×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tennesee Man Charged In "Virtual Pornography" Case

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the bad-taste-in-one's-mouth dept.

The Courts 639

mcgrew writes "CNN reports that 'A Tennessee man is facing charges of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor for what authorities say are three pictures — none of them featuring an actual child's body. Instead, according to testimony presented at Michael Wayne Campbell's preliminary hearing in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on Wednesday, the photos feature the faces of three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females, CNN affiliate WDEF reported.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

639 comments

Interesting...and so's this! (-1, Troll)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473369)

Hey everyone, I just heard the sad news on talk radio today. Michael Jackson, the talented pop star, was found dead in his Santa Monica hospital this afternoon. There were no other details. Even if you didn't like his plastic surgery addiction and kiddie fondling, you have to admit...he was truly an American icon.

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (1, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473387)

No kiddie fondling was ever proven. Can't you give him a break in death?

I agree that he was a weirdo, but that is not a crime.

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473447)

Gizzmonic made no accusations. He simply said, regardless of your position on kiddie fondling, which I presume would include inviting them into your bed after filling them full of wine and drugs, you have to admit Michael Jackson was an icon.

Say what you will about dangling children over balcony railings, the man was a pop star!

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (0, Offtopic)

zarzu (1581721) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473539)

yea... no. what he said was:

Even if you didn't like his plastic surgery addiction and kiddie fondling

and that implies that he did actually fondle kids.

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (-1, Offtopic)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473467)

"The greatest love you can show is to share your bed with a 13 year old."- Michael Jackson.

I'm sure all those bedroom security systems and multi-hundred thousand dollar payments to families of children who "hung out" at Neverland Ranch were for show.

I hate to speak ill of the dead...but really, who didn't know that Michael Jackson had a thing for children?

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (0, Offtopic)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473533)

The question is: what kind of a "thing"?

He professed to love children -- in the conventional sense -- just as many other people do. And he was weird. But people put those two things together, and think "he was doing weird things with children", which does not necessarily follow, at all. If you have real evidence that he was a child molester, then bring it forth. Otherwise, you are doing nothing but pretending that your suspicions are fact.

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473641)

That quote looks like an admission to pedophilia. He has a "thing" for children. But that is not the same thing as molesting them. There was never any strong evidence AFIK that he molested. Pedophilia does not equate to child molestation if the pedophile does not act out on the impulse. THere is no harm in that.

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (0, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473647)

It's quite possible that he did molest those children, but it's also quite obvious that he's still a child himself.

Being subjected to the abuse of his father and the warped reality which comes with fame and stardom will do that. You can't have a look at his face and his Peter Pan complexes without knowing that he has problems other than loving children too much.

Children tend to be sexually curious and M.J. is no exception.

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473557)

No kiddie fondling was ever proven.

He settled out of court. Big difference.

Can't you give him a break in death?

Yeah because now that hes dead.. kiddle fondling doesn't seem so bad.

Lets forgive Saddam Hussein too.

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (0, Offtopic)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473757)

Now that he's dead he's no longer able to face his accuser (namely you).

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473893)

Because we all know Micheal Jackson was an avid Slashdot user.

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (1)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473599)

Ironic that (AFAIK) the first time this well-known /. meme/troll is actually true, it still gets modded flamebait. I only have one mod point left, or I'd mod you up Informative lol.

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473879)

Still unconfirmed. One source says his heart was never revived. CNN is reporting that it was, and that he's in a coma.

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (1)

rev_g33k_101 (886348) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473657)

So assuming that pedophilia is a kin to vampirism...

The original has died, now the others go back to being "regular" people?

Steve Jobs got a transplant (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473679)

Steve Jobs went to the doctor with a totally fucked up anus. Years of abuse had resulted in a severely scarred sphincter, the gang bangs, fist fuckings, object insertions, etc, had done irreparable damage.

-The only solution now is a transplant -- the doctor said.

Luckily, they found a compatible donor in a young straight guy who had died in an accident, and the surgery was a success. After many years, Steve Jobs had a virgin asshole again.

A few months went by, and Steve Jobs was back at the doctor with an anal sphincter that was a total loss.

-I don't understand -- the doctor said -- you just got a new anus and willingly destroyed it again?

-Look, doctor, -- Steve Jobs replied -- if I let people fuck my backside when it was MY ass, do you think I'm going to stop now that it's someone elses?

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473723)

Iran is in a state of anarchy, North Korea wants to nuke Hawaii, and you slashtards are concentrating on a dead pedophile? Get some priorities you twats.

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (3, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473733)

Hey everyone, I just heard the sad news on talk radio today. Michael Jackson, the talented pop star, was found dead in his Santa Monica hospital this afternoon.

It's the best news Gov Mark Sanford could have.

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (1)

Reikk (534266) | more than 4 years ago | (#28474029)

Not true. They're currently trying an experimental transplant from his monkey Bubbles

Re:Interesting...and so's this! (3, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#28474085)

and kiddie fondling, you have to admit...

      Well HE certainly never admitted to it.... only doled out a lot of cash, twice, but that's not an admission of guilt.

As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (5, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473415)

ruled that in order for something to be "child pornography", it had to be depictions of (1) real children, and (2) real pornography.

This is interesting, though, if the faces were of real children. Which side of the line does that land on?

real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473487)

Are these legal:

Cut and paste picture, one from a kid's face and one from an adult's privates?
Two ajacent pictures side by side?
Two pictures in the same photo album?
Two pictures in different albums on the same bookshelf?
Two pictures in different parts of the same house?
Two pictures in different parts of the same planet?

There needs to be a safe harbor line somewhere.

Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (4, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473567)

Well, the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (i.e., no children were actually abused or molested), then it is protected speech. I would think that a child's face pasted on an adult's body would fall into that category. But IANAL, and it is pretty close to the line.

Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (0, Troll)

Cornelius the Great (555189) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473703)

Porn is primarily for getting aroused (or getting off). Getting aroused (or getting off) to pictures of children (not teenagers, but pre-pubescent kids) is just sick- porn or no porn. Legality aside, these people should receive psych treatment and be forced to avoid contact with children.

Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (3, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473815)

I would be content with just having the psych treatment. Why this person decided to do this is kind of important. If they did it specifically to push the limits of the law, they need to be given a sentence of having to clean parking meters or something else tedious and annoying that makes the point that this isn't a good thing. If they did it for sexual purposes, they need to be ordered to treatment, and if treatment determines that they are a true danger then that needs to be referred back to the court, who should probably commit them rather than jail them.

Make the punishment fit the crime.

Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (0)

Cornelius the Great (555189) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473927)

While most judges and prosecutors have common sense, we still need to have a well-defined guidelines for sentencing because we have a few judges that are either too lenient (let them go until they actually molest children) or too strict (20+ years for downloading just a few pictures on a computer).

In a perfect world, we'd lock up just the dangerous perverts...

Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (4, Insightful)

RudeIota (1131331) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473955)

If they did it specifically to push the limits of the law, they need to be given a sentence of having to clean parking meters or something else tedious and annoying that makes the point that this isn't a good thing.

Testing the law is not illegal and if the acts to test it are not deemed illegal, then no punishment is necessary, IMO.

Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (1)

lupis42 (1048492) | more than 4 years ago | (#28474027)

Posting on Slashdot about punishing and abusing alleged pedophiles is primarily for getting aroused (or getting off). Getting aroused (or getting off) to posting on Slashdot about punishing and abusing alleged pedophiles (not convicted pedophiles, but alleged pedophiles) is just sick [...]. Legality aside, these people should receive psych treatment and be forced to avoid contact with Slashdot.

Sexually abusing people (regardless of age) is never acceptable. Assuming that someone who my have owned images doctored to look like they showed someone sexually abusing someone else is likewise unacceptable, especially since this behavior probably destroys at least as many lives as the other.

Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ??? (2, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28474045)

Even if that were so, possession laws do not require that a person got off on the images. I don't know if it's any different for what this guy's getting charged with.

And even if he was - since they were pasted onto adult bodies, I'm not sure how we can conclude he's getting off on images of pre-pubescents!

Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473565)

It lands on the third side of that line off in Poughkeepsie, in that nice, gray, amorphous Thought Crime zone. And who's gonna raise a fuss? Anybody rushing into defend this guy will be instantly labeled as a pedo-sympathizer, letting the agenda-pushing knee-jerkers RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE till the cows come home.

Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (4, Interesting)

e9th (652576) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473621)

TFA:

Tennessee's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor, "the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor."

I wonder if that's been tested. It sounds scary, in that it assumes the "minor" part.

Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473707)

Since that is directly contradictory to the Supreme Court ruling, I don't think that would stand.

Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (2, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473819)

Would have to define 'depiction' i suppose. Go too far and the old Simpsons porn parodies would qualify. And how do you define 'real porn' as opposed to 'not real porn'

What is next to become illegal, discussing it?

Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28474011)

As best I understand it, the Supreme Court ruled that if no children were actually harmed (abused, molested, made to perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexually explicit manner), then the material constitutes protected speech.

It appears to me, as a layperson, that this falls into that category.

Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (3, Informative)

computational super (740265) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473973)

Actually, I read recently about a case where a guy (Christopher Handley, I think his name was), was sentenced to 15 years for simply possessing a japanese cartoon depiction of such. I don't think it has to be real anything... if it oogs somebody out, you're going to jail.

Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28474047)

"This is interesting, though, if the faces were of real children. Which side of the line does that land on?"

If the photos of kids' faces were taken in public then the photo is legal. If so, encouraging a child to feel harmed by someone else's nude body seems pretty stupid to me.

Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28474099)

Michael Jackson pws all your asses

Not completely related but... (0, Offtopic)

ViennaSt (1138481) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473429)

RIP Michael Jackson!

Re:Not completely related but... (4, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473549)

RIP Michael Jackson!

[Bender] He's defiling young angels now. [/Bender]

Re:Not completely related but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473903)

Those angels only have young faces but their little bodies are covered in stretchmarks like a WWI battlefield.

Re:Not completely related but... (1)

Romancer (19668) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473563)

Not fully on topic but I just heard about this from your post so you beat the other news outlets, at least for me. Just beat it... beat it...

"They told him don't you ever come around here
Don't wanna see your face, you better disappear
The fire's in their eyes and their words are really clear
So beat it, just beat it... "

eerie...

Expectations vs Reality... (3, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473431)

This whole situation sounds bizarre, but I was just reading in the strip-search constitutionality stories about the 'expectation' that a person would understand the constitutionality of their actions.

As we start seeing more of these strange cases that have been made possible by the advancement of technology I wonder if the expectation of understanding defense will be employed.

After all - what legal precedence addressing a situation of this nature has reached a level of widespread understanding that a given individual could be expected to be familiar with the society's legal expectations.

Re:Expectations vs Reality... (5, Insightful)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473579)

these strange cases that have been made possible by the advancement of technology

What technology? Scissors and glue?

Re:Expectations vs Reality... (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473675)

OMFG. I read 'cut and paste' in some article and assumed this was a case of photoshopping. Weird how the misinterpretation translates to meta-commentary on my original point.

Re:Expectations vs Reality... (3, Informative)

Goobermunch (771199) | more than 4 years ago | (#28474035)

That's not going to happen.

You have to understand the legal arenas in which the cases you look at are decided. The strip-search case involved a state actor who engaged in conduct arguably prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. That gave rise to a 1983 action (a suit for damages based on a violation of your Constitutional Rights). In those kinds of cases, there is a defense called qualified immunity. It can be invoked by state actors to say "The rule I broke was not well settled by the Supreme Court. I did not know I was violating your rights. Because I did not know, and there was no way for me to know, I should not be held liable."

But that defense only comes up where a state actor is sued for violating someone's rights. This case involves a criminal prosecution against a private citizen. The private citizen does not have a "I didn't know" rule. In fact, the general rule is that ignorance of the law is not a defense. He can still defend himself by arguing that Tennessee's law is unconstitutional, but he cannot say that he did not know that what he was doing was illegal.

--AC

Sure, that's disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473433)

That doesn't make it illegal.
(yes, you could possibly get him for sexual harassment, but not child porn.)

Re:Sure, that's disgusting (3, Insightful)

piojo (995934) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473547)

It's not child porn, but I think the article said "exploitation of a minor". This makes sense... it's kind of like slander, I think. A photographer can't publish your photo without your written consent. How much worse is this? Publishing an image of my face on someone else's naked body certainly seems like exploitation to me.

Re:Sure, that's disgusting (2, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473615)

But it is done all the time in the name of satire, which is also protected speech.

(By the way: if you are in public, a photographer can take your picture and publish it without your permission.)

Re:Sure, that's disgusting (2, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473667)

A photographer can't publish your photo without your written consent.

That's not always the case. Photojournalism is the clear exception, but not the only one.

Regardless, unless you know something the article doesn't, publication doesn't enter into the picture here, and so the fact that you need a model release for it is a red herring, as is your statement "Publishing an image of my face on someone else's naked body certainly seems like exploitation to me."

Re:Sure, that's disgusting (5, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473801)

Did he publish? I can't see that in the article - even if he did, I think child porn would be the wrong law to use, because it's a different thing, nowhere near as serious as sexual abuse, and it would also set the precedent for simple possession being illegal.

Reading the article though, the mentality of people in positions of authority is worrying:

"when you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity,"

Slashdotters rejoice! Can't get laid? Well just "affix" a picture of a woman next to you, and you can take part in "simulated" sexual activity. (Will he go to a simulated prison? Thought not.)

"It's definitely on the increase," said Justin Fitzsimmons, a former prosecutor and senior attorney with the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, part of the National District Attorneys' Association. "People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence."

Generally, what is seen is the "Photoshop effect," in which people use the face of a child on an adult body or vice versa in an effort to get around the law, he said.

Yes, just think of all these poor photographs being abused!

I love the way they talk of it like it's a loophole. It's as much of a loophole, as me paying for items in a shop is a "creative" way round being done for shoplifting...

I'm reminded of the UK's Brass Eye [wikipedia.org] - the thing is there's an amusing part where they actually overlay a child's face onto a adult's body! It's done rather unrealistically, with the photos of different proportions, but it's not like these bad photoshop jobs that people are being done for sound realistic either. Whilst I've never heard the legality of Brass Eye being questioned, I honestly wonder that if an individual was found with the same images in their private possession, they'd be done for child porn.

Still, the UK is already moving on - now we're criminalising adult porn (even if consensual and simulated).

Re:Sure, that's disgusting (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#28474053)

A photographer can't publish your photo without your written consent.

      IANAL but I think that can be challenged if the photo was taken in a public place, where you have "no reasonable expectation of privacy". After all, if a law works in favor of the government, it has to work in favor of the people too, right?

      I can't imagine TV stations getting release forms every time they film some crowd, or people walking down the street behind an interviewer.

Re:Sure, that's disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473629)

The reason I think they include the photoshop remixes as child porn is to make prosecution easier. If the photoshoped images were treated differently, people would claim everything they had was photoshopped and the prosecutors would have to prove each one is real and not a fake. Prosecutors would have to sort through thousands of photos posted by random people and figure out which ones are fake and which ones are real. The laws are in place to protect real minors, not fake minors and no one said that the laws had to be easy to enforce but appanently by including fakes, they made it easy for themselves. I think a good lawyer might be able to get you free on a fake photoshop case though, after all, who was the minor that was sexually exploited and what was the actual crime against that minor?

Re:Sure, that's disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473653)

I apologize for the crap formatting, but I don't post on slashdot much and br does not seem to work.

My bad, that's basically what they're doing. It does come into question, how did they find these photos?

Note that they are also talking about thoughtcrime here.
"when you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity"

"Since then, "more and more of these guys are using morphed images, image manipulations" in an attempt to circumvent prosecution, Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said Wednesday."
Citation needed, I have heard this claimed many times but heard of an example. I bet it happened once... or twice. Hell, maybe it happened 20 times.

"People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence."
However, the article also admitted that he did not directly exploit any children.

the photos feature the faces of... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473453)

...three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females.

I guess he should have done it the other way around then. Right?

Re:the photos feature the faces of... (2, Interesting)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473747)

I don't think he is attracted to bobble head dolls; but whatever floats your boat, I guess.

hehe, overzealous much? (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473457)

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that "virtual child pornography," in which no children were actually harmed, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime.

"We see it all the time," Allen said. "It makes it harder for law enforcement. It makes it tougher for prosecutors."

Well yeah, prosecuting someone for something that isn't a crime would be "tougher".

Re:hehe, overzealous much? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473497)

It was 2002? I remember the ruling, but I thought it was more recent than that.

Re:hehe, overzealous much? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473861)

It gets ruled on over and over, apparently prosecutors and lawmakers just ignore the rulings and keep hoping that the entire supreme court gets Alzheimer's for the umpteenth case and let it slide. It's almost as popular as getting your video game ban laws stricken down (its been what, 8 states? 10? And yet states keep trying, probably thinking that the supreme court justices won't mind because the legislators think "hurr durr we r speshul!"

You people are screwed. (5, Insightful)

lordmetroid (708723) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473459)

Ehm, *Cough* Thought Crime *Cough*

Re:You people are screwed. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473649)

Ehm, *Cough* We're talking about TENNESSEE here *Cough*

Re:You people are screwed. (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473871)

Ehm, *Cough* We're talking about TENNESSEE here *Cough*

If he had pasted the heads of his cousins on some nude women it would have been ok.

So if he takes the head of Goofy (5, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473501)

Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......

Wait a sec. I don't think I should go any further with this.......

Re:So if he takes the head of Goofy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28474025)

Too late!!! I just threw up o y keyoard. Now soe of y keys do't work.

illeagle because its offensive? (3, Insightful)

compatibles (1344133) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473513)

This is like that hentai guy. I think material like this may be grounds for investigating someone to see if they have actual illegal porn. But I don't see how this is a crime. I don't want thought police, but there should be no gray area when actual children are involved.

Re:illeagle because its offensive? (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#28474013)

Why should it be grounds? Some of the teen websites for porn searches on Google turn up Hentai kiddie porn images. You would have to investigate every man who viewed pornography on a computer.

Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT! (4, Funny)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473541)

If you are a purveyor of stick-man pornography, please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD make your stick men big! Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.

Oh! And be sure to include scale objects in your drawing so that everybody knows that you're drawing a big stick man. Ummm . . . I mean scale objects extrinsic to the stick man.

Now, go on and enjoy your stick-man / stick-woman pornography!

Re: enjoy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473841)

...o...^........
o./|..adult size
//||_..v........
 
I made sure to include the external scale. Enjoy!

Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT! (5, Interesting)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473865)

A game of hang man...

   -----
   |/ |
   |  0
   | /|\
   |  |
   | / \
  / \
===========

Or virtual snuff porn? You decide.

[Note to UK police officers reading this - Mr Hangman is at least 18 years of age.]

Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28474075)

David Carradine Rule34 confirmed!

Re:Stick-Man Pornographers-----WATCH OUT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473913)

but what about stick man midget porn? what then, huh? WHAT THEN?

and I swear to god the captcha for this post was "paranoia".

Sexual: Check (4, Funny)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473611)

Exploitation: Check, probably.

Minor: Check.

Yep, seems like a tautology to me - he's guilty. Note they didn't convict him of sexual abuse of a minor, or making child pornography, or anything like that.

Does this mean I think he should be convicted of a crime - maybe. The problem is the use (I assume) of the word "exploitation" in a crime. It can be interpreted to mean almost anything. It's like being convicted of being "too douchy". How douchy is too douchy?

Prosecuting thought crime not helping (5, Insightful)

hamburgler007 (1420537) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473617)

When you prosecute thought crime the same as if the person had actually committed the crime why would someone who engages in this type of behavior not commit the actual crime in the future?

Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473795)

Precisely. If there is a law against something that I personally would be inclined to break, and I am accused of and punished for breaking that law even when I didn't, then there would be no motivation to prevent me from actually doing it in the future.

This is a generic problem with over-broad laws.

Re:Prosecuting thought crime not helping (2, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 4 years ago | (#28474061)

Because politicians in all branches of the government pad out their resumes by being "tough on criminals" and the unwashed masses think it has something to do with being tough on crime and just lap it right up.

Great, my town made the news (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473623)

Terrific, Chattanooga made the news.

It had to be some weirdo... not our new residential fiber-optics rollout, not our fuel cell research, not our biofuel companies, not our new VW plant... virtual porn.

Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473651)

He should have shopped adult heads on little girl bodies. Then he could have told the cops they were super models.

the state is not required to prove the actual age (4, Insightful)

TerraFrost (611855) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473665)

FTA:

For instance, Tennessee's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor, "the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor."

How can you prove that the person in a picture is a minor if you can't figure out their age? For a toddler, it's obvious, but what about someone in high school? Summer Glau, 27, played a 15 year old in Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles. Nathalie Portman was 18 when she played a 13 year old in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Sarah Michelle Geller was 21 when she played a 15 year old Buffy Summers in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. There's a pretty wide margin of error if all you have to go by is a picture.

Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473767)

...Summer Glau, 27...Natalie Portman, 18...Sarah Michelle Geller,21 ...

I think we need to see the nude photographs of said actresses to properly evaluate your claims. Please provide links.

Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473987)

That law is bizarre... how the hell can they call a person a minor without proving they're a minor? That's sort of a major piece of evidence...

"This person had a picture of Pamela Anderson (naked and petrified), who -- as we all know -- is a minor. You must find him guilty of possession of kiddie porn because we don't actually have to prove that she's a minor for you to convict!"

Jonnie Cochran [youtube.com] would be so proud.

Re:the state is not required to prove the actual a (1)

samriel (1456543) | more than 4 years ago | (#28474073)

And the lawyer for the defense said:

"If the training bra don't fit, you must acquit!"

It's a complicated issue (4, Interesting)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473709)

There is certainly a mens rea of harm to a minor involved when someone has the faces of children pasted on adult bodies such as in this case. So, the actual reason we have child pornography laws in the first place (to protect minors) is served by this case. In fact, using the child's face even fits the actual crime of "exploitation" of a minor. It's even aggravated

However, this really is a crime. Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?

Well...

(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in:
(1) Sexual activity; or
(2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive.
(b) A person violating subsection (a) may be charged in a separate count for each individual performance, image, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, videocassette tape, or other pictorial representation.
(c) In a prosecution under this section, the trier of fact may consider the title, text, visual representation, Internet history, physical development of the person depicted, expert medical testimony, expert computer forensic testimony, and any other relevant evidence, in determining whether a person knowingly promoted, employed, used, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to participate in the performance of or in the production of acts or material for these purposes, or in determining whether the material or image otherwise represents or depicts that a participant is a minor.
(d) A violation of this section is a Class B felony. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting prosecution for any other sexual offense under this chapter, nor shall a joint conviction under this section and any other related sexual offense, even if arising out of the same conduct, be construed as limiting any applicable punishment, including consecutive sentencing under  40-35-115, or the enhancement of sentence under  40-35-114.
(e) In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor.
(f) A person is subject to prosecution in this state under this section for any conduct that originates in this state, or for any conduct that originates by a person located outside this state, where the person promoted, employed, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to engage in the performance of, or production of, acts or material within this state.

[Acts 1990, ch. 1092, Â 7; 2005, ch. 496, Â 4.]

Well, looks like we can!

Re:It's a complicated issue (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473765)

If you're stimulated by pictures of mature secondary sexual characteristics, you aren't likely to be all that interested in little girls.

Re:It's a complicated issue (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473805)

If you're stimulated by pictures of mature secondary sexual characteristics, you aren't likely to be all that interested in little girls.

If you selected specific children's faces to characterize the sexual image, then you likely are.

Whether or not that's the case, it's the production of material featuring the simulated sexualization of an obvious minor.

Re:It's a complicated issue (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473925)

If you're stimulated by pictures of mature secondary sexual characteristics, you aren't likely to be all that interested in little girls.

If you selected specific children's faces to characterize the sexual image, then you likely are.

You are both guessing. Who knows which one of you is right. However the law is not supposed to be about guesses but about facts. How would you like to be put in jail after having 5 or 6 drinks at home because "you might have gotten in your car and driven drunk"?

Re:It's a complicated issue (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473901)

Once again, however, article (2) appears to be in direct contradiction to the 2002 SCOTUS decision, which ruled that simulated pornography is protected speech. So a conviction seems doubtful, especially if appealed.

Short Adobe (ADBE)! (3, Interesting)

Punk CPA (1075871) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473811)

Next, the maker of Photoshop is indicted for aiding and abetting DIY kiddie porn. This is just stupid.

When did it all go so wrong. (3, Informative)

lattyware (934246) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473829)

These laws are meant to be there to protect children. No children were harmed in the making of these images. This is essentially thought-crime.

oh noes! a _picture_ threatens society! (4, Insightful)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473905)

The article doesn't even say how they found them in the first place, but why the hell do people get so bent out of shape what others look at? Its none of mine, or your fucking business.

Don't prosecutors have anything better to do, then pretend to be a nanny to some adult?

It's a _picture_. It's such threat to society that it threatens the heart of civilization! I mean look at all the killing, and raping it does!!! Oh wait, _people_ do those things...
--
"One man's fetish is another man's turnoff."

Original purpose (5, Interesting)

Theodore (13524) | more than 4 years ago | (#28473923)

Originally, laws against child porn were passed under the assumption that a child was involved in a sex act "without their consent".
In other words, right up until back in the 70's, you could buy porn where "children" were "raped"
(note the use of quotations... both of those terms have changed since back then, a lot) in regular porn shops.

It was assumed, that spreading "child porn" meant that you had been involved in it's creation.
That's spurious to begin with, even 40 years ago.
The purpose of child porn laws was to prevent "sexual damage to children".

Soooo....
Now children aren't even needed... so there's no real crime (rape) being effected.

STOP!!!
I know that you're thinking.
"People who like to watch 'underage' porn can't be stopped from acting on what they've seen"...
Really?
How much porn have you watched?
How much of it have you gone out and re-enacted?
Truth of it all, you've jerked off tons of times, then looked at the screen (or even live pussy), and said "Nah... I'm done".
.
.
.
I'm hearing crickets here.

"It makes it harder for law enforcement."...
Yeah, that's the constitution smacking you in the face with it's dick.
It's SUPPOSED to be harder for "law enforcement"; distrust of government is encoded into the constitution.

Unbelievable! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28473981)

Can you imaging going to jail for a long time and being a registered sex offender for playing with photoshop and some photos of Miley Cirrus? It's outragous!

Miley Cyrus REAL 20 year old boyfriend (3, Interesting)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#28474037)

What I don't understand is why this guy is being prosecuted for pasting together a picture of Miley Cyrus on a nude body, when there is (was) an actual 20 year old adult HAVING SEX with her. Isn't that statuary rape? Oh... but they are rich and famous so it's ok?!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...