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?

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?

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.

Nobody should be in jail for Photoshopping. Period.

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.

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.

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?!
ILLEGAL TO HAVE A PICTURE?!!!!

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!!!!

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]

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.

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]

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 ??

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]

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.
Actions.
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.