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

How is this not child pornography? I must be missing something huge here. I've been reading stories now for years about the unfortunate parent who takes a picture of their toddler at bath time or some other totally and completely innocent activity where they happened to be nude and make the mistake of having it developed at Walmart or Walgreens to find Police and Child Protective Services waiting for them when they come to get it.

Yet...creating the very same thing with ill intent for sexual gratification from images of your own 13yr old daughter is just dandy and perfectly okay by the courts?? Society as a whole has become the problem when court decisions like this can be made and a judge isn't bounced out onto his tail as a direct result of it.

Speaking of which..... I've ALSO read more than a couple stories about prosecutors and judges turning out to be pedophiles themselves. Some of them have been among the most aggressive in chasing down other pervs in their professional life before being caught. I wonder....anyone ever thought of looking at the Judge a little closer?

Originally posted by Aeons
You can't be attracted to something you think is repugnant.

This is the factor that those with corrupted social boundaries don't get.

I find the memory of my ex girlfriend sending pictures of herself damn near nude to other guys repugnant...but I'll be a dead man before I say I don't still have strong feelings for her a year later. It may be a copmpletely different situation but, yes you can be atrracted to something even if you hate that you are; I don't like that I still have feelings for her but I do.

Similarly I can't help but occasionally slip into thoughts of being back together with her, but I sure as hell can control my physcial actions. And pasting a picture of her face over pornography would still be weird in my opinion even though she is 18.


Now people mention thought police in this thread and I admit I have to agree to a point, yes I believe it isn't something these people can control in their heads, and so no I suppose perhaps you can't go around arresting people for what goes on in their head.

However in my opinion pasting the picture of his daughter onto pornography was acting on those thoughts at a personal level, where perhaps the japanese cartoons (although I find them extreemly distasteful) do not. And while perhaps not as serious as actual images of the young girl would be, must stil be acted on. This type of action must not be allowed to continue as it may well lead to further actions happening as now that man is deciding not to control his physical actions as he should.

This guy is sick obviously, and to me he is guilty and should be hung. He's exploiting a minor in a sexual sort of way. The judge should have had some damned common sense I don't care of the exact words a law says, JUDGE what's right and wrong. He's exploited a minor, his daughter. This guy could have been passing these photos all over the internet, sharing it with his pedophile friends. I mean come on; what the hell type of world am I living in when this is okay?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
How is this not child pornography? I must be missing something huge here. I've been reading stories now for years about the unfortunate parent who takes a picture of their toddler at bath time or some other totally and completely innocent activity where they happened to be nude and make the mistake of having it developed at Walmart or Walgreens to find Police and Child Protective Services waiting for them when they come to get it.

Yet...creating the very same thing with ill intent for sexual gratification from images of your own 13yr old daughter is just dandy and perfectly okay by the courts?? Society as a whole has become the problem when court decisions like this can be made and a judge isn't bounced out onto his tail as a direct result of it.

So you think people with toddlers in the bath should be in jail? Because if you don't, then you have defeated your own argument...

Unless of course, you want people who created satirical images of Bestiality (e.g. photoshopping Sadam Hussein having sex with a goat) to start being charged as well.

I'm still shocked that people think they can justify using tax dollars to keep people "in the system" for non-existent 'crimes' with no victim. Pretty scary. Better hope people don't start assuming what YOU'RE thinking of doing and saying they KNOW it's going to happen, and throwing you in the slammer for it.

Originally posted by kidohno
There are a lot of weird and very disturbing posts on this thread.

bodock-saint and crew basically supporting the father in this instance.. you're disgusting. I don't think it's any coincidence that the catholic church is riddled with paedo's and BS happens to be a bible basher himself.

Anyone who doesn't think this topic is highly, disgustingly vile, and who doesn't think the father deserves a good old smacking, in my book is very out of touch.

Thank goodness I'm out of touch.. I think it's hilarious, one of those pictures you look at and cringe "Oh dude that's just wrong" with a rye smile.

The real humor in it all is watching the predictable "firestorm".. some things are so inappropriate, you just know its going to seriously piss off X number of people.. anticipating that rage, and clowning it, is half the punch-line.

I must say, the fake holier than tho internet virtue circus is also quite hilarious.. where were you all when a grown man simulated masturbating using the hand of the infant in his lap?.. and people, callous perverts obviously, LAUGHED!! OMG who could laugh at that?.. besides most everyone who watched "Hang Over"

A fathers job is to love and protect his daughter, not to desire her sexually. But this man has clearly passed the point of thinking about it by attempting to coerce her to posing for him and in time would make further advances towards her had he succeeded. Had he started younger she may not have had the sense to realise this wasn't acceptable behaviour. Sadly many kids don't get the chance she got.

Anyone arguing whether this is normal or not illegal because there isn't a law written against it.... perhaps you could sit and explain it to one of the thousands of those kids who had their lives destroyed, so they can understand.

reply to post by 13star


No one is arguing that was wrong. It is the fact that a judge upheld the constitution in the case of the photoshopped images, and tossed it out, that apparently pissed a lot of people off.

"Although we may find such altered images morally repugnant, we conclude that mere possession of them remains protected by the First Amendment," Justice Franklin Elia said in the 3-0 ruling.

reply to post by GovtFlu


Where were any of supposed to be when that scene played in the hangover? While a tasteless scene, doesn't that reflect the parents who allowed their infant in the movie? There was also a scene in the movie where the baby got smacked with a car door... Hollywood is a world in and of itself.. that's a whole slew of topics. This instance hits closer to home, it happened in the real world.

reply to post by TKDRL


Yeah I "sees" that, but some people on this thread were making arguments clearly blind to the fact that this was a case of abuse of trust and borderline incest. Those were the people to whom I was referring.

Originally posted by Hiasyouwant
reply to post by GovtFlu

 

Where were any of supposed to be when that scene played in the hangover? While a tasteless scene, doesn't that reflect the parents who allowed their infant in the movie? There was also a scene in the movie where the baby got smacked with a car door... Hollywood is a world in and of itself.. that's a whole slew of topics. This instance hits closer to home, it happened in the real world.

Has anyone REALLY pointed out how GUILTY the TV, MOVIE & MUSIC and even FASHION industries are in all this???

Honestly, they CREATE & PANDER to the DARK SIDE!!!

Often MOTHERS are just as complicit as FATHERS (though might not be such dab hands with Photoshop)

Some quick examples:

1. TV: Just this morning while having my breakfast I caught a clip of Malcolm in the Middle, promoting tonight's show, and can you believe it, here's the oldest boy cutting out and pasting his MOM's face, onto a NAKED Playboy model! Hello thank you TV!

2. MUSIC (Video Clips): Hello Brittany Spears in SCHOOL GIRL outfits. Miley Cirus pushing the envelope with semi-naked pics. Many more examples but you get the drift.

3. MOVIES: Lolita anyone? Does that mean that everyone that's gone to see movies like this, or has bought the DVD, should be classed as a PEDO, locked, CASTRATED and or MURDERED?

4. ACTORS: Remember the case of Rob Lowe. The pretty boy actor (who must have had such a hard time bedding adult women) not only had sex with a 15-year-old girl at the Democratic convention in Atlanta, but videotaped his performance. I'm sure he only received probation. He didn't serve a day in county jail.

So is he a PEDO or not and WHY wasn't there enough OUTRAGE, that people took to him with their BASEBALL BATS, like some here are advocating?

5. FASHION: Targeted at preteens. Bras for girls with out breasts, panties with I'M SEXY or I LUV U printed on them, targeted at girls from 8+ and don't forget the body jewellery piercings!

6. BEAUTY PAGEANTS: These are MOTHERS dressing these little girls, in BIKINIS and flaunting them on stage!

And please make sure we get the definition of PEDO correct, before labeling people here:

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the subject knows that a pedophile is a man (or male adolescent) with a sexual fixation on young and prepubescent children. Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield elaborate: "...The DSM-IV American Psychiatric Association (1994) defines pedophilia in terms of recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (emphasis added), and requires that the fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. It is therefore possible for an individual who meets these criteria to have never engaged in illegal sexual behaviors. At the same time, not all sex offenders against a minor are pedophiles. All mental health professionals acting in an expert witness capacity should know this distinction." /"Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases," in Coping With Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony (Los Angeles: Law and Psychology Press, Fifth Edition, 1995), p. 1336.

Finally, the GOVT/COURTS/JUDGES: Part of the problem is that the court system doesn't seem to deal with the SERIOUS OFFENDING in any meaningful way, so it's not hard to see why this father got off this 'thought' crime, when you see examples like these below:

L. Nelson Alexander quotes from an expose in the Florida Times Union: "The article starts off with, 'The first time Toney Davis was accused of molesting a child, prosecutors didn't file charges. Instead, they told him to seek counseling. The second time Toney Davis was accused of molesting a child, prosecutors didn't file charges. Instead they ordered him to continue his counseling. The third time Toney Davis was accused of molesting a child, prosecutors had no choice but to file charges. This time the child was dead.' According to the article, 123 confessed pedophiles had been diverted into the KID program (an odd name for a program that coddles pedophiles)... According to the FTU article, unnamed administrators of the KID program don't 'even keep records on offenders who fail to attend counseling or commit new offenses while in the program.'" (L. Nelson Alexander, "Shorstein's Pedophile Protection Plan," NASVO/VOCAL Colorado News, May 1998, p. 2.)

More:

And in Massachusetts, one "Scott Selinger, a man who was arrested for molesting a boy, was freed on $5,000 bail and then kidnapped six-year old Mark DeVoe in Derry, New Hampshire." And in June 1999, George Roy was "charged with sexual assault of a four-year old girl in Springfield. Roy had been given two-year suspended sentence with probation in 1991, but never registered as a sex offender, athough he had been registered to vote all the time." And in November 1998, Eben Hoyt was "arrested for dozens of child rapes while on probation, and while registered as a sex offender. Hoyt...pleaded guilty to molesting an eight-year old in 1996. He plea-bargained to avoid prison and was placed on probation." ( Paul Moreno, Massachusetts News, July 7, 2000.)

Just wanted to create some balance here as most people seem to just fire off comments, but really know nothing before spouting.

Originally posted by Hiasyouwant
reply to post by GovtFlu

 

Where were any of supposed to be when that scene played in the hangover? While a tasteless scene, doesn't that reflect the parents who allowed their infant in the movie? There was also a scene in the movie where the baby got smacked with a car door... Hollywood is a world in and of itself.. that's a whole slew of topics. This instance hits closer to home, it happened in the real world.

Uh.. unless that was a digital baby, in reality.. he/she was on a mans lap being used to replicate masturbation.. or is child porn masked by satire acceptable?. I believe the quote was something like "Look, he's jacking his weenus" as the hairy adult man air-yanked using a poor innocent infant.

OMG what if the actor was sporting a chubby?.. and families were duped into unwittingly watching CHILD PORN?!!

Clearly a full investigation must be taken by the joke police.

The Westermarck effect separates us from the bonobo.
en.wikipedia.org...

Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen: when two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction.

Well, it doesn't work ALL the time.

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


I'm sorry, you misunderstand me and perhaps I should have been a bit more clear on that first point. I'm contrasting the fact innocent people are harassed for purely innocent pictures of their children vs. this "father" who is pasting his little girls head on bodies to get his sexual satisfaction from.

Of course parents taking pictures of their kids in a completely harmless situation should not be arrested for it, and see their children taken by the state. What sense does it make when that DOES happen and this case gets a big pass? It's a good example of how common sense simply doesn't exist too often these days.

reply to post by SpaceJockey1


That is a pretty sexist definition of a pedophile....

I don't even like to think about stuff like this, let alone talk about it. However, I would like to clear up a few things.....



reply to post by ShaunHatfield

One cannot choose who they are attracted to, and I don't understand how anyone could believe otherwise.


reply to post by SpaceJockey1

So it's only males, eh? What absolute nonsense!


reply to post by gentledissident

I find your posts here somewhat creepy. Just what are you trying to say anyway? Hell, do I even want to know?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Because in the innocent situations, it is actually an underage naked body. Is it right? No, nudity is not porn. I can go to the beach down the road and see naked people from 2-70. Nudity is not porn, although some people can't seem to understand the difference.

Originally posted by ThousandIslandSunny

Originally posted by B.Morrison
Originally posted by B.Morrison

It's a sad story for many reason & while I disagree that he should have received jail time for his actions I think at the least he should be made to seek professional help from whoever appropriate to help him deal with whatever is causing this behavior & hopefully achieve a positive outcome for the family.

Peace,
-Bob

The only person who should be considered in any 'positive outcome' is his daughter. He has no family now. He has no rights to see her again, to communicate with her, he gave up any rights when he created mastubatory images involving his daughter. Any court that gives him visitation when his daughter knows he was wanking over her image is not doing it's job.

This creep turned an image of an adult woman into a facimile of his daughter, and then used it, possibly even shared it. He should have gone to prison.

whether or not he has contact with his family or whether he still has one should be a decision made by the daughter, wife etc and whether his opinions etc are included in that process should also be a decision of the wife & child's.

just my 2 cent.

Peace,
-Bob

Originally posted by jplaysguitar
think about the daughter here she must be so horibly messed up from this . now if the daughter saw the pornography there might be somthing to charge the man whith?

Funny this is from Milpitas, one of my web pages was getting a lot of hits from there until I blocked it, the content referred to a 5 yr stint I did with a K12 school system, having to listen to admin proteges bragging about forcing preachers to watch porn they claimed was made for use in public schools. A lot of delusional banter, yes, but also true that it was this general mentality that most impressed the K12 administration, men with 1/4 the education I had who were drawing five times the salary. But what put me over the top was the true fact of the daughter of a close family friend who was raped in one of the high schools, to be successfully ignored, for reasons clearly not different than the Franklin coverup. www.youtube.com... People in the "system" these days very commonly use their public servant image and malicious allegations against others to cloak a pattern of internal corruption within the so called system.

Yes, the circumstances of how the photos were found or used would make a difference, as well as an accurate understanding of the motives and the general circumstances. I was threatened with prosecution for signalling that I was nearing my boiling point, that any more threats or vulgar remarks during these mandatory meetings in light of this girl's rape, strong evidence being that the perp was a staff member with a daddy in admin, would most likely propel me to the point of committing a murder. Well, if it had come to that, of course, the papers would have painted a very distorted picture of circumstances leading up to that. In the case of this father, I submit also to you all, that you have already convicted him of being guilty. These admin darlings in this K12 district quite routinely created evidence used to falsely, but successfully accuse very sincere teachers of dabbling in porn on their staff computers, while dedicating themselves 40 hrs/week to giggling about penis and vagina between gulps of mashed potatoes and jelly rolls.

I would very strongly question both the veracity of such unlikely allegations as well as the general quality of reporting where profits are obtained from inflaming public emotions and so directing suspicions away from the real guilty parties. My experiences throughout life in the states were all similar to the means by which false accusations were made in the K12 milieu to cover up real crimes, including a related discovery that young people were being coerced by employers to use/buy coc aine, but people in the "system" have been bought off and ignore it. I am most definitely in my right mind and telling the truth about these things. In this case, I would withhold judgment without a thorough understanding of the context in which these things allegedly occurred.

People's behavior on this topic reminds me of the Salem witch trials, or "red scare" of the mid 20th century. BURN them at the stake. Laws? Forget 'em! Just grab us some big ol' baseball bats and let's show that deviant a thing or two. And if you don't pick up a torch and join us -- well you must be a filthy sympathizer.. OR ONE OF THEM!

So pathetic.

reply to post by Observer99


Except there is no such thing as with-craft but there are plenty of pedophiles in the world, which is exactly what this father is when he photoshopped his daughter's face on porn pics.

Common sense is a wonderful thing...don't be shy to use it every now and then.