Man Charged In 'Virtual Porn' Case, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 07:31 AM by StevenDye
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.



Don't be so naiive. 10 Maybe, MAYBE; hell I know I knew what sex was by the age of 10. But 12... We arn't in the world where they are so innocent any more.

I go to 4 different schools for my sixth form (England) and also speak to a number of 12 year olds on MSN (I am 17 and I know them through a friends younger cousin, not because I searched for them.) I would say 75% of them are asking for it, and no damned well what they are asking for.

You look at a school girl in her skirt that barely appears below her jumper, then wait till she is 15 and you tell her, you know wearing that skirt made you look like a slut. And she will tell you thats exactly the reason she wore it, she wanted guys to notice, and a majority of the guys she wanted to notice were older than her. This is a discussion I had with a 15 year old the other day.

In fact one of the girls I speak to on MSN lost her virginity at 11 to a 16 year old, she thought this was normal until I gave her a firm talking to and told her it was NOT normal of most people. (Yes most girls are askinf for it, but they already know how to play hard to get, they just over do it and cheat themselves out of the guys they wanted in the first place.)


Now, to those who say this man was acting on his paedophillia, yes he was, the question is did he do it in a good or bad way?
He had an attraction to these local girls, now he could have kidnapped them, raped them or tried to get naked pictures of them. But what he actually did was used easily obtained images and put them over an adults body to 'meet his urge' without hurting a single sole.

When I am grown up and have kids, given the chopice of having my child raped or having someone 'getting off' to a picture of his face on someone elses body I know which I would choose. Because paedophilia will never go away.

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.


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 07:43 AM by Rasputin13
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]
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!

Furthermore, you are assuming that he is looking at photoshopped porn rather than acting out against actual children. That is a far leap. I would propose that his reason for photoshopping is actually to avoid kiddy porn chargers. He clearly has enough sense not to search for kiddy porn online or trade it with what could be undercover cops looking to bust him. So he likely took the somewhat intelligent move of making his own kiddy porn, thinking it is legal. Boy was he wrong.

Do you honestly think that a pedophile/sexual predator can control his urges by pleasuring himself to homemade photoshop porn? Because if you do, then you are extremely naive and I hope that you don't have children. No normal person can spend their lives looking at porn and be satisfied and never attempt to act out on their urges. This goes for normal people and especially goes for pedophiles like this sick pervert.

You have to realize that the faces he photoshopped on those adult bodies are the faces of REAL children. Those children are someones kids. They could very easily be mine or yours. We should feel extremely lucky to have caught this guy when we did, assuming he has yet to act out (and I'm not convinced he hasn't). He is sexually attracted to children to the point where he would spend the time photoshopping their faces onto porn. I have no doubt that he would ultimately pursue a real life child if given the opportunity, and hopefully he hasn't already done so.

This sicko needs to be locked up. I am sick of people trying to give these sickos the benefit of the doubt. The whole "let's wait until he actually molests a child" approach is so disturbing and infuriating that I would have to violate the ATS T.O.S. to adequately describe my outrage.


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 08:06 AM by atlasastro
This guy is not being charged for merely thoughts.
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.
blog.drivinglaws.org...

Sexually explicit AND altered photographs of juveniles.

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.
edition.cnn.com...

Seems that this is not new, at all. Just another stage in an ongoing battle against those that would seek to exploit children for their own ends.

Those of you screaming about the "thought police", get a grip. This about combating the habits of pedophiles that are adjusting their behaviour to new laws.


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 08:16 AM by _Phoenix_
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.


Well actually I think your missing the point, if it becomes more accessable that means MORE people will end up watching it, which means you will have more fans, which means there will be a lot more rich people prepared to secretly pay the makers to make more videos. It's not about how many pay them, all they need is ONE.

I'm sure it already works like that, but if it became more accessible, well I'm sure more people will have the urge to pay them for more, which means a much bigger profit business for those makers.

Basically your forgetting the biggest part of business. The more people who can have access to their business, the more profit they can make in the end.

Your forgetting the logic of it.


Now maybe I'm wrong, I can't be so arrogant to be 100% sure. And as you can see from my previous posts, I'm all for free thinking, free will etc as long as nobody gets hurt. But I just see making it legal in my logic, will cause THOUSANDS more child abuse than if it was not legal. And that's the feeling I get, that's my problem, that's not right.



[edit on 28-6-2009 by _Phoenix_]


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 08:19 AM 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.


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 08:23 AM by mattifikation
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Are you telling me that you can't see the difference between me looking up my own friends, my own age on Myspace because I want to talk to them... and some guy looking up preteen girls on Myspace because he wants to find out what they would look like naked?

C'mon dude. It's one thing to support freedom, it's another thing to not see the truth right in front of you: This guy was actively pursuing those little girls by doing what he did.



reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 09:54 AM by StevenDye
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.




No I do not speak to them about it intentionally. I have spoken to them and had numerous ones 'come on to me' and listened to others speak about people at their own school they like.

The only reason I know these people in the first place, as I stated is through a friends cousin. The friend is 17, his cousin is a 12 year old male and we used to play games online.


I do believe I added a 'maybe' to 10 year olds. But like I said at 10 I knew what sex was, and that it was good. (I didn't know why I just knew it was.) As did most of my friends.




To atlasastro: He did not create child pronography. Putting a childs face onto a womans body is not child pornography, its not right and its disturbing, but its not child pornography.

Unless I have missed something in which case you may be right...?


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 10:47 AM by mattifikation
What this man did IS wrong, and it IS illegal. Something is not a thought crime anymore if it is an action. The action here was to victimize these little girls.

Are you familiar with the term peeping tom? Is it legal to be a peeping tom, as long as the victims don't find out you did it? No. This is similar. He acquired pictures of underage girls - specifically targeting ones that he knew in person - with the explicit purpose of using them for sexual gratification. That's the same thing as watching the poor girls in the playground from a white van and rubbing one off into a tissue. Guess what? You go to jail for that, too.

Is it legal to steal somebody's credit card information, go to Vegas, win the money back and then some, and put the victim's money back before they notice it missing? NO! Because the victim finding out isn't what makes them a victim.

Just because the victim doesn't find out - and in this case, the victim's father found the images - doesn't mean they are not a victim. Those little girls were the victims of what he did, regardless of how prematurely slutty your own underage friends may be. And for the record, just because a 12 year old has urges, it doesn't mean that they are capable of making decisions about sex on their own. That's precisely why they are not legally allowed to. If you're suggesting otherwise, you are incredibly out of touch with reality even for a 17 year old.

I literally find it repugnant that you need it explained to you that 10 and 12 year olds are not fully capable of understanding the gravity and importance of sex or making good, informed decisions about what is and isn't safe to put online.


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 11:05 AM by FritosBBQTwist
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.


If that were the case, I would be happy with the guy jailed.

From an outside the box perspective - this guy didn't touch them.


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 11:06 AM by Ionut
Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

This guy was actively pursuing those little girls by doing what he did.


no, actively pursuing those little girls would have been if he were stalking them from the bushes

i say we step up a notch and start prosecuting all internet wankers (..just maybe we'll stop a future raper or two)


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 11:08 AM by StevenDye
reply to post by mattifikation


At what point did I say they knew what they doing? I said they were asking for 'it', not that they understood the full implications of 'it'. Please don't put words into my mouth.

I also said this man needs help, he clearly does. But lets not treat him like he went out kidnapped, raped and then killed these two girls because he did not do that. As far as can be seen he took measures to do what he 'needed' without anyone getting hurt.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by StevenDye]

[edit on 28-6-2009 by StevenDye]


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 11:13 AM by mattifikation
reply to post by StevenDye


I'm not saying we should treat him like he kidnapped, raped, or murdered anyone. Look who's putting words in people's mouths now. :-)

His intent was to do the same thing as the "guy in the bushes," which is definitely not as harmless as people seem to think it is... so we should treat him like the "guy in the bushes."


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 11:16 AM by StevenDye
reply to post by mattifikation


Sorry for some reason my post will not edit correctly, this was my final version of the above post you replied to.


At what point did I say they knew what they doing? I said they were asking for 'it', not that they understood the full implications of 'it'. Please don't put words into my mouth.

But since you want to put words into my mouth, I guess that means you are condeming countries to being paedophiles as 12 IS the legal age of consent in some countries.

Oh, and who do you think you are? Calling people 'slutty'. It's a natural urge, it does not make them a slut or in any way slutty, neither is it premature. Its this thing called puberty, it's always happened at that age and the girls have always had that same urge.

Neither is it just MY friends, these girls live half the country away from me, at my own school I get followed by girls of younger years who I don't know. I have also been propositioned for 'webcam fun' shall we say; by young girls worldwide, as have most of my friends, you put a picture of yourself online and you can draw in a crowd.



I also said this man needs help, he clearly does. But lets not treat him like he went out kidnapped, raped and then killed these two girls because he did not do that. As far as can be seen he took measures to do what he 'needed' without anyone getting hurt.

And yes I'll admit thats an exagerration when replying to you personally.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by StevenDye]


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 11:21 AM by jprophet420
reply to post by Hyzera

How about if I put your head on a photo of someone receiving anal sex. you wouldn't feel exploited in the least I'm sure.


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 11:33 AM by Zealott
reply to post by mattifikation



W'ere allowed to undress someone with our eyes. No crime was committed here. The child pornography charge is just not there. The child was not naked. Say he got his rocks off to a child fully clothed should he be put in jail?
No because he didn't commit a crime. Now you and I think that the guy is sick. Yes but that's not enough to put the dude in jail because society doesn't agree with him.
Child pornography is in place because it exploits children. That child was forced or convinced to get naked, no child can make that decision with consent because they are too young. If the child was not forced to get naked, or did not suffer any trauma, then this man not only shouldn't be put in jail but the police need to be looking to save children that ARE.
"If it was your daughter you'd think different!" Nonsense the law is not subjective you retards.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 4 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 5 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 4 days ago with 49 member flags