Court: Dad can paste daughter's face on porn photo

There was no crime committed. It is morally wrong, perverted, and disgusting, but no crime was committed. I would be much more furious if they actually punished him for it.

In actuality, it's kind of a pick your poison deal.

reply to post by freakjive

There was intent and action.

But there was no victim. Because masturbating to pictures with a pasted face is not a crime.

Originally posted by Char-Lee
If photos were made of your face on someone else's body doing something you would find abhorrent and put out in cyberspace for anyone now and in your forever future to see, would you feel the law should step in? I don't know if he shared these phantasy of porn with his little girl or not but forever they would be there in her world if he did. Should it not fit under some defamation law?

Sure a civil suit is probably brought in such cases, did this guy distribute it though?

If someone did that to my face for their own use, amusment etc. etc. who cares? A little creepy maybe but it's not hurting anyone. Like another person pointed out, it's really not much different than simply having a sexual fantasy about someone.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Moral sensibilities are the basis for many a law, arent they? So Im not sure why so many draw such a firm line between them.

yes and no .. laws should be based on morals but they aren't always, the bigger issue is that morality is subjective .. everyone has different moral values so law has to be a bit more exact in order to be even remotely fair.

laws are therefore interpreted in an exact manner to the word.. unless a judge skews the law due to their own moral views.. when that happens it can be challenged however.

The only thing they could do in this case is make more laws .. and more laws aren't always a good thing.

Bottom line is what he did does not harm the girl, it may disgust most of us but it did no harm to anyone.. if they find out by investigation that he's actually abused her then it will be another thing all together.

If he has real nude photos of her ( and I'm not talking bath time ) .. then he'll be in for some trouble, or even if he possesses photos of other children.. because then there is harm done, even if not directly .. it's encouraging the trade of such material which in turn encourages/supports abuse to CREATE the material

reply to post by Forevever


Do you realize how many parents warn their children about drugs..but the children still decide to participate in experimentation? I was one of these children,and would really hope my parent would not be so silly as to blame themselves for something I clearly did out of free choice. Did the fact that most of my peers were doing it have something to do with..yes..very much so.

You don't say why you don't trust the father of your child...but yet you find it is ok to take away your childs right to have a relationship with its father, because you distrust him ?

I'm not saying you have valid reason , just saying, that it seems extreme that you would take a mans money for his child , yet never allow a relationship , just based on mistrust.

There have been teachers I didn't trust with my children, but I just couldn't pull them out of school because of it. What I could do is explain to them , that certain things were inappropriate , and no matter who was doing these things..they should never ever feel afraid to come and talk to me about it. They should also never feel intimidated by saying NO , whatever the circumstances were....even if it was blackmail.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Char-Lee
If photos were made of your face on someone else's body doing something you would find abhorrent and put out in cyberspace for anyone now and in your forever future to see, would you feel the law should step in? I don't know if he shared these phantasy of porn with his little girl or not but forever they would be there in her world if he did. Should it not fit under some defamation law?

Sure a civil suit is probably brought in such cases, did this guy distribute it though?

If someone did that to my face for their own use, amusment etc. etc. who cares? A little creepy maybe but it's not hurting anyone. Like another person pointed out, it's really not much different than simply having a sexual fantasy about someone.

And how about druging your little girl and having her take off her cloths so you can get pictures to make phantasy photos for you "pleasure' in the first place...people are really sick IMO who see this as ok.

reply to post by SevenBeans

But he didn't just have a fantasy about her..he actually asked her to pose in her underwear....that's how the lid came off this whole can of worms..she told her mom.

Originally posted by Char-Lee
And how about druging your little girl and having her take off her cloths so you can get pictures to make phantasy photos for you "pleasure' in the first place...people are really sick IMO who see this as ok.

I haven't seen anyone saying that they think that is okay... but pasting my face to a pornographic image and masturbating to it doesn't make me a victim.

Originally posted by gabby2011
But he didn't just have a fantasy about her..he actually asked her to pose in her underwear....that's how the lid came off this whole can of worms..she told her mom.

Right,but it's pretty obvious I was addressing the picture issue yes?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Char-Lee
If photos were made of your face on someone else's body doing something you would find abhorrent and put out in cyberspace for anyone now and in your forever future to see, would you feel the law should step in? I don't know if he shared these phantasy of porn with his little girl or not but forever they would be there in her world if he did. Should it not fit under some defamation law?

Sure a civil suit is probably brought in such cases, did this guy distribute it though?

If someone did that to my face for their own use, amusment etc. etc. who cares? A little creepy maybe but it's not hurting anyone. Like another person pointed out, it's really not much different than simply having a sexual fantasy about someone.

And how about druging your little girl and having her take off her cloths so you can get pictures to make phantasy photos for you "pleasure' in the first place...people are really sick IMO who see this as ok.

Are you really comparing the two? ... drugging her in general would be a no no, then to proceed to take nude/suggestive photos.. nobody would question that .. it would be abuse without a doubt.. psychologically harmful and physically exploitative .. the two don't compare

This is what we get when our laws have nothing to do with morality.

Get some parking tickets and fail to pay, and they will steal your car.

Put cut outs of little kids on porn and no one minds.

Yeah, gotta love Earth.

Originally posted by Maslo
But there was no victim. Because masturbating to pictures with a pasted face is not a crime.

While I understand the point you are trying to make, I disagree wholeheartedly. This girl was underage. She was subjected to abuse by her father in multiple facets. She will never be able to forget what has happened to her and it will affect the majority of the decisions she is going to make for the rest of her life. This, in my eyes, makes her a victim...hands down.

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by SevenBeans

 

But he didn't just have a fantasy about her..he actually asked her to pose in her underwear....that's how the lid came off this whole can of worms..she told her mom.

If that's the case then he should be facing investigation on that, and the photos of her face on porn stars would then serve to damage his character and prove that he had sexual motivations for asking her to pose in her underwear.

Then you're taking the legal act of him pasting her face on naked women and using it as a tool against him for what sounds like it might actually be some kind of abuse.. if she was half naked then that's a problem

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is what we get when our laws have nothing to do with morality.

Get some parking tickets and fail to pay, and they will steal your car.

Put cut outs of little kids on porn and no one minds.

Yeah, gotta love Earth.

Excellent point. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Originally posted by badw0lf
Oh a hard one, no real crime, but the intent of the father is one that elicits reactions of utter bloody bashings.

He's no less a deviant, just has not broken the law..

THE WORST SORT.

gah, heres where we need wankers like jeffrey dahmer... grrr

I knew the guy was a serial killer, necrophiliac, cannibal, but a wanker? Do you have any proof of this? You know the rules around here....pics or it never happened.

On topic, why do all the sick people have to live in Cali?

And sure, its not illegal to be a pervert, but this far exceeds sexual perversion in my book. This is just wrong on so many levels. Imagine if you were a young girl and found those pics your dad had.....I just hope to god he hadnt already acted on these fantasies.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is what we get when our laws have nothing to do with morality.

Get some parking tickets and fail to pay, and they will steal your car.

Put cut outs of little kids on porn and no one minds.

Yeah, gotta love Earth.

Laws can and are to a point based on morality and societal norms.. but as i said in a previous post above, the law has to be exacting and morality is anything but... it varies from person to person.. the law can't

And me building an altar to the Unabomber and putting up pics of him all over the place, and praising his deeds day and night, is not illegal either.

But you would become a bit concerned about my mental health wouldn't you?

And you might start wanting to check what kind of mail I send people no?

I know it's illegal to check my mail but cmon, they would X-ray every package I sent out you know it.

Is it legal for them to look at my mail? No. But they would do it anyways...

Originally posted by Lionhearte
There was no crime committed. It is morally wrong, perverted, and disgusting, but no crime was committed. I would be much more furious if they actually punished him for it.

In actuality, it's kind of a pick your poison deal.

Oh you mean other than giving his daughter Weed, Cocaine and asking her to strip so that he could photograph her?

Yeah ok...


Did you read the article?


Does ANYONE read the article?


The photo of her head on other women's bodies was only discovered after police raided his house to look for indecent images after his daughter complained to her mother about her father asking her to strip naked and photographing her...

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is what we get when our laws have nothing to do with morality.

Get some parking tickets and fail to pay, and they will steal your car.

Put cut outs of little kids on porn and no one minds.

Yeah, gotta love Earth.

Laws can and are to a point based on morality and societal norms.. but as i said in a previous post above, the law has to be exacting and morality is anything but... it varies from person to person.. the law can't

The law does in fact vary from person to person.

Rich people don't have to suffer the consequences of the law to the extreme that us normal people do.

Originally posted by Char-Lee
And how about druging your little girl and having her take off her cloths so you can get pictures to make phantasy photos for you "pleasure' in the first place...people are really sick IMO who see this as ok.

Well that is something different, isn't it? I don't think anyone here would condone that either, and unlike the pasting of a face onto a photo of a legal adult, it is rightfully illegal. Even doing that to someone of legal age is illegal. We need to think in terms of legal distinction here.