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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused
Takes a naked baby and set's in on top of a naked woman and take's a picture?

here ya go




sounds like a sick fetish or something to me.


Take it back now that you see it is actually art (and there are millions more like it, and sculptures even more descript)



Coven




posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by The dragon is taking over
 



Never have looked at or watched porn. I don't see the point in it.


wow... never huh?? Me thinks you may need to keep any sex based comments or ideologies to yourself... until you've seen what a dirty stinkin XXX throwdown really looks like. I tell you... My wife and I love to spice things up, but some of those movies will down right make a guy blush...


you might realize this guy gettin his jollies off on his own was the LEAST of these girls worries (those who have seen pornography will understand what I'm saying)


If me wanting this guy to catch a beating for the rest of his natural life makes me a looney.

Then I am certifiably crazy.

not necessarily, but violence being considered a solution makes you have a very violent personality.



But I don't think I am though, when I was locked up on a psych ward for three days (thank you ex wife), they found me completely and totally sane.


No offense bro, but you might want to keep that one to yourself.
*** Looks around thread***
Anybody else wanna admit they've EVER been committed?
Congrats on the sanity though... that's always a good sign.



Oh and good job contributing to the thread. "Get over it", that is truly worthy of some type of literary prize.


Sometimes the best statements are made with the smallest amount of words.

This is not your kid.

This is not your courtroom.

This is not your Trial.

So why are you so committed to convicting this man?

It seems about 50/50 60/40 split of folks that agree and disagree with you. Logically that means we should wait to see all of the evidence before we commit ourselves to a perspective.

*looks at slightly hypocritical self* hehe.

Coven



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Just looking at this as a parent I can tell you it's worrying. If it were my kid's he'd need medical treatment. That said, I'll say he needs both mental help and likely jail time or at least judicial review of his activities.

The thing I see most worrying is that he _stalked_ some peoples kids and took their pictures. That's pretty alarming of its own nature. That in my mind speaks of intent to do much worse. Then the man in question photo shopped or used a three-d renderer to put them on adult bodies.

While his 'intent' supposedly was to see how they would look grown up, he chose to attach the faces/heads to naked bodies. Had he just put them on adult, and clothed bodies it would be a non-issue. However, his putting them on naked bodies (37 times!) makes it an effort to create sexual imagery.

Had he created the images from pixels using Daz 3d or some other rendering program, with no 'real children's faces;' it'd be art or artistic nudity. However, when you put a child's face on other peoples bodies for sexual purposes you are breaking a law. Or at the very least displaying intent to break a law later on.

Considering this guy did stalk the children to get pictures of them, and created sexual imagery from them, he broke the law. The very least thing that should happen to him legally is a restraining order keeping him away from those if not all children, and mental health counseling.

This guy already proved he has predatory intent, which is likely how the DA will build his case.

Personally, given the evidence of his behavior, I would lock him away if it was presented such.

M.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by coven
 


Don't see why I would be ashamed of having been commited. Its not a big deal really. It was the best 3 days of sleep I have ever had. Long story short the ex wife told my commander that I threaten to shoot her and myself.

Which is stupid, I would never threaten to kill myself.

Porn doesn't excite me, therefor I don't look at it or watch it. If I can't touch flesh, then I am wasting my time. My current wife and I are very satisfied without having to watch it. Not that there is anything wrong with it.

I do not condone what this guy did and I could never associate myself with those who doesn't think he is a disgusting pile of filth that deserves to be in prison.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 



Long story short the ex wife told my commander that I threaten to shoot her and myself.

Which is stupid, I would never threaten to kill myself.



Not denying the threat to shoot her though, huh?! LOL!

Anyway, I file this along with most drug crimes. There is no real victim. He most likely used publicly available images of children, which have been paid for and put into the public by their own caretakers. Him pasting a face onto someone else's body is par for the course.

Yes, I would happily maim and kill someone assaulting my kids, but if someone is getting their jollies looking out the window at them, I just don't want to know. No harm done.

As a secondary question, my wife looks about 14 years old even after having two babies. We joke about making some porn all the time. Would it be illegal if a 27 year old who looks 14 was marketed this way? She is perfectly legal, but similar charges could still apply?!?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
An open discussion like this on this issue is greatly needed right now. Too often the intense stigma placed on this subject causes people to go into fear and makes them quick to judge and condemn. Our society considers it "the worst of the worst" to be a pedophile. Even in prison, they are the ones who are condemned to a fate far worse than any other inmate, and why should this be? Have we ever stopped to think, to examine this issue more closely?

There are a number of points to be made here. First, I would like for you to consider this issue from an "evolutionary" perspective, in terms of both cultural and biological evolution. Culturally, we have evolved to be a highly educated species, which in turn has affected our biology via advanced medical technology that has increased our life spans dramatically. As you go back in time, you will notice the average human life span decreases, and similarly, the average age of copulation decreases as well. It wasn't but a blink of an eye ago, in evolutionary terms, that there were what we now consider "children" having sex on a far more frequent basis. To do so, in some cases, was to help ensure the survival of our species, which is why we have evolved to be sexually mature at the ages that we do. However, our cultural evolution has since outpaced our biological evolution.

It's important to point out the age range of the "children" in question here. The earliest ages of these children roughly coincided with the average age of puberty, which as we know equates to sexual maturity, undisputedly in biological terms at least. Strictly in a biological sense, these "children" are considered adults, roughly from the age of 11 on up (and depending on their sex). Just as it is natural for these "children" to feel sexual desire, it is also natural for another sexually mature human to feel a physical attraction towards them, despite the fact that they are legally underage.

Now there is a very important distinction to be made here, and it deals with the age of the children in question. When you start to consider children who are pre-pubescent, and those who lust after such children, then we're talking about something that is unnatural and indicative of a sexual disorder, IMO.

Now let me be clear: I'm not saying it's okay to have sex with teenagers who are between the ages of 11 and 17. It causes a lot of social problems and it's good that we have laws to prevent it. However, I am saying that it is natural for us to feel lust for those who are in that age range. Many individuals also have different preferences when it comes to sexuality, so it's sometimes hard to define what is "normal" and "natural". There are many "fetishes" out there, but I try to only define deviant sexual behavior as that which is predatory, abusive, unwarranted, and/or involving children who are sexually immature.

Because for the ages I describe I believe it is natural for us to feel lust (energetically it is reciprocal in nature), I can pinpoint the reason why many of those who deal with this topic in any regard tend to go into fear and condemnation. It is because they too have these natural desires and are afraid of others finding out, or even having to admit it to themselves.

All of these things are symptoms of what is known in some circles as the "sexual energy virus". It is a concept that you may not grasp at first, because it is rooted in a deeper energetic level than just the way we usually ascribe sex to a mostly physical level. Know that the sexual energy virus has many forms and symptoms, and I believe it has been spread in part by members of society such as certain Illuminati and clergy members. They have helped to contribute to the mass hysteria and sexual repression in regards to this issue, while in many cases exploiting it for themselves. You see, it has a lot to do with "energy feeding". Anyway, I'm almost at my limit, so I'll end it on that note. Thanks,

Your friend in truth,
Maat :



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Warrior Knight:

"as its plain he wants the kids for sex"

Not necessarily.

Possibly he is of two minds. Part of him wants to fantasize about that, but possibly the better part knows it's harmful to do that, so he pretends to and enjoys that. How many of us enjoy watching violent movies but claim not to endorse violence or have violent desires? I bet we all have the potential for awful acts and thoughts, but some of us are closer to our darker, base natures.

BTW, why this desire of some to have sex with kids? Could it be that once human beings routinely did this, but it was at some point deemed not civilized?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

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 said.

Thoughts don't kill....and image manipulation is within the realm of free speech.

Would I feel differently if it were one of my family? Yeah, I might be disgusted but it still wouldn't change the LAW. The last I heard we prosecute criminals in a court of LAW, not in a court of EMOTIONAL KNEEJERK RESPONSE.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Matt, Wham, and Kelb.......Great open responses! I am surprised that this thread is heading this direction. It is usually not PC to discuss these things with common sense and biology as the basis for the discussion.

I hope this thread gets active again after more people read your responses!



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kelbtalfenek

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 said.

Thoughts don't kill....and image manipulation is within the realm of free speech.

Would I feel differently if it were one of my family? Yeah, I might be disgusted but it still wouldn't change the LAW. The last I heard we prosecute criminals in a court of LAW, not in a court of EMOTIONAL KNEEJERK RESPONSE.


My bad, making an image is a thought, not an action now.

If you cant differentiate between the 2 don't comment on it.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
This is just asking for trouble. If this guy gets convicted what do you think the next guy is going to do? It's simple really, you have this guy who doesn't want to get images of real kids because he might get busted so he photoshops their heads onto a photo of a adults naked body (not porn, naked big difference) but then this guy reads an article about a guy going to jail for doing just that so he thinks, well if I'm gonna get busted for it anyway I might as well just download the real deal or worse yet he might make some of his own, and then a child molester is born.

Apart from that this guy hasn't broken any law, has being charged under a bogus law that the state openly admits to having invented in order to get around a supreme court ruling which ruled this type of thing legal.


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



Nearly every state, however, has adopted a law in response to the Supreme Court decision in the case


This one just kills me, they don't have to prove the age of the child, please tell me that they do have to prove the child is actually under age...
The way this law reads, you could be charge for viewing an image of someone who just "looks" under 18, if that's the case there's a lot of porn stars gonna be out of a job.

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."


Make no mistake, I think this guy is a sick SOB, but when you let the law get bent and twisted the way it has been in this case your basically saying the constitution and the Supreme Court decision don't matter.

All quotes come from the article in the original post.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
This is to everyone-

Everyone who says no crime was commited makes me sick. I hope to God you do not reproduce, because you do not have the compassion for children that is required to raise them.


Excuse me but interpreting the law as it was written has absolutely no correlation with being a respectable parent.

If all juries interpreted the law, whether codified or from precedent, based purely on their emotional attachment to the victims (or rather surrogate emotional attachment with respect to their own children as you suggest) then we'd have one seriously incompetent judicial system in this country.

It is the vehement, condescending, and presumptuous statements like yours that really convince me that the "sickos" in this society are the overzealously protective bible-thumping parents who condemn even hugging a child without parental consent -- as if it makes one a clinical sex offender or a child molester.

Are we teaching kids that they are so important that anyone that even so much as thinks ill of them deserves to suffer the worst imaginable fate? I see compelling evidence based on remarks in these and other forums that parenthood is itself an acute mental illness comparable to that of paedophilia. Villainizing people who have never actually engaged a minor in any wrongful act, whether physical or not, sets the worst possible moral (and legal) precedent.

Why is it that children indirectly incite the most inhumane type of persecution imaginable? Just reading the vulgar threats that are always posted in response to cases like these makes me actually want to vomit whenever I see a child.

I don't want to "hate" children, but for all their "innocence" they clearly create more "evil" by there mere existence.

Rather ironic I think.

--Randall



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Pedophilia isn't the only disgusting disorder featured in this case. In fact, it's not even the most disgusting disorder featured in this case.

This disorder was created by the justice system and media and currently infects the minds and influences the opinions of billions of politically correct people across the world, including many who have posted in this thread.

That disorder is child worship.


Kudos! You expressed many of my convictions regarding the truly "sick" nature of our legal (and moral) system. The prevailing vehement response toward child sexual exploitation in American culture is probably only second to that of terrorism and I would venture to say might even supercede that of felony homicide depending on the state.

--Randall



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
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.


I have an even better scenario. What if a boy videotapes himself as an adolescent masturbating in the bathroom and then when he becomes the age of consent he releases the video (of his own volition) to the public?

Should that be outlawed? It does after all constitute child pornography yet

a) The person portrayed in the video is not by statutory definition a minor.
b) The person portrayed in the video has given consent for its publication.
c) The person portrayed in the video is sexually exploiting only himself.

I would argue that it should be legal, even though I am confident that some of the true moral conformists will try to pursuade me that such an "atrocious" activity would merely encourage the proliferation of other child pornography.

But the fact is that no child would be harmed in the making of such a recording. And we, as a society, in fact do not condemn children who masturbate -- in fact we promote it as a physically and mentally healthy activity.

And on a similar note, why is it that we portray children as being so innocent and non-sexual when in fact they masturbate and fantasize about various sexual activities, some more deviant than others, on a particularly frequent basis as early as the age of 10 -- which is developmentally "prepubescent" in the case of most males.

If children are not to be exploited sexually, why can they freely "abuse" their own bodies in the performance of self gratification (i.e. auto-eroticism), and it supposedly does not result in any trauma whatsoever? Why when children are teased about their genitalia in the locker room while changing for P.E. in middle school that is not emotionally distressing but rather considered a normal part of growing up? Should minors, many of whom have engaged in mutual masturbation by the age of 15 be punished, or is that considered self exploration?

There are numerous other double standards surrounding the supposed innocence of our children that definitely warrant further clarification. Of course, these are matters that we simply don't talk about because we don't want to accept that our beautiful young boys and girls in fact might have sexual urges that greatly exceed that of a typical young adult male (whom are well known to be quite promiscuous).

--Randall

[edit on 8-7-2009 by rkrause]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by THX-1138
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?!!!!


Well if you enjoy irony, check this out:

In the United States, according to federal law, the creation and dissemination of visual child pornography (that is, the mere depiction of people who appear to be under the age of 18 engaging in purely simulated sexual acts in which there is no documentation of their true age) is strictly illegal.

However, the creation and dissemination of child pornography in written form, even if it describes in crass detail the illicit acts that have occured to a minor, is firmly protected by Constitutional freedom of speech. That is you can collect and even sell entire catalogs of stories about children engaging in the most obscene sexual acts, and you might be "perverse" but you are not a criminal.

--Randall



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Ok I have to put a WARNING to the U.S. Secret Service before I make my post.

I am not saying I want to harm or kill the President! I like Obama.

Ok on with my post.

Someone mentioned the game Call of Duty killing someone and getting brought up on manslaughter charges. I do not think that has enough similarity to the Op's Thread.

Instead lets add to the make believe that at home you programed President Obamas face onto one of the characters in Call of Duty and then killed that character.

Would that be considered an offense worthy of taking legal action against threatening the President?

I think it is very similar to what the OP is discussing. What if you did it in a game like Crysis where the graphics level is VERY high and the game can look VERY realistic?

There IS no line in the sand just a giant mess of grey.

What if the guy drew in the faces of the girls using an art program instead of photoshop?

Would it make a difference if it was a real picture or a drawn picture?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf
For a start, I don't recollect hearing about many pedophiles who 'get off' on an adults body. Usually it is the opposite. They lust after the pre-teen image, and apply adult behaviour to it. Often, with no thoughts of any wrongdoing, under their own deluded perception that children are like adults and want the same things. This guy is just a weirdo.

A pedophile is a monster.


If a paedophile is a monster, then what is your opinion of pederasts -- that is, adults whom are attracted specifically to adolescent boys and girls already exhibiting readily apparent libidinal urges not to mention developing various secondary sex characteristics?

Also remember that the clinical diagnostic definition of paedophilia is merely the sexual attraction to prepubescent males and females. So you suggest that the mere diagnosis of the mental illness is indicative of a "monster." That is quite curious indeed that we now condemn people with inate psychological disorders which are often brought about due to severe abuse and neglect during their own childhood not to mention possible genetic influences.

Why do we call anything and everything a "monster" whose nature we do not understand? Perhaps the solution to treating paedophilia is help not hate.

--Randall



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
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.


Wow, that's a pretty harsh accusation. What evidence do you have to support your claim that paedophiles are irredeemable and that they always act out on their thoughts and/or impulses?

Plain and simple. I think you are wrong. I want to see facts, links to scientific research please.

--Randall



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join