never said he did not acted. I have stated that there is no victim, and thus no crime. Whether he acted or not is irrelevant to me.
Incorrect. We have a victim, the child who had her own image used in order for someone to create pornographic material.
If this act is victimless then how about you email me some photo's of yourself and I'll plaster them on the net with you having sex with a goat.
Hey, you ain't a victim, you'll be o.k., you'll get over it.
I have stated "fantasize or depict", not plan, I am aware of the illegality of this. It is clearly not a plan or diagram, but an image used for
his personal satisfaction. Pasting a head of the victim to another body to plan a rape does not make sense.
Yet, he clearly went to further lengths to create material. Once again, how do you distinguish that it was fantasy and not a progression of criminal
behaviour with the end goal of convincing a minor that it is o.k. to have sex with adults?
The reason why some "loli" anime is restricted is because material depicting child sex images have been used to groom and "educate" children.
How do you know this man was not creating this material in order to persuade or coax a child into sexual activity?
How do you know that this man was not creating images of his daughter in order to share those images with other pedophiles?
Rather then creating a file of real images, some networks have been using this method to catalogue or share "collections" of children in pedophile
But how do you know its all just fantasy. You don't, and you can't know.
Unless you would rather take the word of a human who would do such things to his very own daughter.
Bravo to you Maslo.
We as a society must make a choice and that choice is to serve the interests and safety of children first ahead of the rights and fantasies of
pedophiles who enjoy images of children having sex.
Its that simple.
It is also a simple fact that you would rather serve this mans needs and fantasy over the welfare of children.
The reason why this material is intolerable should be obvious to you, yet as per usual those who cling to piss weak "freedom of speech" and "thought
police" hyperbole rarely tend to consider the impact and danger this material presents. Your need to be right and your desire for self rightousness
would instead serve the interests of pedophiles and support their sexual fantasies ahead of the safety and protection of children.
I know some of you will claim and argue that we should take this stance with images of violence, drug use, adult pornography etc. etc. But again you
will then ignore that society draws lines all the time in what it will tolerate and accept as freedom of speech. Images of children in any sexual
context is simply not one of those things we should tolerate at all, or ever.
There are some things we just cannot accept, nor should we regardless of those that will cite amendments or court rulings.
This image does not fullfill the definition of that, because the pasted image is sexually non-explicit, so it is not actual child porn, and no
children were harmed during its creation. The court agrees with it.
Ask the child how she feels about those images!
The courts are out dated and many states are amending legislation to include this sort of pornography.
The courts do not define the tolerance of the land, we do. Child protection services, police, prosecutors and legislative bodies notice trends and one
of those trends is the manufacture of child pornography using images of real children super-imposed over other material.
The fact is that pedophiles and pornographer of images depicting children in sex acts are alwaying looking for ways to circumvent the law or avoid
The fact that you need the courts to define you sense of right from wrong is appalling.
I have read you state many times that the courts have no emotion, and that many people are too emotional to be rational.
Once again, your perception and attitude towards reality is skewed beyond belief.
The courts rule with emotion all the time, the courts extend grace and forgiveness and considers the plight or position of individuals with great
The court must also place itself in the position of the victim when sentencing an individual, as well as the sentiment of the society it represents,
and this can aid an individual or condemn one.
The court is not a sociopath, it acts as an aspect of the conscience of a society.
And, it not perfect.
So you can appeal to the courts decision or definition all you want buddy, but this doesn't make you right, it simply makes you a person who supports
the rights of an individual to create pornographic material depicting his daughter in a sexually explicit manner.
I hope you like that feeling, Give yourself a big pat on the back. Make sure you tell your neighbours, your family, your friends and your work
collegues etc. etc. that you support this man and the material he created. Raise the plight of this man, and his right to create material
"fantasizing" about his young daughter and that he did nothing wrong.
Make sure you state that there was no vivtim involved, even though a young girl had her image used to create pornographic material, and that she was
later drugged in order to be used for other material.
But hey, she's o.k! No harm done right?
The guy was just fantasizing.
I know who the sociopath is, and it ain't the courts.
edit on 15/6/11 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)