do is make sure children aren't forced into sexual situations to satisfy somebody's perversion. But that didn't happen here.

    Am I correct that the man in question kept the images for his personal use? Because if he sold or maybe even if he merely distributed them to others, then other torts might attach; these might be civil rather than criminal.

    If I'm all wet in my understanding of the legal issues (quite possible), I will be happy to be corrected.
    Nova stated much better than I could why I tend to agree with the judge in his stance.

    Disgusting is disgusting, and while these images are probably not only disgusted but horribly unsettling, too, I just don't see the illegality.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast