The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-27-2007, 01:53 AM
D_White D_White is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Photoshop and child porn

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/235213.html

A former Elementary School principal was arrested on child pornography charges in Florida. It seems what he was basically doing was photoshopping the faces of children on adult nude bodies. The article doesn't specify that the bodies are of adults, but it seems that the charges are based on the age of the faces and not the bodies.

Should this really be illegal? Should it be labeled "child porn"? Are there any dopers out there that want tax dollars being used to prosecute someone for cutting out pictures of the Gerber baby and pasting them onto a picture of a naked, adult body?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 12-27-2007, 01:56 AM
Argent Towers Argent Towers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_White
[url]Are there any dopers out there that want tax dollars being used to prosecute someone for cutting out pictures of the Gerber baby and pasting them onto a picture of a naked, adult body?
I want that.

Oh, wait, you said want tax dollars being used to prosecute someone who did that. Never mind.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-27-2007, 02:24 AM
Br'er Lapin Br'er Lapin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
That's a tough one.

Child pornography isn't illegal because it's weird or 'icky' or morally wrong. It's a crime because it causes harm to children. In this case, no children were actually being photographed in any sexual way, so if you look at it outright, no children were harmed.

However, the faces are still of real children. If, by some (probably nearly impossible) chance the children in question were to be made aware that their faces were being used for such purposes, that may cause emotional damage.

I don't think it's a valid criminal matter (and wouldn't want to see my tax dollars spent on prosecuting the accused), but the parents of the children would certainly have a civil case.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-27-2007, 02:45 AM
9thFloor 9thFloor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br'er Lapin
That's a tough one.

Child pornography isn't illegal because it's weird or 'icky' or morally wrong. It's a crime because it causes harm to children. In this case, no children were actually being photographed in any sexual way, so if you look at it outright, no children were harmed.

However, the faces are still of real children. If, by some (probably nearly impossible) chance the children in question were to be made aware that their faces were being used for such purposes, that may cause emotional damage.

I don't think it's a valid criminal matter (and wouldn't want to see my tax dollars spent on prosecuting the accused), but the parents of the children would certainly have a civil case.
I agree. And at that point it's just a question of appropriating someone else's image without permission and no more than that.

This country -- and much of the world, consequently -- has lost it's frickin' mind when it comes to child porn and terrorism. The two boogeymen of today.

Last edited by 9thFloor; 12-27-2007 at 02:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-27-2007, 02:51 AM
D_White D_White is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br'er Lapin
That's a tough one.

Child pornography isn't illegal because it's weird or 'icky' or morally wrong. It's a crime because it causes harm to children. In this case, no children were actually being photographed in any sexual way, so if you look at it outright, no children were harmed.

However, the faces are still of real children. If, by some (probably nearly impossible) chance the children in question were to be made aware that their faces were being used for such purposes, that may cause emotional damage.

I don't think it's a valid criminal matter (and wouldn't want to see my tax dollars spent on prosecuting the accused), but the parents of the children would certainly have a civil case.
I agree; it's a tough one. The emotional damage thing is tough too. Is emotional damage ever a crime? Is this sort of emotional damage good grounds for a civil case if it weren't a crime in the eyes of the law? Lets say someone pastes the pictures of his neighbors adult faces on nude bodies for his own personal use. Surely if his briefcase were seized and his acts were made public, as were whose faces he used, those neighbors would probably suffer some amount of emotional damage. But so what? Him calling a neighbor a fat ass may cause her emotional damage also, but I wouldn't want her to be able to sue him because of it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-27-2007, 03:01 AM
Hail Ants Hail Ants is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NY USA
Posts: 5,201
Quote:
Child pornography isn't illegal because it's weird or 'icky' or morally wrong.
That's the thing. It IS always a media sensation because of this (it being icky and immoral, that is). Its ten times worse than being accused of murder.

I thought The Supreme Court already ruled that criminalizing 'virtual kiddie porn' (which this clearly is) was unconstitutional? That pervo-principal can clearly be prosecuted for a number of crimes that will get him fired and unable to ever work around kids again. And if that's all he's done (the Photoshop thing) then that's kinda enough. He shouldn't go to prison (yet).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-27-2007, 03:03 AM
KGS KGS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Porn Capital USA
Posts: 4,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br'er Lapin
However, the faces are still of real children. If, by some (probably nearly impossible) chance the children in question were to be made aware that their faces were being used for such purposes, that may cause emotional damage.
That was essentially the Supreme Court's argument for retaining this statute when the rest of the 1996 Child Protection Act (the so-called "Virtual Porn" law) was overturned.

Which begs the question...how can a pedophile get aroused by a naked ADULT body? That makes no sense!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-27-2007, 03:27 AM
Tapioca Dextrin Tapioca Dextrin is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Staring blankly at my GPS
Posts: 11,246
With perverts of any flavour, it doesn't have to (at least to normal folks).
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-27-2007, 03:34 AM
D_White D_White is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by KGS
That was essentially the Supreme Court's argument for retaining this statute when the rest of the 1996 Child Protection Act (the so-called "Virtual Porn" law) was overturned.
Which statute?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-27-2007, 05:03 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 26,026
The story says the photos were found in his briefcase and on his home computer. It gives no indication that the photos had been found anywhere else.
Quote:
John D. Stelmack, 60, who had been working this school year as principal of Scott Lake Elementary in Lakeland, Fla., was arrested Friday after police reported finding five pornographic photos involving children in a briefcase in his school office.

<snip>

The investigation into Stelmack began Dec. 14 after school officials began receiving complaints about Stelmack.

“The superintendent [in Florida] personally called me, which was unusual,” Judd said. “The superintendent said we need a criminal investigation of a principal.”

Sheriff’s officials searched Stelmack’s office and found several suspicious photos in a briefcase in his office. Several were of naked, young adult women. The others were of the five superimposed composite photos.

Investigators seized his home laptop and desktop computers. On the computers they found about a dozen photos that could be child pornography, Judd said.
If he didn't share these photos with anyone else, then AFAIAC, (a) it was nobody's business but his own, and (b) the investigation, not his actions, will have been the source of any emotional harm to the 'victims.'

Gotta wonder what the nature was of the complaints the police received.

And in any event, I think that even if he did show those pix to anyone else, the nature of the crime is too inconsequential for this attitude:
Quote:
“We will work closely with our colleagues in New York,” [Polk County Sheriff Judd] vowed. “We won’t let this guy get out from under the charges . . . We’ll do everything we can to make sure he’ll spend a very long time in the Florida prison system for these transgressions.”
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-27-2007, 05:28 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 26,026
A bit more info:
Quote:
The school district had been investigating Stelmack since Dec. 14, after faculty members complained about Stelmack's level of affection shown toward some students.
That's certainly the sort of thing that requires a response by the school district, and perhaps the law. But not being a legal eagle, I don't see how a search of his papers is justified by such claims: either he was being overly friendly with his elementary school students, in which case he gets his ass fired (and prosecuted, if it went that far), or not. But his personal papers aren't going to tell you that, unless he molested said students and kept pictures of it. Which he apparently didn't.

The legal expert consulted by the Tampa Tribune says there's no child-porn case here.

Whatever the truth of his behavior with the children, the photos aren't evidence in that case, and may not be evidence in any case. But they've ruined this guy's life in the newspapers in the meantime.

If it turns out he's behaved sufficiently inappropriately with the kids in his school (or elsewhere), they're free to ruin his life over that. But right now it looks like "we had a subpoena to investigate X, and we found something tangentially related that will humiliate him for life, so we shared it with the media, even though it may not be illegal, and probably isn't even evidence in our original case."

Stelnack sounds like a guy you wouldn't want to trust around your kids, but that doesn't mean the authorities should ruin his life before they've got a case to justify it.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-27-2007, 08:10 AM
Malodorous Malodorous is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
They got a warrent to search his briefcase based on his "level of affection" towards students? Or do they not need a warrent to search his briefcase if they're in his office?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-27-2007, 08:34 AM
Uncommon Sense Uncommon Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malodorous
They got a warrent to search his briefcase based on his "level of affection" towards students? Or do they not need a warrent to search his briefcase if they're in his office?
If the contents of the briefcase (the laptop, etc) are property of the school (his employer) then they probably don't need a warrant.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-27-2007, 08:46 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail Ants
I thought The Supreme Court already ruled that criminalizing 'virtual kiddie porn' (which this clearly is) was unconstitutional?
Actually, what was knocked down specifically was images created without the use of the likeness of any actual minor, meaning either completely virtual sims, cartoons, or youthful adult performers pretending to be minors.

However, as the law stands now, after it was amended to try and hew to the ruling w/o giving up completely, it is still illegal to do cutting-and-pasting or painting or morphing any likeness of an actual minor onto a sexually explicit or lewd image; and so is creating sim/virtual porn if (a) the image is "indistinguishable" to an observer from a real child, AND (b)it fulfills the legal definition for obscenity. These are outlawed not as CP but as distinct offenses, but sloppy reporting insists on calling it that..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-27-2007, 10:10 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 26,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncommon Sense
If the contents of the briefcase (the laptop, etc) are property of the school (his employer) then they probably don't need a warrant.
IANAL, but if the briefcase is his, I'd think they'd need a warrant to go rummaging inside it. Even if it's been provided to him by the school district as part of his job, my non-legal WAG would be that he'd have a reasonable expectation that the contents would be regarded as private.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-27-2007, 11:46 AM
El Zagna El Zagna is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
It seems to me that this is the sort of thing that we should be encouraging pedophiles to do. This way they satisfy their lust while not involving children in any real way.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-27-2007, 12:12 PM
Cervaise Cervaise is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_White
Is emotional damage ever a crime?
If so, then Rob Schneider should get the gas chamber for inflicting his career on humanity.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-27-2007, 01:13 PM
villa villa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: True Blue Virginia
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Zagna
It seems to me that this is the sort of thing that we should be encouraging pedophiles to do. This way they satisfy their lust while not involving children in any real way.
Part of the rationale given for the banning of the possession of child porn, while the banning of the possession of pictures of other criminal acts is not, in and of itself, illegal, is that child porn is made because a market exists for it. The same rationale is extended to the ban of this kind of material.

I'm not defending the reasoning there, but that is what is put forward.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-27-2007, 01:44 PM
vison vison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
There are those who believe that pornography is a "safe outlet" for sexual deviants. There are those who believe that pornography "encourages" the deviant person and that inevitably pornography will not suffice and actual acts with actual people will follow.

I tend to lean toward the first belief, but have no proof either way. There was a bit of a cause celebre in Canada some time ago when the public was told that criminals imprisoned for crimes, up to and including rape and murder, were "allowed" to possess porn in prison. (Not child porn, as far as I know.) It would be nice, I guess, if imprisoning a man caused his sexual urges to vanish, wouldn't it?

The man in question in this thread may be a pedophile, but that's beside the point now. Did he commit a crime by pasting a child's face on an adult body? I guess so. But what if he painted these pictures? Wrote descriptions?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-27-2007, 03:47 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by vison
The man in question in this thread may be a pedophile, but that's beside the point now. Did he commit a crime by pasting a child's face on an adult body? I guess so. But what if he painted these pictures? Wrote descriptions?
IANAL but as I understood the current state of affairs, if he painted them he could be in trouble with the Law if the painting were deemed legally obscene and the child-model for the face were identifiable; or if there being no identifiable child-model he distributed obscene material. I don't think he'd be in trouble for a piece of written fiction, with, again, the caveat about fulfilling the Miller test for legal obscenity (Doper Lawyers, would it be fair to say that in the practice, the idea of trying written fiction for obscenity has been abandoned in the US?).

Last edited by JRDelirious; 12-27-2007 at 03:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-27-2007, 04:39 PM
Charger Charger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
What I wonder about is the legality of taking a photo of a student at a school and using that for "personal" hobbies. Is it legal to take photos of people in public and then do whatever one wants with them in private? I'm sure there would be a case if he sold the photos, but I have to wonder if someone could take a trip to the local mall/bank/hairstylist/etc. with a digital camera and collect, for themselves, a little file of pictures off of which to jack.

As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), someone could go to Hooters with a camera and make their own Hooters calendars, blow-up dolls, trading cards, Halloween masks, t-shirts, etc. as long as they do not sell them. Still, you could probably give them away.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-27-2007, 05:04 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 28,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charger
As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), someone could go to Hooters with a camera and make their own Hooters calendars, blow-up dolls, trading cards, Halloween masks, t-shirts, etc. as long as they do not sell them. Still, you could probably give them away.
I'll take one.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-27-2007, 06:47 PM
El Zagna El Zagna is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by villa
Part of the rationale given for the banning of the possession of child porn, while the banning of the possession of pictures of other criminal acts is not, in and of itself, illegal, is that child porn is made because a market exists for it.
But in the case of ordinary child porn, by contributing to the market for child porn, you're (arguably) contributing to the exploitation of the children who are being used as models in sexually explicit settings. In this case nothing sexually explicit happened other than in the mind of the man charged.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-27-2007, 07:42 PM
villa villa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: True Blue Virginia
Posts: 7,622
I know, which is why I said I wasn't defending the reasoning. The argument I have heard put forward is that even simulated kiddie porn contributes to the market for kiddie porn.

If you purchase actual kiddie porn, the abuse has already occurred. But you are contributing to the development of the market, not just for the pictures of that child, but of other children. Or so the rationale runs.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-27-2007, 09:08 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charger
As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), someone could go to Hooters with a camera and make their own Hooters calendars, blow-up dolls, trading cards, Halloween masks, t-shirts, etc. as long as they do not sell them. Still, you could probably give them away.
Actually, that would be a bad example -- after all, Hooters produces its own branded merchandise and they would not be pleased by someone distributing free bootlegs. Though they may tolerate it as not worth the bother if it's on small enough scale, they'd be within their rights to put a C&D on any distribution.

IIRC, as soon as you engage in any form of "distribution" of such material, even if for free, you become subject to scrutiny as to whether it is in the clear WRT intellectual property or privacy law.


Like villa said, outlawing simple posession of CP is intended as a demand-suppression measure, partly in the hope that by deterring future demand you'll indirectly reduce future abuse.


Outlawing truly virtual/imaginary material does depend more on the "ICK" factor. (Leaving aside copyright infringements, for some people you can draw a cartoon of Velma getting raped by Scooby Doo and you're TeH Funny ... but even mention a Penny Gadget explicit nude and watch them freak out . Heck, one online art site put up a rule that no "grownup-version" of comic characters whose original version is underage may be portrayed sexually -- so not even a picture of a Penny-on-her-21st-birthday)


In the PROTECT Act of 2003 under "findings" the law sought to justify still going after a narrower, more limited set of "virtuals". Having worked in legislatures for years, I'm not too impressed by the "findings" section in ANY legislation...I'd love to see the controlled scientific study wherefrom Congress got such findings, whisch ISTM involve unchallenged assumptions that the materials do not relieve, but rather exhacerbate, the pervs' appetites, and that they'll use it to "entice" children... to which I say, huh... they can even use NORMAL porn for that! ("See there, that's what Big Girls do... you want to be a Big Girl, right?" ) The justification for for still going after computer-sim renders was that "very soon" the technology would be such that suspects would be able to allege that the materials were all just very, very good 3D sim graphics and it would be too difficult for the prosecution to prove it's a morph of an actual image from life.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 12-27-2007 at 09:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-29-2007, 06:04 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 11,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by villa
...If you purchase actual kiddie porn, the abuse has already occurred. But you are contributing to the development of the market, not just for the pictures of that child, but of other children. Or so the rationale runs.
What if one doesn't actually purchase child porn. Say one downloads it off the internet for free. Or if one steals it from someone else? Is it even illegal to steal something that's illegal to own in the first place?
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-29-2007, 06:55 PM
villa villa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: True Blue Virginia
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaboi867
What if one doesn't actually purchase child porn. Say one downloads it off the internet for free. Or if one steals it from someone else? Is it even illegal to steal something that's illegal to own in the first place?
Yes it is. And by downloading it, the argument would be that you would still be contributing to the demand for it. I don't think it is necessarily a great argument, but that is one of the ones used.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-30-2007, 10:58 AM
milkshake milkshake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
there was a case against a man who photographied himself nunde, at the age of 15. Few years later he posted his own photos on the web and got busted as a child pornographer...
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-30-2007, 11:24 AM
Chessic Sense Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
People using the word 'morph' got me thinking. What if I take a pic of a clothed child and a pic of a nude adult in the same pose, and morphed them together. I don't mean a copy-paste job, I mean one using software that makes one image slowly (or quickly) change to another. The first pic isn't illegal, neither is the last. Is the middle? How do you know?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:39 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelSoldier
People using the word 'morph' got me thinking. What if I take a pic of a clothed child and a pic of a nude adult in the same pose, and morphed them together. I don't mean a copy-paste job, I mean one using software that makes one image slowly (or quickly) change to another. The first pic isn't illegal, neither is the last. Is the middle? How do you know?
The law as it stands forbids ANY use or modification of the likeness of an actual child, to produce a pornographic image. It's up to the Crime Lab to reverse-algorithm the morph or to dig up the cached source files in order to make the case.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-30-2007, 03:27 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 11,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkshake
there was a case against a man who photographied himself nunde, at the age of 15. Few years later he posted his own photos on the web and got busted as a child pornographer...
I did the same thing when I was 17, though I posted them while still underage. I guess that wouldn't hold up in court, would it?
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:34 PM
milkshake milkshake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaboi867
I did the same thing when I was 17, though I posted them while still underage. I guess that wouldn't hold up in court, would it?
I mean I am not a snitch but there are some things we just have to report. And as a registered self-molester you will the much needed psychotherapy so that you wont endanger anybody even yourself.

Please admit it - have you fondled yourself as a child: you know, the playing and stuff?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-30-2007, 05:19 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 28,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkshake
I mean I am not a snitch but there are some things we just have to report. And as a registered self-molester you will the much needed psychotherapy so that you wont endanger anybody even yourself.

Please admit it - have you fondled yourself as a child: you know, the playing and stuff?
Welcome to the boards; please say you will be staying.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-02-2008, 06:48 PM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
I don't know if this has been said, but if I take a baggie full of baking soda and try to sell it as cocaine, I can get charged the same is if I actually had a real baggie full of cocaine.

In the same vein, how is what this guy did any different?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-02-2008, 07:50 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 35,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain
I don't know if this has been said, but if I take a baggie full of baking soda and try to sell it as cocaine, I can get charged the same is if I actually had a real baggie full of cocaine.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong. But assuming that it isn't...

Quote:
In the same vein, how is what this guy did any different?
Drug laws aren't an infringement on your first ammendment rights. Anti child porn laws are an infringement, albeit a very necessary one. However, since this guy didn't actually victimize any children in the creation of his virtual porn, it's debatable wether the state still has an interest in infringing on his first ammendment rights.

On the other hand, one could also argue that selling a bag of cocaine shouldn't get you arrested in the first place, as it's a victimless crime, so comparing this guy to a drug dealer (even one dealing fraudulent drugs) is an argument against charging him with a crime.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-02-2008, 09:50 PM
Sunrazor Sunrazor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Rather than examine the letter of the law under a microscope, let's step way back and look at this philosophically: Do you want your five-year-old child going to a school where the principal puts your daughter's face on the body of a naked 18-year-old woman with small breasts and waxed genitals? Wouldn't you wonder why he really wanted to be in charge of a school with very young students?

Feel free to question my credentials as a liberal, but I believe there are circumstances under which laws that were written with the intent of protecting the innocent can actually be used to protect the innocent. I'd prefer that the principal of my five-year-old's school (if I had a five-year-old) used his personal computer to morph the faces of his students on the bodies of easily recognizable heroes. I'd feel better if the principal thought of my child as someone he'd like to admire rather than someone he'd like to fuck. Parse the law all you want to -- the intent is what it's all about.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-02-2008, 10:11 PM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_White
Should this really be illegal? Should it be labeled "child porn"? Are there any dopers out there that want tax dollars being used to prosecute someone for cutting out pictures of the Gerber baby and pasting them onto a picture of a naked, adult body?
Yes, it should be illegal, and no it should not be labelled child porn. And yes, I'm more than happy to have my tax dollars spent prosecuting people who fantasize, and use the images of children in those fantasies, about sex with children.

As bizarre as this may sound, I agree, in part, with John Ashcroft and I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. The damage done with even virtual child porn, goes beyond simple computer generated images of children and effects real live children, putting them at risk. Any miniscule value that this kind of speech has is greatly outweighed by the state's interest in protecting children and attempting to corral pedophilia.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-02-2008, 10:48 PM
GuanoLad GuanoLad is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Where the wild roses grow
Posts: 19,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
...and attempting to corral pedophilia.
Paedophilia isn't illegal. Child sexual abuse is what's illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-03-2008, 07:09 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,068
Right... the boundary as it stands today is this: you merely fantasize about children - twisted but not a crime; you fantasize using images that portend to be children but involve absolutely NO real children - twisted but not a crime; you fantasize using pictures that DO contain in ANY form the likeness of ANY real children - a crime. What crime (from misappropriation of likeness through defamation and simple obscenity to child porn), depends on the actual actions and incidentals involved.

And I'm fine with any of the cases being sufficent to disqualify you from directing a grade school.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 01-03-2008 at 07:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-03-2008, 09:37 AM
El Zagna El Zagna is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunrazor
Rather than examine the letter of the law under a microscope, let's step way back and look at this philosophically: Do you want your five-year-old child going to a school where the principal puts your daughter's face on the body of a naked 18-year-old woman with small breasts and waxed genitals?
Well, that's really a different issue, although a valid one. As I see it there are several layers to this case:

1. Did this man violate any criminal laws?
2. Should there be criminal laws addressing this kind of thing?
3. Is there a civil case to be made from all of this?
4. Should there be a civil case made?
5. Should the man lose his job?

Saying yes on #5 has little to do with issues 1 through 4.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-03-2008, 09:40 AM
El Zagna El Zagna is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
The damage done with even virtual child porn, goes beyond simple computer generated images of children and effects real live children, putting them at risk.
Cite?!?! Sorry but I've gotta do it.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-03-2008, 01:31 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 35,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
Yes, it should be illegal, and no it should not be labelled child porn. And yes, I'm more than happy to have my tax dollars spent prosecuting people who fantasize, and use the images of children in those fantasies, about sex with children.
Are you saying that if a guy masterbates while looking at a picture of a kid on a box of Life cereal, without editing or altering it at all, he should be locked up? For that matter, are you arguing that pedophiles ought to be arrested wether or not they've victimized any children?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-03-2008, 03:21 PM
hotflungwok hotflungwok is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuanoLad
Paedophilia isn't illegal. Child sexual abuse is what's illegal.
It might as well be. If it's found out that a person is a paedophile, it's pretty much over for them, regardless of whatever else they may have done. Even a paedophile who has been through prison and supposedly paid for their crimes is still treated the same as one who hasn't. I've always heard that psychology can't do anything for them besides curb their overall sexual desire chemically.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-04-2008, 11:18 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 26,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunrazor
Rather than examine the letter of the law under a microscope, let's step way back and look at this philosophically: Do you want your five-year-old child going to a school where the principal puts your daughter's face on the body of a naked 18-year-old woman with small breasts and waxed genitals? Wouldn't you wonder why he really wanted to be in charge of a school with very young students?
No, and Yes, respectively.

But why does a single soul know that he created those pix? That's the question.

Quote:
Feel free to question my credentials as a liberal, but I believe there are circumstances under which laws that were written with the intent of protecting the innocent can actually be used to protect the innocent. I'd prefer that the principal of my five-year-old's school (if I had a five-year-old) used his personal computer to morph the faces of his students on the bodies of easily recognizable heroes. I'd feel better if the principal thought of my child as someone he'd like to admire rather than someone he'd like to fuck. Parse the law all you want to -- the intent is what it's all about.
Yeah, but finding out someone's intent only after conducting a search that they didn't seem to have any right to do in the first place seems like a way of embarrassing and harassing a hell of a lot of perfectly innocent citizens in the course of turning up one guy like this.

And even in his case, we don't know what his intent was, beyond jacking off.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-07-2008, 11:19 AM
milkshake milkshake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotflungwok
Even a paedophile who has been through prison and supposedly paid for their crimes is still treated the same as one who hasn't.
You can't pay for your crimes by going to a prison, it is not equivalent - if it was so then you could first go and serve a sentence and then do something awful freely.

Anyway, tastes vary and the society takes a dim view of grown men who go about dreaming about fondling little boys ("Dumbledore: The schoolboys are like Riesling wine. They are best enjoyed young")
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.