Judges say bizarre cut-and-paste *advertiser censored* not illegal

New Posts

sleutherontheside

sleutherontheside

Retired WS Staff
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
9,874
Reaction score
-2
Photos of girls' faces on nude adult women are 'unseemly' but not illegal, a judge wrote http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-judges-cut-and-paste-*advertiser censored*-not-ille20101203,0,3675507.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/20101203/news/101209901
A three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland ruled photographs he had were not child *advertiser censored* 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!!!!!!!!!
 
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.
 
This world is getting sicker and sicker.
moo
 
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.
 
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.
 
sleutherontheside said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kgeaux said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I find this just as disgusting as anyone else does.

HOWEVER, I thought the rationale for making child *advertiser censored* 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.
 
Just as sick as looking at child *advertiser censored* 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
 
Gozgals said:
Just as sick as looking at child *advertiser censored* 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
Click to expand...

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 *advertiser censored* is not an area of expertise for me, so I may be all wrong as to how child *advertiser censored* 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 *advertiser censored* 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 *advertiser censored*, 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/Simulated_child_pornography



"Simulated child *advertiser censored*" 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.)
 
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
 
tlcox said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.......

Nova said:
I find this just as disgusting as anyone else does.

HOWEVER, I thought the rationale for making child *advertiser censored* 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kgeaux said:
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.......



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.
Click to expand...

BBM
AS the aforementioned poster...allow me to clarify my stance. This post is not directed to any specific poster. I want to make that clear.

I wrote this post within minutes of reading the articles. I was highly emotional and deeply moved by the ruling issued by the Appellate court.

Inasmuch as I may not have specified in a detailed enough manner, my desire for additional legislation, I believe the sentiment remains the same.

I offer this question for consideration...if the principal of your child's elementary school was caught with a cut and paste photo of your child's face glued onto the photo of a nude woman.......would you react differently...or maintain your position?

IMO...the purpose of attaching a minor's face to an adult nude body leaves no room for interpretation, leeway, or question. The act of placing the recognizable image of a minor on a nude body is but for ONE reason. I don't even feel the need to spell it out.

I certainly recognize that the law has not caught up to technology. This is evident by reviewing cases of minors being labeled as sex offenders for sexting. Technology is able to move faster than legislation. BUT.....if parents and legislators DEMAND that rulings use logic and interpretation in favor of children's rights and moral decency.....we can at least buy time.

My question......WHY BRING IT TO SCHOOL???? This man was accused of inappropriate hugs to female students. He did not leave his personal perverted art project at home.....he kept it in his briefcase which was on school property.

Students are subjected to locker searches. Should employees be exempt???

Cut and paste, computer generated, cartoon, shared images, or not shared images.......any action that uses a minor as a tool for sexual arousal is wrong.

I understand the legal constraints as written.....but those narrowly focused opinions are able to be expanded with enough demand. My point is that with enough demand.......legislation can leave open a door for judgement vs. just precedent.

Let this be a reminder to parents.......When you post images of your child on Face book, and public photo albums, etc.....you make them vulnerable to sickos like this man. Is sharing their recent photo with the dog really worth it?????
 
Nova said:
I find this just as disgusting as anyone else does.

HOWEVER, I thought the rationale for making child *advertiser censored* 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.
Click to expand...

IMO "fantasy" is contained within the confines of the brain of the individual doing the fantasizing.

Once they cut and paste images of real children......for the purpose of participating in the fantasy.........the game changes!!!!
 
Gozgals said:
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
Click to expand...

I find that disturbing, too, but I'm not sure why. Is it really any different from kids playing with paper dolls? (I'm assuming your brother isn't 7.)
 
sleutherontheside said:
BBM
AS the aforementioned poster...allow me to clarify my stance. This post is not directed to any specific poster. I want to make that clear.

I wrote this post within minutes of reading the articles. I was highly emotional and deeply moved by the ruling issued by the Appellate court.

Inasmuch as I may not have specified in a detailed enough manner, my desire for additional legislation, I believe the sentiment remains the same.

I offer this question for consideration...if the principal of your child's elementary school was caught with a cut and paste photo of your child's face glued onto the photo of a nude woman.......would you react differently...or maintain your position?

IMO...the purpose of attaching a minor's face to an adult nude body leaves no room for interpretation, leeway, or question. The act of placing the recognizable image of a minor on a nude body is but for ONE reason. I don't even feel the need to spell it out.

I certainly recognize that the law has not caught up to technology. This is evident by reviewing cases of minors being labeled as sex offenders for sexting. Technology is able to move faster than legislation. BUT.....if parents and legislators DEMAND that rulings use logic and interpretation in favor of children's rights and moral decency.....we can at least buy time.

My question......WHY BRING IT TO SCHOOL???? This man was accused of inappropriate hugs to female students. He did not leave his personal perverted art project at home.....he kept it in his briefcase which was on school property.

Students are subjected to locker searches. Should employees be exempt???

Cut and paste, computer generated, cartoon, shared images, or not shared images.......any action that uses a minor as a tool for sexual arousal is wrong.

I understand the legal constraints as written.....but those narrowly focused opinions are able to be expanded with enough demand. My point is that with enough demand.......legislation can leave open a door for judgement vs. just precedent.

Let this be a reminder to parents.......When you post images of your child on Face book, and public photo albums, etc.....you make them vulnerable to sickos like this man. Is sharing their recent photo with the dog really worth it?????
Click to expand...

I share your distaste, but what harm was actually done here?

I don't think it's an issue of "narrow focus," so much as "no harm, no foul," as far as the legal issue goes. (It has even been argued that such activities provide an outlet that may help spare actual children from inappropriate attention. I have no opinion as to whether that is true; it's merely something I read when looking up "simulated child *advertiser censored*.")
 
sleutherontheside said:
IMO "fantasy" is contained within the confines of the brain of the individual doing the fantasizing.

Once they cut and paste images of real children......for the purpose of participating in the fantasy.........the game changes!!!!
Click to expand...

How does it change (other than that you and I are uncomfortable if we see it)?

Our Constitution protects "freedom of speech," not just "freedom of thought." Courts have ruled that "speech" includes non-verbal forms of artistic expression.

Freedom of speech has limits, of course; the classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But if I understand the legal principle correctly, one must show the harm outweighs the benefits of the freedom.

The harm in yelling "Fire" is that people will be trampled in the ensuing panic. In actual child *advertiser censored*, I think we can all agree on the harm to the child.

But in simulated child *advertiser censored*, the game does indeed change. What harm would you argue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 186 more.
Total: 4,152 (members: 187, guests: 3,965)

Online statistics

Members online
187
Guests online
3,965
Total visitors
4,152
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,818
Messages
17,959,579
Members
228,620
Latest member
ohbeehaave
Back
Top