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

page: 43
39
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood
 


How do you suppose she is feeling with all of the media attention? She will be affected in areas of trust, love and honesty,




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by aero56
 


Media attention is a problem here....
I am sure she loved how they told the world she liked smoking pot and wanted to snort cocain...
If the people who prosecuted the case knew the law, then he wouldn't have even been charged with the non-crime according to the supreme court, and no one would have even heard about his little art project....



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

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 rings.

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 sevre penalties.


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 depth.
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)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Little art project?? really? wow

To call this victimless is like calling OJ innocent.

Anyone that would call this a victimless crime is a mindless drone programed exactly like the Govt. wants. If you lack the intelligence to differentiate between fantasy and reality, little girls like this will continue to be victimized.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


OJ took two people's lives, how do you compare that to photoshopping a head on another body? You are one confused person....

If you can't see the difference between photoshopping a picture in your own home, and butchering people in their own home, I feel sorry for you.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

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 rings.

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 sevre penalties.


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 depth.
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)


I like it! very good reply



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 





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.


Once again, the article states possesion, not distribution or spreading, that is a different thing entirely, covered by other laws. You should indeed be free to create a photo of me having sex with a goat for your own private purposes. That is not a crime, nor should it be.




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?


The original article states possesion, nothing more. Have you any evidence to the contrary?





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.


Safety and interests of children are not in any way violated by this.




Images of children in any sexual context is simply not one of those things we should tolerate at all, or ever.


No, only photos that depicts an actual act of molestation of an existing child should not be tolerated, because there is a victim and a crime. The same should be true not just for child porn, but also for snuff movies and such, for the same reasons.




Ask the child how she feels about those images!


There is no place for emotions in law.




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 sevre penalties.


If they manage to find a way that does not hurt an actual child, like in this case, then good for them. The purpose of child porn laws should be to protect children, not to harrass pedophiles that do not actually molest anyone.




The fact that you need the courts to define you sense of right from wrong is appalling.


I do not need a court. I was just pointing out that my stance is logical and moral enough to be accepted by a court, because some people here think that one must be a pervert or something to agree with the ruling.

There is no victim, and no crime. It is his FREEDOM, basic tenet of modern developed society, to do this. Becuase freedom is truly tested in controversial cases like this, and it was upheld in this case.

But I do not expect someone from crazy society called Australia, where sexual drawings of fictitional children and adult models with small breasts are banned because of emotional BS your posts are full of, to understand.


edit on 16/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
The only censorship I'm in favor of is use of religion in any argument ever. Someone mentioned the Bible back on page two and this thread has been in a downward spiral ever since. But I digress.

Let's follow the logic train here:

Masturbating to porn = legal.
Imagining Sarah Palin naked = legal.
Masturbating to a picture of Sarah Palin naked = legal.
Masturbating to pictures of the Olsen Twins (present day) = legal.
Imagining the Olsen Twins (as children) naked and masturbating to this mental image = legal.
Pasting Ashley Olsen's head (as a child) onto Sarah Palin's nude body and masturbating = illegal?

The logic just does not add up. I can, at this very moment, take the head of any child in the world (and yes that includes yours) and mentally paste it onto any nude adults body and masturbate to it vigorously. But the moment I do it in photoshop (for PRIVATE use) it's a crime?

Doesn't make any sense. Imagining is still imagining, whether it's on paper or not. In this scenario, neither the Olsen Twins or Sarah Palin have suffered any grievence and there's a 99.99999999% neither will ever know that it even happened.

I think using this logic, though it is a thin line, the act was not illegal, however reprehensible it might be.

Those of you arguing that it's "immoral" and should be equally punishable as such, should thank your Gods that "morality" is not the law of the land. Because if I had my way, I'd have all the bible thumpers thrown into that Lake of Fire they're always talking about.

And that's my two cents.
edit on 16-6-2011 by MrSensible because: Punctuation



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood
 


DID YOU EVEN READ THIS ARTICLE???

He drugged his daughter and tried to get her to "pose" for him.. You just stated that there was "more evidence on the fictional perp"... Did you take the time to read the article, before jumping on your high horse and embarrassing yourself? You defense of this man is very telling.. You didn't even read the article, yet bark out info about the evidence.. laughable, yet pathetic at the same time......

You really are embarrassing yourself with your bind ignorance of the facts.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 



Did you read the thread? No one here is saying that was right, in fact we are all in agreement that is wrong. The dispute here is the picture charge that was rightfully thrown out....



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


wow.... I did not think someone would be ignorant enough to make that stretch... I was wrong.. I was not comparing the crimes... c-o-m-p-r-e-n-s-i-o-n !!!!!


Victimless... Hmmmm so when he drugged her, with the purpose of posing her for pictures, she was able to escape victimization.... how exactly?

Oh maybe because she was in the photo that he photoshopped, she must have been a willing participant??

No victim... That's funny..

Apparently there are kid touchers everywhere... Why else would someone defend this guy....



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Then people need to stop calling this victimless! There is a clear victim..



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I shall have to paste my son's head on Ron Jeremy's body for the lulz...

I don't see an issue with this, and glad the law sees right he shouldn't be convicted...


go to images.google.com and search family nudist, then go complain to google for having child porn



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Cito
 


Dont fret... Since he gave his daughter (13) Pot and coc aine then proceeded to tell her to strip down to her panties for a photo shoot. He will be playing dodge the ding dong for 13 years.. I pray he is bad at the game and is holding a mans pocket by day 2.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


The picture, there is no victim, saying there was over and over doesn't make it so. She was a victim of the other stuff, not a photoshopped picture.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Cito
 


Yeah, that would be really funny... What a ignorant thing to say... Of course you can spit that garbage out here, where your ignorance is anonymous. Try bringing that up at x-mas with the family, if you have one that still talks to you.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


It should all be taken into consideration in his punishment... I wont be changing my mind here.. your pissing in the wind trying to convince me that your opinion is right....



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I must be missing something here, did he put the picture on face book or something? I mean how did anyone know he has this sick fetish to begin with?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


My opinion of the law must be right, it was thrown out by a judge....






top topics



 
39
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join