It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Man Charged In 'Virtual Porn' Case

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:40 AM

Originally posted by tezzajw
Hmmm, that's a good point. Is it 'illegal' to view snuff movies?

No, it's not. They are easily found on many 'shock sites'. I personally have seen many snuff videos on many different sites. I haven't actually "watched" them because I don't have the stomach for that, but they are available with a simple search.

I see snuff videos as similar to child pornography. Both are viewed by people who have either a curiosity or interest in what is being depicted in the video (or images), and both videos depict acts which are illegal.

So following that logic, why aren't snuff videos also illegal? Are the acts being depicted in the snuff video somehow less illegal or important? Does the viewing of these acts not encourage more of these acts to be recorded and uploaded to the Internet? Or are we just being hypocrites in order to satisfy a politically correct need to overly-protect children?

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:11 AM
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

I believe snuff films are illegal to possess but not to watch.

I could be wrong though, if you have a link that says otherwise would you mind posting it. I googled if it was legal and all I found were other message boards stating what I thought.

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:15 AM
People on ATS are supposed to be paranoid, tin-foil-hat wearing loonies.

But this thread is an example of genuine, media-fostered paranoia. "There are paedos everywhere and we should castrate them all to keep our kids safe."

Those people who've been saying, "no child, no crime" are perfectly right. The rest are thought police, and the result of their endeavours is a society that is unhealthily paranoid about child abuse.

Now I've been a teacher, and was quite happy to get my CRB check. But the paranoia within schools was so oppressive it was one of the reasons I left the profession. I'm a music teacher and was dumbfounded to learn that simply moving a child's fingers into the correct position on the intstrument was viewed with suspicion and horror.

It also saddened me that I couldn't give an upset child a reassuring hug without suspicion falling upon me. There were one or two occasions I really wanted just to reach out to comfort a pupil but, no, that would mean I was some sort of sexual predator. I also spoke to the nice ladies in the office of one of the schools I taught in, who told me that things were so bad that on hot days they'd have to put sun-block on the kids... but they had to do it by letting the kids put it on themselves. For the very youngest children, that's basically ensuring a trip to the nearest washbasin to get the stuff out of their eyes.

My secondary education was in a grammar school in which caning was rare but did occur, and in which teachers slapping children was commonplace.

I had one history teacher who used to do "the bicycle ride". If you were being unruly, he'd come up behind you and grasp the hair growing just in front of each ear, and he'd say, "now we're going for a bicycle ride" and work the tufts of hair like bike pedals... "now we're going UP the hill..." (lifting you out of your seat) "and now we're going DOWN the hill..." and so on.

This was pretty amusing to watch and, actually, not too painful to endure. And we absolutely loved this teacher because he was a) good laugh, b) interesting, and c) believe it or not, not abusive. You only got that treatment if you misbehaved, and it was always done in good humour. He also had a piece of wood with a nail in it which would smack down on the desks of the inattentive. It was quite a shock the first time it happened, but of course actually pretty funny because we knew there was no way he'd use THAT on you. It was all for show.

On the other hand, there were other teachers who WERE defintiely abusive, and unpopular because of that... but strangely enough, many of them never resorted to violence.

Trying to reduce inappropriate behaviour to simple rules doesn't work.

And the paranoia about child abuse is ruining natural relationships and behaviour. The best TV programme ever about paedophilia was the Brasseye special...

Or maybe it was this one which was banned because of the people involved...

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:21 AM
The "snuff" film argument is pointless... most of the "snuff" films people claim to see are faked.

It is much easier to fake a snuff film than dispose of a body... only ONE of the reasons they are 99% of the time faked. Do they exist, you better believe they do... but you aren't finding one very easily on the "net"

As far as the original topic... I am not sure how to feel about this. There is no victim in this crime, hell the "victim" would never know it was even committed if it was not brought to light. Does that make it right, well no, not in my opinion... but that is a far cry from illegal.

I would rather go after the individuals who are scarring the future lives of preyed upon children rather than the fantasies in the mind of the accused.

When we start getting arrested for our thoughts... NONE of us will be safe. NOBODY here has sanctimonious thought every minute of the day. It starts with "child porn" thoughts.. but where does it end?

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:48 AM
I thought I'd post a link to part one of the Brasseye "Paedogeddon" episode: link

Links to the other parts can be found from there.

Those who watch the whole programme will note that Chris Morris, for purposes of satire, produces a collage uncannily similar to the one mentioned in the OP.

The programme is a searing indictment of the media frenzy surrounding the subject and an excellent reductio ad absurdum of many of the arguments found in this thread.

It's also really funny.

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:57 AM
It's difficult to say how best to deal with images and the media and "governments" involvement, but certainly images lead or incline a person towards high or low behaviors. Many serial murderers have credited pornography for their inspirations.

Some people promote the concept that what is "natural" is good or should be allowed. Well, it is natural at this plane of existence to hate, to feel anger, envy, jealousy, greed, etc.. Or in other words, it is natural to kill, rape, rob, torture, etc.. What one should do is what inclines the spirit inwards and upwards towards higher planes and a purer heart and mind. What causes the spirit to go upwards is "good" and what inclines it downwards is "bad". Societies have the right to protect themselves from harm no matter how it may stifle the "freedom" of an individual. It's one thing for an individual to struggle with degenerative influences in privacy without harming others physically or psychologically or interfering in others personal property. It's another to create a public presence and promote to the society depredation. Now, the promotion of degradation is currently standard operating procedure of the advertising industry. Someday even this will be viewed in it's proper light. "Freedom" is a banner cry primarily used to victimize the weak. More humans have been butchered voluntarily under the cry of freedom than have ever been killed in wars. And they cry for their rights to degenerate not only themselves but others as well.

Every society has the right to set it's own limits. The concern for all of us is whether the society has made that call or a select few manipulator that are doing so from a malevolent anti social interest.

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:03 AM
Nobody should be in jail for Photoshopping. Period.

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:19 AM

Originally posted by Manouche
It's a sick story but he didn't hurt anyone.
You don't jail people for "thoughts" in a free society.
Next you jail people for criticising the government because they are potential terrorists.

Well as a matter of fact... you might want to see this before you say that

Obama- Preventive and Indefinite Detention

Preventive and Indefinite Detention
So much for 'free society'

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:31 AM

Originally posted by THX-1138
Nobody should be in jail for Photoshopping. Period.

Including those who download child pornography and edit that on photoshoppe?

Seems I recall its illegal to have such material in your photoshoppe folder is it not?

Where is the line drawn?

And as to faked snuff films how are they worse then movies like Chainsaw Massacre which are America's entertainment

Just saying.

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:04 AM
With the sexualisation of children in movies and the media, is it any wonder that it is coming to this?
Child erotica seems to be becoming more prevalent and it seems to be accepted because it's art.

As for the Miley Cyrus part, the girl created a backlash for posing for sexy photos so neither her or her parents could complain if her image falls into the wrong hands as far as I'm concerned.

However, the two local girls mentioned in the story is a great concern.

I don't know that the guy should go to prison but he definately should be put on some kind of watch list and get some help.
He seems more of a Peeping Tom than a Pedophile to me.
And Peeping Toms usually don't cop a jail term for a first offence.

I think it should also be a condition that he move out of State and a long way from these girls. That, therapy and the watch list is what I would deem an appropriate solution.

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:16 AM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by THX-1138
Nobody should be in jail for Photoshopping. Period.

Including those who download child pornography and edit that on photoshoppe?

Seems I recall its illegal to have such material in your photoshoppe folder is it not?

Where is the line drawn?

And as to faked snuff films how are they worse then movies like Chainsaw Massacre which are America's entertainment

Just saying.

I have to admit I am not a child porn expert.
I figured it was illegal to create child porn with real children in real porn situations.
Is it illegal to have a picture?
Are you serious?!

Are there any other pictures that are illegal?
I am not pro-child porn, but there is something disturbing, even more disturbing than child porn, about making it illegal to have a picture. Of ANYTHING. A picture of child porn is not harming anybody beyond the initial creation. If the picture is fabricated by using a vacation photo of a child and Photoshopping it onto the body of a naked Obama I DON'T CARE ONE BIT.

It is just a picture.

This is starting to sound like some ancient anti-icon religious dogma or something. Thou shalt have no pictures!

No pictures, damn you, or you go straight to hell!

Now the people that are making these pictures should be carefully studied to ascertain their mental states, but just to say that somebody is guilty because they have a picture is a tragedy.

If so, then I want all the Hollywood directors of slasher flicks thrown into jail. If they made a movie with a rape scene... thrown into jail! If they made a movie with a drive-by murder scene... JAIL!!!!

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:18 AM
Heh, I just had an amusing thought. What if someone downloaded an illicit picture of a nude child and photoshopped clothing on to the kid? Since the picture was originally known to be pornographic in nature, does that then mean the picture of the fully clothed child is also illegal?

Interesting paradox, no?

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:43 AM
reply to post by Hyzera

I saw the movie "Saw". The movie was about a man who went around killing people for his own sadistic purposes. If I had any idea of what it was about I wouldn't have even thought about seeing it. It was disgusting. If we are going to put someone in jail for fake porn, and as someone else suggested "beat the crap out of them every day for a month" for thinking thoughts they do not approve of, then we would have to put a higher priority on beating the crap out of people who have seen Saw I, II, and III. I suppose they need to be beaten at least ten times per day if we beat someone one time per day if one time per day is the punishment for having thought about sex with a minor at one point. After all, slowly and painfully murdering someone is at least 10 times worse than what the porn-watcher was thinking about.

But no, it is a gross injustice to hurt someone in any way at all when there is no victim. The idea that someone is being hurt by someone looking at a photo of them is superstitious nonsense and I can't believe such a comment is serious. If the "victim" is never even aware their photograph is being looked at and thought about, it is crazy to suggest they are being hurt. Fantasies have no bearing on what someone is going to do in reality. So no, the man doesn't need to be forced into anything because there is frankly only the mildest suspicion to believe he'd ever lay a finger on a child. The idea you can jail someone on a mild suspicion is a bad one. Talk about weak evidence! Its a bit like suggesting someone poking a hole in a voodoo doll needs to be jailed because they plan on killing the person represented by the dummy. Why anyone can't see the ridiculously large leap between fantasy and reality is beyond my comprehension.

Sure, there should be some suspicion, but that is more definitely it and anyone who takes further action against the man should themselves be the subject of some sort of punishment! So yes if the fake porn watcher is punished in any way for what he did then whoever is doing the punishing should themselves be locked away for enforcing a victimless "crime". You can't punish someone on suspicion... that is a violation of human rights. You have to have evidence of intent.

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:48 AM
I fully support helpful outlets to live out not so safe in reality sexual fantasies and desires.

BUT to place a child in that fantasy WHAT SO EVER is completely wrong and should be addressed if more people were caught like this guy who hopefully hasn't hurt a child yet there would be tons of children who would not have had to suffer at the hands of a predator.
These precautions are nothing but justified and I am happy to see an active role being taken on by the court systems in this case and hope that many more people are caught and held responsible for these types of actions.
Sadly, you can never put these people away long enough, there is no hope for them.
Fantasy has a history of progression just like any addiction or desire it wouldn't be too long till he and people like him start trading real photos of children oh and these photos are of REAL children anyway just because it isn't their body it is still their precious little face being exploited but anyway as progression goes these people end up in kiddie porn rings than end up living out their fantasy on real children.

This is why I tell people to not post videos of their children on youtube/myspace other photo sharing sites no matter how harmless it may seem you're subjecting them to a world of perverts.

Think of the children for once and not your opinions on the NWO or the world becoming a police state or how evil and bad the government and police are it's beginning to scare me how people are letting their opinions on the matter come before the safety of innocent children.

It all really makes you wonder and question the people who would have sympathy for a perverted pedo who does this kind of thing.

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:57 AM

Originally posted by rich23
But this thread is an example of genuine, media-fostered paranoia. "There are paedos everywhere and we should castrate them all to keep our kids safe."

Those people who've been saying, "no child, no crime" are perfectly right. The rest are thought police, and the result of their endeavours is a society that is unhealthily paranoid about child abuse.

Your above statement deeply reflects one of the dilemma's pointed out by a noted mathematician:

Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 05:11 AM
Is there any child porn - Nope. The pictures are women who are of age. Is there a crime - hell yes.

The problem is here that most of you missed is there is an actual victim.
If you watch the video you would know that the suspects tenant (renter) found the picture of his daughter's face on a naked woman's body. That's what led to the rest being found & charges as he called the police to protect his daughter - As any normal father would do

Had the photos of Miley been disturbed she would be a victim as well.

So, in a sense there is at least two victims here - the man & his daughter.
Why? because the pictures were viewed by the family of the girl.

Though the report didn't say whether the suspect purposely made them available to the tenant or if he was just reckless and left them where they could be found.

Had the man just made his pictures for himself and kept them secure or erased them - I believe there would be no victim and therefor no crime as there were no nude bodies of underage persons only faces which are public knowledge and people see them everyday. Public domain just like if you go to a park and show your face.

While I wouldn't call these pictures child porn as they clearly are not, but there should be criminal charges for recklessly allowing them to fall into the hands of the father of the girl & perhaps stalking the underage victim.

The fact that the guy is their landlord is pretty sick - one that seems similar to a horror movie.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by verylowfrequency]

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 05:22 AM
Right, the actual naked body''s were of mature women, ..... and although this is a strange case, ..... can you really throw him in jail for this ?? If he really wanted to molest children he would of joined the priesthood. we all know this.

... for those of you who want this guy behind bars,... do you have any idea what you ask ? ... what is this man actualy guilty of ? molesting some pictures ? being artistic ? .. haha,

.... What if were all wrong, ... and he just has a fetish for women with inappropriately small heads ??

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:02 AM

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by physicalbeing

It doesn't matter. He actively sought two local girls that he knew. Found or taken makes no difference in this issue. They're still the pictured object of his sexual gratification.

You just told someone to read the article.

Hamilton County Det. Michael Cox said Campbell told authorities "he wanted to see what they would look like as adults," according to WDEF.

Investigators do not believe Campbell had any contact with the three girls, but "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," Assistant District Attorney Dave Denny said during Wednesday's hearing.

It is the state that is pushing for this to be a sex crime. If all he did was put images on NAKED (Not sexualised - there is a big difference) bodies, I can't see how they come to the charge of aggravated sexual exploitation...

But who knows, if he has a history of pedophilic thoughts, then he does need to be separated from society.

EDIT to add: After watching the video of the case, he had 31 images?? That's indicative of something else, IMO... If it had been a one off just to see, with 3 images... well thats one thing.. But to sit there and manipulate 31 seperate images.. Ahh... Im not so sure now.

[edit on 28/6/2009 by badw0lf]

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:07 AM

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
The problem is here that most of you missed is there is an actual victim.
If you watch the video you would know that the suspects tenant (renter) found the picture of his daughter's face on a naked woman's body. That's what led to the rest being found & charges as he called the police to protect his daughter - As any normal father would do
Though the report didn't say whether the suspect purposely made them available to the tenant or if he was just reckless and left them where they could be found.
[edit on 28-6-2009 by verylowfrequency]

I didn't see this in the video and I watched the one in the O.P.s article, but okay I believe you. I think the law he is being charged with still boils down to intent and prior knowledge though:

(a) (1) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, sell, distribute, transport, purchase or exchange material, or possess with the intent to promote, sell, distribute, transport, purchase or exchange material, that includes a minor engaged in:

So I guess the question is, did he knowingly distribute the pic??

Let the debate continue...

[edit on 28-6-2009 by theyreadmymind]

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:22 AM

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

As others have said, this is nothing but a thought crime. I'm sure I'm in the minority with what I am about to say, but I think what people do in the privacy of their homes and believe in the privacy of their own thoughts, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another person, is their own business. That includes viewing or being aroused by child pornography.

I am sickened to my bones at the view certain individuals have regarding this topic.

You see this issue from the point of view of the individual, an individual who is getting sexual pleasure from child pornography. Wether the pornography is photoshopped images of minors plastered over other images, or actual child pornography is irrelevant.
It is the practice of manufacturing child pornography as a means of pleasure that is abhorrent and deemed criminal regardless of when, where or how you do it. This individual has done this.
It is the belief that this behaviour is unacceptable, whereever and whenever it happens.
It is an effort to re-inforce this belief to sick individual and those "holier than thou Pedophiles RIGHTS crowd", that support these sickening practices that as a society these practices are not tolerated, accepted or endorsed at all, anywhere at any time in any form.
We all enter a contract with society that sees us forgo certain rights to do whatever we want, whenever we want(even within our own homes) for the good of all.

As flawed as the Justice system is, I believe that it is about time that SICK F@#$ pedo's forgo their right to manufacture their own images of children(as is the case with the OP article), and to give up the right to masturbate to these images of children, to supress their desires in order to prevent any creation and proliferation or acceptance of child sexual abuse in order to generate pornography in anyway, shape or form in order to stamp out the horrific consequences that these practices have. For the good of children. Is that too much too ask?

I also believe it is about time that those people who get on their soap box about "thought crimes" and "he only masturbating to child images" start to realise that these crimes have far more substance to them than mere thoughts. This man has acted on his thoughts. He has created images, he is using those images. He was caught with those images.
Now the group of individuals we all agreed to have protect us, the authorities, have acted too. As most of us would hope they would.

The Laws and Attitudes of authorities in relation to these matters is for the protection of Children. Period.
Those of you on this forum that believe it is about suppressing the freedoms and desires of sick individuals are so far off this planet that it raises serious questions.

Those of you that think policing or laws relating to the manufacturing of any child pornography what so-ever as being heavy handed on individuals who find child pornography as a means to and end in "harmlessly" satisfying, rather then actually abusing children, are at best supporters of child pornography and those that find sexual satisfaction from it.

Because at the moment, you guys are supporting the bad guys, your thoughts are far more deviant in that some of you say how much you think that these practices are sick, but you support those that behave this way by saying that it is a basic right and that there is nothing wrong with having sexual thoughts relating to children, manufacturing child poronographic images around specific children(as is the case in the OP) and acting out thoughts to such images by getting sexual pleasure from them because it is in a home. WTF?

When some of you people get your heads around the fact that this has nothing to do with the rights of sick pedophilic individuals, and more about preventative and protective measures for children, then, and only then, can we have a discussion on rights.
Because I can tell you now, for mine, Childrens rights to be protected from pedophiles (that seek to use them to create images for sexual satisfaction) is way above the rights of these @$#%'s to have their jollies at home.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in