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

[Gozgals]

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?

On the legal point I agree, I guess it is we all find it horribly disgusting Nova as you do/ and it's so close to child *advertiser censored* it bites you in the azz.

PS My brother is 52 and cutting out woman and exchanging bodies. There is some problem but I guess we have no name for this one.

Goz

 

[kgeaux]

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.

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.

snipped your post a little! BBM

If I had a school age child, and the principal was caught with a photo of a nude person with my child's face glued on, I would be grossed out, disgusted and I would try to remove the principal from his position. I still do not think what he did was ILLEGAL. It is morally wrong, it is gross beyond my ability to describe, but I don't believe he broke any laws.

As to the sentence which I bolded: my understanding of the judge's decision is that he was bound by the laws of the land, and based his decision upon the law alone----as he should. This could well be a case where the law hasn't caught up with technology, but that isn't how I see it: cut and paste has been around since I played with my Betsy paper dolls fifty years ago!

Morally, I agree with your contention that any and all means of using a minor for sexual arousal is WRONG. Doesn't mean it is illegal, just that most sentient beings would find it very distasteful.

Please understand, I am not defending this pervert. I believe that USA laws do not honor, respect, nor do they defend our children as the treasures that they are.....when a parent can beat a child to death and serve under 5 years, the law is pretty much telling us that our babies are disposable and without value. I would love to see legislation that would elevate our children to the point where the law values them. But with the law as it stands now, I think the judge did the right thing.

 

[Nova]

On the legal point I agree, I guess it is we all find it horribly disgusting Nova as you do/ and it's so close to child *advertiser censored* it bites you in the azz.

PS My brother is 52 and cutting out woman and exchanging bodies. There is some problem but I guess we have no name for this one.

Goz

I asked my psychotherapist husband if he knew of a diagnostic category that covered your brother, but he doesn't. Of course, my husband hasn't practiced for 25 years and doesn't keep up with new editions of the manual.

I bet somebody somewhere has come up with a name for what your brother does. BTW, this practice strikes me as harmless, if unsettling.

 

[Nova]

snipped your post a little! BBM

If I had a school age child, and the principal was caught with a photo of a nude person with my child's face glued on, I would be grossed out, disgusted and I would try to remove the principal from his position. I still do not think what he did was ILLEGAL. It is morally wrong, it is gross beyond my ability to describe, but I don't believe he broke any laws.

As to the sentence which I bolded: my understanding of the judge's decision is that he was bound by the laws of the land, and based his decision upon the law alone----as he should. This could well be a case where the law hasn't caught up with technology, but that isn't how I see it: cut and paste has been around since I played with my Betsy paper dolls fifty years ago!

Morally, I agree with your contention that any and all means of using a minor for sexual arousal is WRONG. Doesn't mean it is illegal, just that most sentient beings would find it very distasteful.

Please understand, I am not defending this pervert. I believe that USA laws do not honor, respect, nor do they defend our children as the treasures that they are.....when a parent can beat a child to death and serve under 5 years, the law is pretty much telling us that our babies are disposable and without value. I would love to see legislation that would elevate our children to the point where the law values them. But with the law as it stands now, I think the judge did the right thing.

Really well put, kgeaux!

This case is why I don't think judges should be elected or confirmed by popular vote. I think the public has trouble sometimes distinguishing between that which is distasteful and that which is so harmful it needs to be illegal.

As for the suggestion by another poster that this is something new, the only thing new is the ease afforded by Photoshop. As kgeaux points out, "cut and paste" has been around for centuries. Great museums house images we would call "child *advertiser censored*" from Ancient Greece and Medieval Japan and elsewhere. And at least some of the paintings of naked cherubim that dominated Christianity for centuries arose from urges that were less than "spiritual," I'm sure.

None of which means such images are "okay" with me, just that they are not new.

 

[ziggy]

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?

I searched but could not recover...the study posted on this forum that basically stated studies show that the more child *advertiser censored* viewed, the more likely the perp to try and act out on a child. So the harm here is that we increase the risk to children of being the prey of some sick *advertiser censored*.

The cornerstone of freedom of speech is so that we the people would have the freedom to speak out against a government without fear of retaliation - that we could speak freely about our religion etc. Taking it to the *advertiser censored* level and especially any sexual depiction of children as sex objects takes it right off the tracks of the basic intent of that very grand ideal.

Hey, I think I just chaneled George Washington and he agrees. Never would our founders have thought it would go this far.

Hypothetically, if you knew it would increase the rate of perps acting out on children, would you have a different opinion that there is no harm?

Did you hear about that guy here in the Bay Area, Union City, who grabbed a 2 year old in a Dollar Tree, took her around the corner in an aisle, pinned her on the floor, took off her diaper and pants, also pulled his pants down and was straddling her trying to rape her when the grandmother finally found them? Guys are nabbing kids in STORES while their parents are nearby. If this type of activity were to increase due to the availability of more child *advertiser censored*, I would have to kiss my Sweet American goodbye as her people have failed to uphold her BASIC principles.

 

[kgeaux]

Hypothetically, if you knew it would increase the rate of perps acting out on children, would you have a different opinion that there is no harm?

snipped a little!

I am not Nova :blushing: but I wanted to answer your question as to whether my opinion would change if it were proven that looking at child *advertiser censored* increases the possibility that an offender would act out.....

In this particular case, the perp was viewing adult bodies engaged in sexual activity, so it varies significantly from what most of us would deem child *advertiser censored*. Is the viewing of an adult body engaging in sexual activity likely to cause the sexual abuse of a child? I don't know.

My opinion on whether the judgment was correct or not is based solely on the law as it stands right now. If we want harsher sentences for sexual abusers, we must work to change the law. And I think we SHOULD toughen up laws to protect our children, on all levels.

 

[Nova]

I searched but could not recover...the study posted on this forum that basically stated studies show that the more child *advertiser censored* viewed, the more likely the perp to try and act out on a child. So the harm here is that we increase the risk to children of being the prey of some sick *advertiser censored*.

The cornerstone of freedom of speech is so that we the people would have the freedom to speak out against a government without fear of retaliation - that we could speak freely about our religion etc. Taking it to the *advertiser censored* level and especially any sexual depiction of children as sex objects takes it right off the tracks of the basic intent of that very grand ideal.

Hey, I think I just chaneled George Washington and he agrees. Never would our founders have thought it would go this far.

Hypothetically, if you knew it would increase the rate of perps acting out on children, would you have a different opinion that there is no harm?

Did you hear about that guy here in the Bay Area, Union City, who grabbed a 2 year old in a Dollar Tree, took her around the corner in an aisle, pinned her on the floor, took off her diaper and pants, also pulled his pants down and was straddling her trying to rape her when the grandmother finally found them? Guys are nabbing kids in STORES while their parents are nearby. If this type of activity were to increase due to the availability of more child *advertiser censored*, I would have to kiss my Sweet American goodbye as her people have failed to uphold her BASIC principles.

(Emphasis added.)

The question doesn't even have to be hypothetical. If it can be conclusively shown that simulated child *advertiser censored* significantly increases sexual violence against children, then it would be reasonable to ban it.

But the increase would have to be significant, not just one guy claiming "the pictures made me do it." On the contrary, per the Wiki link above, a number of countries report that child molestation incidents go DOWN when simulated child *advertiser censored* is legalized, as would-be molesters use the *advertiser censored* as an alternate outlet.

This is a longstanding dispute, one applied to adult *advertiser censored* as well: do the images inspire imitation or do they serve as a non-violent outlet? I don't believe anyone has been able to create a study to answer the question conclusively.

What some groups do instead is point to a stat that 40% of those caught with child *advertiser censored* also molest children (and another 15% solicit sex from children), and claim that is proof of causality. It isn't. All it shows is that being charged with child molestation or solicitation allows LE to search your house, where they are more likely to find your stash of *advertiser censored*.

BTW, this case is being discussed in greater detail in the "Crimes Against Children" forum. In short, the Supreme Court overturned a law against simulated child *advertiser censored* 8 or 9 years ago. Congress responded by rewriting the law in 2003 and it appears this new law is being tested in the courts. Missouri, to take one example, has convicted a man for drawing cartoons showing minors engaged in acts of sexual bondage.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57739&page=2

 

[Danaya]

Jesus, come soon!!

 

[Nova]

Jesus, come soon!!

If He were coming to end abuse of children, He would have come long ago.

Despite appearances, we do far more to protect children nowadays than was done before the 20th century, when children were treated more or less as "miniature adults."

The children of the rich may have been supervised and protected by governesses, but there was little to protect the children of the poor. With children pressed into factory work at very young ages, with schoolmasters having absolute power over their charges, it's almost certain that child abuse was more prevalent (even though no statistics were kept that would confirm this deduction).

Heck, children today are far more closely supervised than we were when I was a kid 50 years ago. I remember vividly leaving the house after breakfast and roaming the neighborhood unsupervised until dark--at the age of 3! And my mother was not particularly neglectful according to the standards of the time. (I was never harmed, BTW, but that was mere luck.)

What we do have today is far more publicity devoted to child abuse, and special LE units devoted to the subject. (And of course we have twice the population and so a lot more children are out there.)

 

[Danaya]

Sorry Nova, but Jesus is coming whether you think so or not.

 

[Nova]

Sorry Nova, but Jesus is coming whether you think so or not.

I offered no opinion on that subject, Danaya. Since it isn't something that can be proved one way or another, I see no reason to form an opinion myself. Of course, you are entitled to believe otherwise.

What I said is that apparently His timetable isn't dictated by atrocities committed against children, because they've been going on for a long, long time.

 

[kgeaux]

If He were coming to end abuse of children, He would have come long ago.

Despite appearances, we do far more to protect children nowadays than was done before the 20th century, when children were treated more or less as "miniature adults."

The children of the rich may have been supervised and protected by governesses, but there was little to protect the children of the poor. With children pressed into factory work at very young ages, with schoolmasters having absolute power over their charges, it's almost certain that child abuse was more prevalent (even though no statistics were kept that would confirm this deduction).

Heck, children today are far more closely supervised than we were when I was a kid 50 years ago. I remember vividly leaving the house after breakfast and roaming the neighborhood unsupervised until dark--at the age of 3! And my mother was not particularly neglectful according to the standards of the time. (I was never harmed, BTW, but that was mere luck.)

What we do have today is far more publicity devoted to child abuse, and special LE units devoted to the subject. (And of course we have twice the population and so a lot more children are out there.)

I, too, remember leaving my home after breakfast and not returning until dark.....I'm not sure I was three, but I know by the time I was five this was my life! We didn't hear too much about children being hurt, either. I'm not really sure if the horrible things that happens to children now-a-days was as common back then, or if terrible things were under-reported.

I do know there was a huge difference in neighborhoods back then. I was born in 1954, and we moved aLOT. But every neighborhood I lived in had a single commonality: every neighbor knew each other. Every neighbor watched out for each other, and for each other's children and possesions.....

 

[Sheromom]

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?

The harm, I argue, is that the simulation causes the same reaction as the actuality!

 

[kgeaux]

The harm, I argue, is that the simulation causes the same reaction as the actuality!

Well, see, that's the question. If there are studies that show that the simulation of child *advertiser censored* causes more people to actually sexually abuse children, then we need to change our laws to make even the simulation of child *advertiser censored* illegal in all 50 states. Pronto.

If, however, the SIMULATION of child *advertiser censored* actually reduces the sexual abuse of children, then it's not harmful to actual children..... I haven't looked at the statistics of other countries that have legalized child *advertiser censored*, but IF it is true that a potential offender can satisfy his (this makes me sick to type) needs without actually harming a child, then it may actually be "helpful" in reducing sexual abuse of children.

(I guess I need to check out those statistics, but it is so close to Christmas, and I am spending so much time with the little ones in my life that I just don't know if I can bear it right now.)

As a momma, I cannot even imagine anyone getting their jollies by perverting the sweet innocence of a child's body, but it happens, doesn't it?

This is a very emotional subject, and I am trying very hard to post from a factual point of view. However, I am a momma of six (now adult) sons. My emotional response is quite different from my "logical, look at the facts only" response.

I know this: I cringe anytime I read or hear about a child being abused. In THIS case, however, no "actual" children were abused......

 

[Danaya]

I offered no opinion on that subject, Danaya. Since it isn't something that can be proved one way or another, I see no reason to form an opinion myself. Of course, you are entitled to believe otherwise.

What I said is that apparently His timetable isn't dictated by atrocities committed against children, because they've been going on for a long, long time.

Well, the word of God says so, so that's enough proof for me. I'm sure He has a timetable that we can't begin to comprehend with our minds.

Okay, I'm done... :angel: That's enough from me, don't worry. :bananalama:

 

[GoBrewers]

"But the increase would have to be significant, not just one guy claiming "the pictures made me do it." On the contrary, per the Wiki link above, a number of countries report that child molestation incidents go DOWN when simulated child *advertiser censored* is legalized, as would-be molesters use the *advertiser censored* as an alternate outlet."

Wouldnt another issue be the creating and maintaining of the "alterate outlet" for these people?

 

[Nova]

I, too, remember leaving my home after breakfast and not returning until dark.....I'm not sure I was three, but I know by the time I was five this was my life! We didn't hear too much about children being hurt, either. I'm not really sure if the horrible things that happens to children now-a-days was as common back then, or if terrible things were under-reported.

I do know there was a huge difference in neighborhoods back then. I was born in 1954, and we moved aLOT. But every neighborhood I lived in had a single commonality: every neighbor knew each other. Every neighbor watched out for each other, and for each other's children and possesions.....

You and I are the same age and I think all that was true: fewer attacks on children, less reporting (particularly when the molestation occurred within the family), stronger sense and awareness of community as far more mothers stayed at home.

I can't remember the name of the sociologist, but somebody once pointed out that as population increases arithmetically, social relationships increase geometrically. (I.e., 3 people/3 relationships; 4 people/6 relationships; 5/8, 6/11, etc.) So as total population climbs, murders, rapes and other crimes climb much faster.

There were about 160 million Americans when we were born; roughly twice that many now.

 

[Nova]

The harm, I argue, is that the simulation causes the same reaction as the actuality!

Do you mean the reaction in others? Because freedom of speech isn't freedom if it requires everyone else's approval.

 

[Nova]

Well, see, that's the question. If there are studies that show that the simulation of child *advertiser censored* causes more people to actually sexually abuse children, then we need to change our laws to make even the simulation of child *advertiser censored* illegal in all 50 states. Pronto.

If, however, the SIMULATION of child *advertiser censored* actually reduces the sexual abuse of children, then it's not harmful to actual children..... I haven't looked at the statistics of other countries that have legalized child *advertiser censored*, but IF it is true that a potential offender can satisfy his (this makes me sick to type) needs without actually harming a child, then it may actually be "helpful" in reducing sexual abuse of children.

(I guess I need to check out those statistics, but it is so close to Christmas, and I am spending so much time with the little ones in my life that I just don't know if I can bear it right now.)

As a momma, I cannot even imagine anyone getting their jollies by perverting the sweet innocence of a child's body, but it happens, doesn't it?

This is a very emotional subject, and I am trying very hard to post from a factual point of view. However, I am a momma of six (now adult) sons. My emotional response is quite different from my "logical, look at the facts only" response.

I know this: I cringe anytime I read or hear about a child being abused. In THIS case, however, no "actual" children were abused......

Well summarized, k. The Wiki link lists the countries where simulated *advertiser censored* has supposedly reduced (or at least coincided with the reduction of) actual attacks on children. Like you, I'm not sure how closely I want to analyze the actual data. I don't believe there has ever been scientific consensus on the subject; for one thing, there will almost always be questions about the quality of the reporting, since neither viewing of *advertiser censored* nor molestation are always reported.

 

[Nova]

Well, the word of God says so, so that's enough proof for me. I'm sure He has a timetable that we can't begin to comprehend with our minds.

Okay, I'm done... :angel: That's enough from me, don't worry. :bananalama:

No harm done, as far as I'm concerned.