Father of the year candidate puts daughter's face on porn photos; court gives the OK

[lavenderviolet]

Court: Dad can paste daughter's face on porn photo (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/09/BA251JRESO.DTL)

I think I am pretty jaded about humanity and usually not surprised when people do terrible things, but this story was so over the top creepy that it made me go "WTF?!" just from the headline. What an incredibly toxic person this guy is. Kudos to the mom for believing her daughter and taking action when the daughter spoke up about what was going on.
I would guess that the father not being around during the kid's early years caused the Westermarck effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)#Westermarck_effect) to fail (just trying to make sense of this guy's creepiness, not in any way saying it's okay or excusable).

The legal aspects of this case are certainly interesting too. In addition to the clear issues with depicting a minor, it makes me think about the ethical issues of creating porn depicting someone who never consented to be part of it.
Fantasizing about someone who doesn't know it is clearly a common situation - but is writing a porn story or making a pornographic photo of a real person who never consented to it worse? I think a lot of people would be creeped out, even adults, if they found out that someone they know had pasted their head onto a porn model's body without their consent. If such a photo gets distributed, it could potentially harm a person's reputation (even if it isn't really a picture of you, someone who sees it on a porn website may not be able to discern that it's a bad photoshop).

(Pitted because I guess my reaction is one of recreational outrage more than anything)

[Boyo Jim]

Yeah, that pegs the Creep-O-Meter pretty well. I think the court made the right call on reversing the porn conviction, though. Too bad about the drug charges. It's a bit fuzzy on what exactly happened to throw those convictions out.

[Simplicio]

Yea, I'm generally against laws that make it illegal to make fake child pornography, so I agree with the decision, even though the fathers obviously pretty skivy

[constanze]

I think a lot of people would be creeped out, even adults, if they found out that someone they know had pasted their head onto a porn model's body without their consent. If such a photo gets distributed, it could potentially harm a person's reputation (even if it isn't really a picture of you, someone who sees it on a porn website may not be able to discern that it's a bad photoshop).

This, I think, is a really big problem, regardless of intent, esp. given the lack of privacy rights in the US.

[constanze]

Yea, I'm generally against laws that make it illegal to make fake child pornography, so I agree with the decision, even though the fathers obviously pretty skivy

Over here, there would be another option: not about freedom of expression vs. pornography, but damaging his child psychologically, esp. if we don't if the photos were spread.

[Simplicio]

Over here, there would be another option: not about freedom of expression vs. pornography, but damaging his child psychologically, esp. if we don't if the photos were spread.

Agreed if he showed the pictures to the girl. But it doesn't sound like he did, or even put them somewhere where she could run across them.

[shiftless]

Fortunately they got this guy on other charges. If a person is twisted enough to give drugs to his daughter, and the other creepy stuff I don't want to type, it probably isn't that difficult to find charges. It is a shocking that he got away with two out of three drug charges. He was giving a 13 year old cocaine.

I am a little bothered by fact that the police found the pictures on his harddrive. If the police search your house, does that include the right to go through all of the documents on your computer?

[Revtim]

Yeah, that's creepy as fuck. But there's no law against being creepy as fuck, as far as I know.

[Ferret Herder]

I am a little bothered by fact that the police found the pictures on his harddrive. If the police search your house, does that include the right to go through all of the documents on your computer?
WAG: Since he wanted to take pictures of her in her underwear, they start worrying he's into child porn, and bingo, search warrant lets them check the computer.

[saoirse]

I am a little bothered by fact that the police found the pictures on his harddrive. If the police search your house, does that include the right to go through all of the documents on your computer?

I'm guessing it depends on what's on the warrant. Considering the things he did, putting the hard drive on the warrant would seem to be, um, warranted.

[kayaker]

Father's Day is coming up. Payback can be a bitch.

[Bricker]

I am a little bothered by fact that the police found the pictures on his harddrive. If the police search your house, does that include the right to go through all of the documents on your computer?

Really good question.

Yes, assuming the warrant specifies that they are looking for something that could be stored on a hard drive. If the warrant says they are searching for a stolen cache of hand grenades, then no, no search of your hard drive would be permitted. But if they were searching for contraband pornography... yes.

Where this gets interesting is something called the "plain view doctrine."

As the police search your house for the stolen hand grenades, pursuant to a valid warrant, they open a footlocker and discover child porn pictures. Even though they weren't looking for them and knew nothing about them, they are nonetheless admissible against you, because they were in plain view of the police while the police were acting lawfully.

Now extend this to the computer -- consider how much stuff you have on your computer... chat logs, pictures, blog drafts, financial information, movies. When the police search your computer, all of that is "plain view" under the current state of the law. Some legal commentators believe that the law should reflect the reality of the information age, and not extend the plain view doctrine to computer searches.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Hella skeevy, yes, but criminal, no. Child porn isn't criminalized because it's skeevy, but because it involves actual abuse and exploitation of real children.

The article also doesn't say that he uploaded the images to the internet or anything, so I don't see any kind other theoretical damages.

The net is filled with fake celebrity porn anyway, and i've never heard of any of it being charged as criminal. It may be distasteful in some cases (Emma Watson should never, ever go on the internet), but that's the world we live in now.

This guy is clearly a sick bastard, but there's no law against having sick fantasies, which is really all this amounts to. Giving the kid drugs is a crime. Having secret fake photos is not. Trying to get her to pose for pictures in her underwear might have started skirting the edge of criminality, though.

[Tranquilis]

Wow. Officially right off the top of the 'Creepy' scale.

Even without allegations of child porn, the drugs themselves open a door: drug deals via computer, or storing records of such, are common enough that adding hard drives and storage media to a warrant isn't far-fetched. I know - What idiot would store records of such transactions..? Well, often enough, that would be the kinds of idiots that use illegal drugs.

[Kinthalis]

Correct me if I'm wrong but:

Fake child porn (putting kids faces on otherwise legal porn, drawings, 3d animations) is not illegal, and neither are nude photo's real children (otherwise my mom is going to jail for that picture of 3 year old me being all cute handing over my towel- and nudists all over the world would be in hot water), correct?

I mean this guy is indeed one sick weirdo I wouldn't want anywhere near my kid (tell me this woman left him!), but aside form the drug issue (glad they got him on that), he didn't do anything illegal.

[Kinthalis]

Oh man, that's what I get for having a thread open for a couple of hours before replying. Pretty much what everyone else said.

[Boyo Jim]

I think every person in this story acted correctly, except the dad, the trial judge, and maybe the jury.

The daughter told her mom.
The mom called the cops.
The cops got a search warrant and found the pics.

Arresting him? Honestly, if I was a cop and found those pictures, I would find it SO creepy, and be so concerned for the daughter's safety, that I would arrest the guy and let the DA's office decide whether or not they could make the charges stick. Oh, plus the drug charges -- the arrest for those was perfectly legit.

The prosecutor certainly acted correctly about the drug charges, and without knowing the language of the law it's hard for me to say whether the porn charges were an overreach. I would certainly level every charge I could to put the guy away.

The judge apparently fucked up pretty bad, giving wring instructions to the jury. And that's why I have trouble deciding whether the jury fucked up -- they may have been given bad information on which to base their verdict. I'd guess they probably were, because if the law is as clear as others have suggested, the judge would have dismissed the porn charge before the jury even git a chance to consider it.

[kayaker]

I think every person in this story acted correctly, except the dad, the trial judge, and maybe the jury.


The mom called the cops.


I wouldn't give the mom a pass.

The court said the teenager's mother suggested to her daughter in 2008 that she work to build a relationship with the girl's father, Gerber, from whom the mother had been separated for about 12 years.

[Kinthalis]

But there was nothing to consider. It's not illegal to what he did, anymore than it would be for me to write an erotic story of my sexual escapades at age 12.

Not that I had any sexual escapades at age 12. It would be a fiction book.

[Kinthalis]

I wouldn't give the mom a pass.


Well, was this before or after the incident? And did she know of his drug use?

Just telling your daughter to foster a relationship with her father isn't anything bad.

[kayaker]

Well, was this before or after the incident? And did she know of his drug use?

Just telling your daughter to foster a relationship with her father isn't anything bad.

I dunno. Mom didn't want anything to do with him....

[Boyo Jim]

I wouldn't give the mom a pass.

Well, show me any evidence the mom knew dad was a druggie pedophile, and I'll agree with you.

[Ferret Herder]

I dunno. Mom didn't want anything to do with him....
Just because someone doesn't suit you as a partner doesn't mean they're automatically an unfit parent, otherwise there'd be a whole lot fewer joint custody agreements in divorce. We don't even know why they separated - maybe he didn't want to be a dad and only recently agreed to see his daughter.

[kayaker]

Well, show me any evidence the mom knew dad was a druggie pedophile, and I'll agree with you.

No evidence, just the feeling that she could have his child, then not want anything to do with him for 12 years, and be clueless.

[ShelliBean]

No evidence, just the feeling that she could have his child, then not want anything to do with him for 12 years, and be clueless.

I want my youngest son to have some sort of idea and half assed relationship with his bio-dad. I let him see bio-dad for short visits, usually on Sundays. You could not pay me to have a friendly relationship that goes any further than pleasantries at pick up and drop off, and the obvious "no bad mouthing the ex" rule.

It would still be completely out of the blue to me, and a complete surprise, should I ever find out he was into child porn or any kind of predator.

[Moonlitherial]

No evidence, just the feeling that she could have his child, then not want anything to do with him for 12 years, and be clueless.

I know for a fact that my ex's screwy ideas about raising children are completely screwing up his step kids but I do everything I can to support my kids to having a relationship with them. I also spent a lot of time teaching them to protect themselves from him and his views of the world though.

It hasn't always been pretty but based on this story we've been pretty lucky. Ex only tried to screw with the kids financially and by teaching them stupidity. There were a few rough years when I wished I had taken them far far away from him but in the long run they learned a lot about life. Probably too young but the alternative isn't pretty either. Luckily my skill at choosing men got better later in live so they had a much better role model around to counteract the effect.

[kayaker]

OK, I withdraw my feelings about mom. I just have a very tough time interacting with scum like the dad and not getting a vibe.

[constanze]

Although I don't have kids personally, I can understand the bind parents are in, when they think the ex is a looser, but still encourage the children to spend time and get to know the ex.

If done right, the children can and will find out for themselves that the ex is a looser; or will discover his good sides and his bad, which is an important part of growing up *.

The alternative of keeping the kid away from the bad influence of the ex** and "bad-mouthing the ex" by trying to tell the kids why s/he is such a jerk you want to protect them from him/her, ends up worse in the long run: the children will start to idolize the missing parent - as they do with dead, unknown or absent parents; they will start to think "My dad would never treat me like that, he would treat me like a princess!" whenever you give them room arrest or tell them to wash dishes; and once they become rebellious teens, they might start searching for that wonderful parent-in-the-sky by running away.

Also, people change. The deadbeat looser at 20 who wasn't able to handle the responsibility of a baby might have cleaned up his act and his life 10 years later and want to become a good dad now, so he should have a chance.

* There's an old saying: You are no longer a child when you discover that your parents are human, not gods.
You have become an adult when you can forgive them that.

** Unless the ex is real criminal, kiddie diddler or the like - and even then, once he's in prison and might change, with visits supervised, it should be attempted at least.

[Boyo Jim]

OK, I withdraw my feelings about mom. I just have a very tough time interacting with scum like the dad and not getting a vibe.

You have no idea how many scumbags you've interacted with and not gotten a scumbag vibe from. None of us do.

[Tranquilis]

You have no idea how many scumbags you've interacted with and not gotten a scumbag vibe from. None of us do.
Quote for truth.

Point in case: A very popular, very professional, up-n-coming Nuclear-trained Electrician's Mate I once served with. Everyone liked him, respected him, thought he was a great farther and a helluva stand-up guy.
Then his wife discovered him diddling his daughter.

Not one of us knew. Not one us, including his wife, suspected. Zero warning signs, zero indicators - just out of the blue one day, she came home from work early when he was on leave, and Surprize! :eek: :mad:


No matter how good your 'scumdar' is, there are more scum out there than you'll ever guess. Scum are good at hiding, because the consequences of getting caught are so high. They're highly motivated to stay hidden, and generally, I suspect, only the dumber ones get busted, unless random chance intervenes (as in the case of my former shipmate and current Federal prisoner).
It's Darwinism, with the most successful scum carrying on for decades and longer.

[Farmer Jane]

This is bullshit. The 2002 SCOTUS ruling was about completely virtual images.

Technically, almsot all pornography is digitally edited in some way. And no one's boobs are that perfect.

I'm going to venture a guess that taking a picture of a child posing in a lewd manner is against the law. But sexually exploiting her and violating her privacy isn't?

Fucking A. Cali is a weird place when it comes to law.

[Farmer Jane]

nm

[Boyo Jim]

This is bullshit. The 2002 SCOTUS ruling was about completely virtual images.

Technically, almsot all pornography is digitally edited in some way. And no one's boobs are that perfect.

I'm going to venture a guess that taking a picture of a child posing in a lewd manner is against the law. But sexually exploiting her and violating her privacy isn't?

Fucking A. Cali is a weird place when it comes to law.

For all we know, the guy copied her picture out of a school yearbook and pasted it over pics of porn actress that he got off the web. That is just too fat a stretch IMO to call it child pornography and slap someone into prison for it.

And how exactly did he violate her privacy? The pictures were taken from his computer. I haven't seen any claims that he posted them online. Did I miss that somehow?

[Súil Dubh]

But there was nothing to consider. It's not illegal to what he did, anymore than it would be for me to write an erotic story of my sexual escapades at age 12.

Not that I had any sexual escapades at age 12. It would be a fiction book.

Wasn't there a case (around a decade ago) where a man was convicted for writing pedophiliac fantasies in his diary?

IIRC he was a young guy who was charged and convicted for actually abusing a child. He was out on probation, and as part of that, the authorities (or his counsellor) has access to his journal. When they found the journal entries, they recharged him and put him away for longer.

I am typing this all pre-morning coffee, so forgive me if I have any of the details wrong.

[kaylasdad99]

Father's Day is coming up. Payback can be a bitch.Fuckin' A. She should totally get him a tie with a really horrible pattern that he can't exchange...

[Autolycus]

Fuckin' A. She should totally get him a tie with a really horrible pattern that he can't exchange...

OK. I laughed.

[pikey pete]

wow...just...yeah. I can think of creepier things, but they would require slight tweaks to the fabric of reality...or rule books, d20, a blow up doll and a good imagination.

[villa]

Wasn't there a case (around a decade ago) where a man was convicted for writing pedophiliac fantasies in his diary?

IIRC he was a young guy who was charged and convicted for actually abusing a child. He was out on probation, and as part of that, the authorities (or his counsellor) has access to his journal. When they found the journal entries, they recharged him and put him away for longer.

I am typing this all pre-morning coffee, so forgive me if I have any of the details wrong.

I believe, from memory, he violated his parole as a result, rather than was convicted. The two have very different standards. I don't believe there was second criminal charge involved.

[Súil Dubh]

I believe, from memory, he violated his parole as a result, rather than was convicted. The two have very different standards. I don't believe there was second criminal charge involved.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

It was pre-morning coffee *and* I didn't really want to reread all the gory details had I tried to Google the original incident.

The story in the OP was more than enough WTF?! eeewww... for first thing in the morning.

I forgot to mention that in my original message. The very first thing I typed should have been WTF?! Eeewww!