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.
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.
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.
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 :eek: . :rolleyes: 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?” :mad: ) 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.
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.
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…
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.
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?
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?
I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. But assuming that it isn’t…
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.
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.
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.
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.
… but even mention a Penny Gadget explicit nude and watch them freak out :eek: . :rolleyes: 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)
:mad: ) 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.
Is it even illegal to steal something that’s illegal to own in the first place?