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

Originally posted by The_Phantom
I'm pretty sure the law in the Old Testament was against desiring family members.

Plus, Matthew 5:28 says, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

So according to the Bible, he committed adultery with his daughter. You might want to rethink using the Bible to defend his actions.

absolutely correct.

but they were not trying him in God's court
under God's law.

they were trying him under man made law.

which by the way I read the Bible.

he did not break a man made law
but he did break God's law

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by felonius
Personally, a family member should take this sucker and feed him to the hogs.

when you were 14 yrs old and jerked off in your
bed at night to the thoughts of your 13 yr old
girlfriend or a hot girl at school, were you not
committing the same offense?
Your 13 yr old gf was underage.
Should somebody have fed you to the
hogs then ???

between birth and present day,
about 99% of us have committed
this very same act. Yet some
stand up high and mighty and have
a holier than thou attitude.

That's not in the same ball park, seriously it's so far off I can't even begin to understand why you used this to defend an obviously disturbed, potentially dangerous individual.

Technically, yes he didn't break no laws, that WE or The COURTS KNOW of, but probably there should be no visitation with his daughter or receiving any photos of her, certainly as I am a mother myself, If that was my daughter he would not get visitation, IDGAF what the court said, in fact I would move across state lines and get an injunction against him in some conservative state.

when you were 14 yrs old and jerked off in your bed at night to the thoughts of your 13 yr old girlfriend or a hot girl at school, were you not committing the same offense?

No, because the issue here is the creation of simulated child porn, not masturbating.

Sure its creepy and gross.

And certainly if this "father" were to get busted for some sex crime in the future nobody would be or should be surprised.

BUT, we all need to stop and think when it comes to pulling out the pitch forks and torches for pseudo-crimes, thought-crimes or just things that we don't like.

None of us know what the future will bring for anyone and there are infinite variables and possibilities that through no fault of our own could land us right where this "father" is now.

Some kid thinks it's funny to put a picture of his junk on a camera you own, some psycho girl claims she was "touched", some back door worm turns a PC into some porn server, some perv uses your wifi and SWAT kicks your door in, your kid is selling drugs out of the house and SWAT kicks your door in, neighborhood kids decide to plant a couple of pot plants on your back twenty, etc...

Anything can happen to anyone at anytime and in this day and age the accusation is really all that is needed to completely destroy a life regardless of the verdict. You can be found not guilty all day long but that isnt going to get you your life back once the system has destroyed it.

If you ask me this country is far to eager to flash fangs and run for blood. You all have to remember that there is no such thing as "could never happen to me."

Originally posted by Maslo

when you were 14 yrs old and jerked off in your bed at night to the thoughts of your 13 yr old girlfriend or a hot girl at school, were you not committing the same offense?

No, because the issue here is the creation of simulated child porn, not masturbating.

wrong !!! it is exactly the same thing.
While you are masturbating you are
viewing the same images in your head
instead of it being on a computer screen
or printed in a magazine. You are thinking
it instead of actually viewing it. Same thing
it is simulated child porn in your brain.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Maslo

when you were 14 yrs old and jerked off in your bed at night to the thoughts of your 13 yr old girlfriend or a hot girl at school, were you not committing the same offense?

No, because the issue here is the creation of simulated child porn, not masturbating.

wrong !!! it is exactly the same thing.
While you are masturbating you are
viewing the same images in your head
instead of it being on a computer screen
or printed in a magazine. You are thinking
it instead of actually viewing it. Same thing

So normal acts of growing up are akin to incestuously bent simulated child porn?..okiedokie then.

reply to post by Maslo

No, because the issue here is the creation of simulated child porn, not masturbating.

Ok, so explain to me why simulated child porn is so much worse than simulated murder? Actually, a picture isn't a simulation, but I can still play video games which allow me to simulate murder. Answer me this: should that Australian dude have been charged for child pornography for owning some Simpsons porn with bart, lisa and maggie?

Lets be honest here. You find it sickening that these monsters enjoy looking and naked little children, and you probably also hate the fact that the photo's are even in existence, your brain some how equates it to real child abuse. Do me a favor, next time your having fun playing your favorite shooter, just remember that you are a SICK MURDERING MONSTER!!!!

reply to post by boondock-saint

wrong !!! it is exactly the same thing. While you are masturbating you are viewing the same images in your head instead of it being on a computer screen or printed in a magazine. You are thinking it instead of actually viewing it. Same thing

So you believe we should imprison people that have such fantasies, but have commited no offense?

IF I was the police I would have certainly interviewed the daughter, and although it may be a tad intrusive, I would also ask her if she didn't mind being examined and a rape kit taken. Just at her say so, if she said no of course, there'd be no reason to force her to, however, I'd suspect he did something to her based on the evidence.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I am not in favor of such simulated child porn being illegal. My post was only stating what the possible legal issue to debate is in this case.

Originally posted by Suspiria
So normal acts of growing up are akin to incestuously
bent simulated child porn?..okiedokie then.

correct !!!

while both men and women are having
orgasms their mind does not stop. It is
still constantly working just like when
you sleep. Those thoughts they have
of other people involved in that masturbation
sessions becomes objects of their lust.
This is why most people who are not really
into an actual sex session can just lay
there and not have orgasms. Your mind
has to aid the orgasm. And even some
folks can have orgasms without any
physical stimulation at all. A prime
example of this is when folks wake
up from a wet dream. It's all in the mind.
The mind makes it real. Thusly the
mind simulates the sexual act.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Suspiria
So normal acts of growing up are akin to incestuously
bent simulated child porn?..okiedokie then.

correct !!!

while both men and women are having
orgasms their mind does not stop. It is
still constantly working just like when
you sleep. Those thoughts they have
of other people involved in that masturbation
sessions becomes objects of their lust.
This is why most people who are not really
into an actual sex session can just lay
there and not have orgasms. Your mind
has to aid the orgasm. And even some
folks can have orgasms without any
physical stimulation at all. A prime
example of this is when folks wake
up from a wet dream. It's all in the mind.
The mind makes it real. Thusly the
mind simulates the sexual act.

Yeah, and in his mind he was having sex with his daughter.

Originally posted by Partygirl

How can the court system let this go?

Because it would appear he was charged with child pornography and the circumstances didnt fit the accusation, as the article quite clearly states. That is how the law works. familiarize yourself with it.

if being a sick weirdo was illegal, and he was charged with that, it might have been different.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Maslo

 

No, because the issue here is the creation of simulated child porn, not masturbating.

Ok, so explain to me why simulated child porn is so much worse than simulated murder? Actually, a picture isn't a simulation, but I can still play video games which allow me to simulate murder. Answer me this:s should that Australian dude have been charged for child pornography for owning some Simpsons porn with bart, lisa and maggie?

Lets be honest here. You find it sickening that these monsters enjoy looking and naked little children, and you probably also hate the fact that the photo's ae even in existence, your brain some how equates it to real child abuse. Do me a favor, next time your having fun playing your favorite shooter, just remember that you are a SICK MURDERING MONSTER!!!!

Shooters to my knowledge aren't usually based on real people. If they are I'm quite sure they are game developers, adults, quite happy to have their *likeness* used. That girls *likeness* was not used. Her actual FACE was used and superimposed onto photo's. That is a degrading act performed on an unsuspecting girl.
Now say an adult female, or male had a stalker - actually KNEW of such. Say some celebrity, then I'm sure some weirdy would send them their fantasies, maybe even send such superimposed filth to them. I'm sure that then would be grounds for a conviction, why does the girl in the OP article get no such recourse?. Just because the father has not actually touched his daughter, he has committed an abuse, an abuse of his parental role.

Originally posted by Maslo
So you believe we should imprison people that have such
fantasies, but have commited no offense?

lol, no
I am not saying that at all.
If this were to occur, almost
everybody would be in prison
cuz the mind never ceases.

I am saying that IMO

this man did not break a man made law
he only broke God's law.

Thus far, I know of no country other
than Muslims who prosecute folks
due to God's or Allah's laws.
Stoning to death for adultery in Iran, etc ....
Hands cut off for stealing in Saudi Arabia, etc ...

In America, we do not punish folks based
on God's law only man made laws.

...

Originally posted by boondock-saint


A 14 yr old boy jerking off is just the same
as a 40 yr old man, both have carnal knowledge
and the knowledge of right and wrong.
So both are equally guilty.

Umm, what? It sure sounds like you are grasping at straws to defend a 40 year old man wantin to engage in sex with a minor.

What's on your computer, BS?

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by felonius
Personally, a family member should take this sucker and feed him to the hogs.

when you were 14 yrs old and jerked off in your
bed at night to the thoughts of your 13 yr old
girlfriend or a hot girl at school, were you not
committing the same offense?
Your 13 yr old gf was underage.
Should somebody have fed you to the
hogs then ???

Again, just, wow.

between birth and present day,
about 99% of us have committed
this very same act. Yet some
stand up high and mighty and have
a holier than thou attitude.

I hope they dont come look at your computer.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Maslo
So you believe we should imprison people that have such
fantasies, but have commited no offense?

lol, no
I am not saying that at all.
If this were to occur, almost
everybody would be in prison
cuz the mind never ceases.

I am saying that IMO

this man did not break a man made law
he only broke God's law.

Thus far, I know of no country other
than Muslims who prosecute folks
due to God's or Allah's laws.
Stoning to death for adultery in Iran, etc ....
Hands cut off for stealing in Saudi Arabia, etc ...

In America, we do not punish folks based
on God's law only man made laws.

Right. And child pornography is a man made law.

Are you even TRYING to make sense? Perhaps you should circle shadows and clal them tatoos?

reply to post by Suspiria

That girls *likeness* was not used. Her actual FACE was used and superimposed onto photo's. That is a degrading act performed on an unsuspecting girl.

Then he should have been charged with something closer to that, not child pornography, because it isn't. And most certainly, the guy with Simpsons porn did not have child ornography, because the Simpsons are a fictional family. They don't have a real *likeness*.