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.

 

Man Charged In 'Virtual Porn' Case

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


well, if you were profiting from distributing that photograph, than yes, it would be exploitation. but if not, than how is that any different than one having simple fantasies about another (both above legal age in this scenario lol)




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by StevenDye
 


If a country has "12" set as its legal age of consent, then yeah, they've probably got a few pedophiles running around in their government. There are also countries that have "Death by stoning" as a legitimate punishment for adultery. That doesn't make it acceptable in the civilized world.

Please stop trying to justify what this man did by throwing out all these little examples. The only thing you're convincing me is that 12 year olds are stupid.

This man violated those girls. That. Is. Irrefutable.

If you can't see it, then guess what? It doesn't matter, because the guy still got arrested. The 12 year old daughter of one of his tenants is no longer living in a house that he owns, and is much safer than she was when a man who created simulated nude pictures of her had a key to her home.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Zealott
 


Everything you just said in this guy's defense also applies to a man who sits in a van across from the local park, watching children play while furiously masturbating. Think about that for a second.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
man, this is one messed up moral question of a story...

on one side, he never actualy done anything, on teh other, he was acting like a complete deviant.

i seriously dont know what to think ..

cant he just be publicly names and shamed, and banned from owning a camera and any sort of image editing software ?

of course ...theris always the fact, that although he has not actualy done anything yet, this was just the start.. how long till he feels that kids faces + adults bodys are not enough to satisfy him and he moves on to actual pictures of kids, then ...well, you get the grim picture... everything starts somewhere.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Why not commit the guy to a psych ward and force him to recover, instead of sending him to jail, where he will *not* recover, and once released, will be the same, and bitter.

I also agree, it's just as stepping stone to toss people into jail for their thoughts. Take the most objectionable crime that isn't one, and once people get used to that, step it up. Next up: people who say anything bad about our government is clearly a terrorist, it's the thought that counts after all! To jail with ya.

And this is from someone who was abused as a child. This is ridiculous. It should be handled, but in a much smarter way.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


America also has the death penalty. Yet it's considered civilised. That argument works both ways.

No I know it does not matter in the grand scheme of things what I as a single person thinks. But if I should not be able to express my views then this forums has no need to exist.


Yes 12 year old girls ARE stupid. But so are plenty of 15 year old girls. So are plenty of 30 year old women. Not so long ago this was acceptable. should it be now, probably not... but we ARE fighting what is natural here, don't be surprised when a very large number of people don't move along with us.

I don't think he violated them, he violated the trust of those around them, but he did not violate the girls at all. Though that comes down to what both of us as individuals would consider violating them.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Well, chances are when those girls found out about those pictures they felt plenty violated. That's for themselves and - due to their young age and inexperience with life - their parents to decide. That is not for you to decide.

In the end, a jury will decide his fate. I will be amazed if they side with the perpetrator. I guess his computers are still in a lab being analyzed. I'll be similarly amazed if his computer isn't *loaded* with real child pornography. And though I'm not specifically expecting it, I also won't be surprised if it turns out that this man sent those pictures out to other people in a child pornography trading ring somewhere.

Clearly, the victims and their parents came to the conclusion that their children were sexually violated by those pictures - after all, they called the cops. I highly doubt that the girls would disagree that they were violated if you were to ask their opinion.

And FYI, lethal injection for murdering people does not equal stoning for adultry... Doi!



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
One of the pictures is Hannah Montana? The girl that posed in a sexual type shot with her top half nude for a magazine?

I dont think what he did is right but he should not have his life ruined over it unless they decided to go after the Cyrus family and big entertainment for taking advantage in her photo shoot.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
This is just another communist attack. THose who want to throw away the key A: Are you a communist? B: Do you hava soul? C: Do you not lie all the time?

The government I bet could prove even it would be turned on by images such as that as the brain naturaly would trigger such instincts based on suggestion levels on a IR machine. I also believe that the sex industry is a product like the "illegal drug" industry of communist undermining of america. I would forgive those who know not what they do. And go after the real problem, the accuser.

The accuser after all has more to hide. Would you rather have blood in the streets because of violent assumption spawning retributional reactions by ultra moralists who want a civil war due to their lack of intelligence-i mean personal excersize of their calm thinking. Not some bigoted generalised assumption which is made to destroy. It creates, then it destroys, more than buildings but people too. Through remote programming.
Or would you rather deal with your own feeling towards anything, for instance I dont like long drives..i wish there was some kind of transporter. I dont go bothering scientists spying on them forcing them to make me a transporter..well thanks to the internet..which was deliberately placed to carry such degradation..to america to undermine it we have a deliberate seeding of the pond to fish it, it is at the top of my thoughts..a form of treason if true-who in the world is the best at talking a country into submission??hmmm. And then they dwindle us until its 51% socialist/communist and 49% accused americans. And they go after it all, through religion even..until they have us happy slaves thankful and obediant to a twisting of truth and a smirking mockery which is not holy, god or right. So knowing its my countries liberty, and knowing other countries have way worse of a problem and create this behavior from the traumas of war, fear, lonely despair or past trauma..then psychologicly I cant help your hateful and assuming mind. Government makes the crimes, distributes surrogately the materials (drugs and porn which have been around for ages) and then accuses like satan those who have the unfortunate fate of finding such things-the unholy mountain so to speak. Its like making looking at a mcdonalds sign illegal because it depicts breasts. What if we were all nudists, and a female midget walks by? what then mr or ms perfect moralist? the devil is the accuser. I stand by that. My country is sick because its being morally and physicly attacked by losers who accuse and use.

when i see a comparison study of 100 people, being scanned from all walks of life, while looking at a suggestive image. Then tell me another man who "says" something without substantiation, has any right to tell anyone else anything..they dont because its all the same. a load of Crap.





[edit on 28-6-2009 by mastermind77]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneGunMan
 


Does it really matter if one of the girls was a celebrity? Really? One of the girls was his tenant. That's a big, big point that people are missing here. As her father's landlord, he knows where this little girl sleeps at night and probably had keys to her home. She was in very real danger from this man. I think maybe some people skipped the video, and aren't aware of the tenant/landlord link.

reply to post by mastermind77
 


Nothing you said makes sense. And I'm not saying that you have an invalid argument. I'm saying that you failed to present a coherent thought, and I have no idea what your argument is. Try again?



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


Yes..it is up to them to decide. But personally, and thats all that matters since this is not an official discussion, I would not say they were violated. Thats my view and does not have to be anyone elses.




P.s. It still equals the death of a person who has comitted what is a crime in their own country. Either way it is murder.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by StevenDye
 


When does it become "violating," in your opinion? How far does he have to go? Why does it make a difference if the "body" was a different person? The intent is still there. The fact that he used somebody elses' body merely shows that he was unable to get an actual nude picture of her. He still had the intent to view naked images of the little girls. It's not merely a desire at the point this man went to. It is intent. Desire = not a crime. Intent = a crime. Again, what he did shows criminal intent. Crime. Bad guy. Pervert. Child stalker. Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

If you make even a small step towards committing a crime, it's a crime. If you say you want to kill your boss, for example... That's not a crime. If you say you want to kill your boss, and you then follow him home from work... Now it's a crime, because you began acting on it. This is the same thing. He began acting on his desire to see how these little girls would look "if they were adults," to put it in his pathetically softened words.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation If you say you want to kill your boss, for example... That's not a crime.


It is if you say it to your boss.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
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 find the bolded statement deeply presumptuous. People mature at different rates. This is why many state laws are designed to allow underage people to have healthy relationships, without threat of statutory rape from the parent or other morally incensed individuals.

Doing a quick search of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) I found this wording:


RCW 9A.44.073
Rape of a child in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four months older than the victim.

apps.leg.wa.gov...


Furthermore age of consent varies from state to state and country to country. While I personally find it in poor taste I understand that 3rd world countries, much like older civilizations, where the laws of consent were lower due to life-expectancy considerations, create laws that try to find a balance between societal norms / needs and the realization that children have historically been preyed upon -- to the detriment of the individual, their family, and local society.

From a historical vantage point we gain another important datum.


The age of consent was 12 for a girl, 14 for a boy, [in early 1600 England], but for most children puberty came two or three years later than it does today.

internetshakespeare.uvic.ca...


Since puberty is the bio-chemical process that converts a child in to a reproductively mature adult, it's important this is factored in to our notion of age of consent. Recognizing that children will become active at different ages in different locales due to different evolutionary & environmental pressures. Therefore the age of consent is a moving target that occasionally needs reevaluation.

Assuming the above data is correct, 10 / 12 year old children today are as active as 12 / 14 year old children in 1600 England. Therefore our laws need a certain amount of sensitivity to allow these individuals to explore within reasonable limits. The above RCW code seems to account for this change.

Speaking in such absolute terms, as you did in you original post, shows a strong sense of pluralistic morality but a very poor grasp of medical science, a very shallow geopolitical / historical framework, and ignorance of the very valid philosophical points made for and against age of consent laws in different localities.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


So you're saying that sometimes, under the right circumstances, in the right time and the right place, and with the right 12 year old, it's totally cool because she might be mature enough and she might die soon? It sounds like your argument sort of amounts to, "If there's grass on the field, play ball."



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Let's shed some more light on the case to see who's right, shall we?

Child Porn Charges Against Michael W. Campbell Bound Over To Grand Jury




The girl’s father, a friend of the suspect, had provided investigators with “pictures that he found inside the (Campbell) residence of his daughter, including a picture of his bed where someone had taken a picture of his daughter’s panties,” and reported that he had seen more photos on Campbell’s camera.


Child Porn Charges Against Michael W. Campbell Bound Over To Grand Jury

Right. So... I wonder how this guy managed to get pictures of the girl's underwear lying on the father's bed without breaking any laws? Also, we see that the actual charges are "sexual exploitation of minors," and not "possession of child pornography." I really hope this additional information lays the debate to rest.


[edit on 28-6-2009 by mattifikation]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


im quoting Jesus in long form..

"He who hath no sin cast the first prius"



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


So you're saying that sometimes, under the right circumstances, in the right time and the right place, and with the right 12 year old, it's totally cool because she might be mature enough and she might die soon?


See, again, you're trying to boil this down to a simple statement. I outlined all my points. Debate them individually don't try to evaluate it as some aggregate whole. They're separate statements that stand independently.


It sounds like your argument sort of amounts to, "If there's grass on the field, play ball."


I'm trying to present to you the subtleties of the issue that lawmakers from different localities contend with. Whether you realize it or not you're effectively taking a subject that is as nuanced as Newtonian physics and trying to shoe-horn it in to a single paragraph.

You're engaging in a form intellectual solipsism. You're not willing to accept outside objective data. Making your position undebatable because it represents a form of belief-logic.

To quote David Hume, "The mind never has anything present to it but the perceptions, and cannot possibly reach any experience of their connexion with objects." And therefore since your perceptions are already rigid, no outside object will touch the belief.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
Let's shed some more light on the case to see who's right, shall we?

Child Porn Charges Against Michael W. Campbell Bound Over To Grand Jury




The girl’s father, a friend of the suspect, had provided investigators with “pictures that he found inside the (Campbell) residence of his daughter, including a picture of his bed where someone had taken a picture of his daughter’s panties,” and reported that he had seen more photos on Campbell’s camera.


Child Porn Charges Against Michael W. Campbell Bound Over To Grand Jury

... I really hope this additional information lays the debate to rest.


Now this shows evidence of a much more worrisome and altogether dangerous individual.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Although its in no doubt unsavoury, i am not sure this is a crime!! more a psychiatric issue.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join