It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by THX-1138
A picture of child porn is not harming anybody beyond the initial creation.
Originally posted by mattifikation
And no, the little girls weren't "asking for it" by posting their pictures online. They're 10 and 12. They don't think about these things, and they don't deserve to become victims because of the failings of their parents.
There are several problems with your proposal. For starters, I don't want my tax dollars wasted paying for round-the-clock surveillance of this guy. If you believe that we should be watching him, then that means that you, like most of us, find it likely that he will act out on his fantasies (assuming he hasn't already). I agree that he should be seeing a shrink, but it should be a prison shrink while he is locked up!
Originally posted by Hyzera
reply to post by jd140
People like him should go see a shrink and be put under surveillance, not be sent to jail. I would rather have him looking at badly photoshopped pictures in his home that to have him exploiting real physical children.
[edit on 6/27/2009 by Hyzera]
blog.drivinglaws.org...
Detectives said they Child Pornography, marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The suspect, Michael Wayne Campbell, 45, was arrested and charged with six counts of Aggravated Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, Simple possession of Marijuana and Drug Paraphernalia.
Today detectives say the on-going investigation has produced twenty-five (25) additional charges.
Detective Mike Cox identified an additional juvenile. He said sexually explicit photographs were found in which this minor's face had been placed on the body of other females who were of undetermined ages.
He says also found in Campbell's home were thirteen (13) photographs of a ten year old child that consisted of sexually explicit altered photographs.
A total of thirty-one (31) sexually explicitand altered photograph's of three (3) juvenile females were recovered during the execution of the search warrant that took place on May 29, 2009 at Campbell's residence.
edition.cnn.com...
Cases like Campbell's present a unique legal issue. 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.
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.
"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.
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."
As to the success of such prosecutions, "there have not been a huge number of them," Allen said. While some have been successful and won convictions, many such cases are still in the appellate process.
Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Originally posted by _Phoenix_
But if it became legal, then it would not become less of a problem, it would instead become a HUGE business.
How would it become a huge business? Most likely the only people who would set up websites and charge people to view child pornography are the ones who created the child pornography in the first place. In that case, arrest the creator of the website on rape charges.
Or, if it's simply profiting off a sick fantasy that we are concerned about, and we are concerned that people will gather videos from the Internet and set up websites and charge people to view child pornography, make it illegal to sell child pornography.
There. The profitable demand has been eliminated. Problem solved.
But if it is displayed on any of the many free pornographic video websites, how are the people who created the videos profiting? What is their motivation to continue to kidnap and rape children? Their own sick desires? Those will never go away no matter what you make illegal and no matter who is watching.
Originally posted by StevenDye
We punish them for hurting the child. But now we also punish them for trying not to hurt anybody.... He needs help maybe, but not punishment.
them for trying not to hurt anybody....
Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by StevenDye
Who the hell gave you stars? Oh, whatever. I'm sure you're right, and the 10 year old girls of the world are just begging for middle aged men to give 'em some big juicy.... Christ, I'll stop there and move on to the next thing: You're 17 years old, and you're talking to 12 year old girls on the Internet about them "wanting it..." Seek help, dude.
Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Hyzera
You would probably feel differantly if it was the face of your daughter on those bodies.
Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
This guy was actively pursuing those little girls by doing what he did.