Court: Dad can paste daughter's face on porn photo, page 8


Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 39 times


reply posted on 9-6-2011 @ 09:38 AM by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Maslo



What makes it sexual?

Perfectly benign images could be used for sexual gratification. Does that intent make the benign image sexual?

Take Jock Sturges for example. He claims it's "art." I have no doubt that somewhere some weirdo has a mangled book of his tucked away for purposes of sexual gratification. Is it art on one bookshelf and pornography on another?


reply posted on 9-6-2011 @ 09:40 AM by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by Kali74



if you read the article it is quite clear. it isnt child pornography because the images are not of minors. e was charged with several other crimes, though.


reply posted on 9-6-2011 @ 09:42 AM by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by thisguyrighthere



Its amazing what you can discern about a person from what they argue, "theoretically."

It may not be illegal to fondle yourself while looking at naked pictures of your children in the bath or at the beach, but it IS sick.

The law is the bare minimum. Its not the highest standard of behavior, or even the norm. We make things illegal for the worst humans, those whose common sense and human nature fail somehow to lead them to the actions and behaviors reasonable humans come to naturally. It draws the line for the LOWEST acceptable standard of behavior, beyond which we will not tolerate anyone sinking. It doesnt mean that everything above that line is "okay."


So while we may not have a law forbidding people from masturbating to pictures of their children, for the majority of us, none is needed for us to abstain from that behavior.


reply posted on 9-6-2011 @ 09:42 AM by Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
reply to post by Kali74



All crime is deviance but not all deviance is a crime.

He's certainly a deviant but putting his daughter's picture on a naked adult's body is not a crime or shall I draw you a picture in crayon?


reply posted on 9-6-2011 @ 09:45 AM by ldyserenity
Originally posted by g146541
reply to
post by ldyserenity



C'mon no need to bite at me, I was simply pointing out that rape kit is rape in itself, ask anyone who has ever been examined,
But to put this to a child with little or no hope of getting "evidence" would be fruitless at best and most probably damaging to the child.


Yes if the person doesn't consent.
If the person consents, then that is their choice.
I'd certainly get one done if I wanted to put the Bastard who raped me away, regardless of how it may feel.
hypothetically speaking of course
edit on 9-6-2011 by ldyserenity because: add
edit on 9-6-2011 by ldyserenity because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 9-6-2011 @ 09:47 AM by Kali74
Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to
post by Kali74



if you read the article it is quite clear. it isnt child pornography because the images are not of minors. e was charged with several other crimes, though.


I read it and I'm saying it is wrong. He was pasting his daughter face on naked grown women with the intent of sexual gratification, that is what makes it child pornography. That judge was wrong...all of it wrong. Seriously I hope you all are just addicted to arguing and don't really feel this is ok.


reply posted on 9-6-2011 @ 09:48 AM by SaturnFX
Originally posted by wardk28
I would guess technically he didn't break any laws. So where does it go from here? Do they moniter his internet activity to wait on him to cross the line?

Offically no...however, I imagine children services may be getting involved and "suggesting" therapy for him in order not to make his life a hell.


There is alot of threads about how intrusive the government is getting. So on one hand we know this guy has problems but hasn't broken the law. If or when he does, it will be really bad for his daughter. On the other hand, the constitution still applies to him.


Psychologically speaking, fathers are very often attracted to their daughters...its a biological thing. Yes, consciously people will refuse to admit that, however, it is what it is...happens in the animal kingdom, and we are animals.
The difference between us and animals is we don't mount em when we start to notice their beauty..sounds a bit big brother, but this guy probably just needs social conditioning to keep his natural feelings bound up a bit better. The guy was just expressing some desires in a relatively harmless way, however, he crossed a bit of a social line by doing even that, and should gain control...I mean, if he can do that, then the slippery slope will dictate that he will then be looking at underage porn, then perhaps trying to sneak peeks in the shower, etc etc etc..will build until there is a chance of a victim. So ya, getting caught is a good thing for him..early enough to get help without having a scarlet letter for life.

I think its important overall in society to stop denying feelings but instead, accept them and control them. denial only leads to unhealthy outcomes.



reply posted on 9-6-2011 @ 09:50 AM by Maslo
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to
post by Maslo



What makes it sexual?

Perfectly benign images could be used for sexual gratification. Does that intent make the benign image sexual?

Take Jock Sturges for example. He claims it's "art." I have no doubt that somewhere some weirdo has a mangled book of his tucked away for purposes of sexual gratification. Is it art on one bookshelf and pornography on another?


Not the intent, but the content of the image itself. At least thats how anti-child pornography laws should work, IMHO. But in todays society where drawings of the Simpsons family engaging in sexual acts can be considered child porn and is illegal, I am not sure...


reply posted on 9-6-2011 @ 09:50 AM by Forevever
Legally - photoshopping is not a crime - furnishing drugs to a minor is.
Morally - the conversation should be here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyone else pick up on the fact that the girl wanted the drugs? Sounds like entrapment...
Since I have experience with lots of teenage girls, I really am left to wonder about her motivation in all of this...
especially considering the fact that this man who is her biological father in no way is her real father (since he hadn't seen her in 12 years).. may slightly (though I doubt it) change the moral aspect of some arguments.
I'm also wondering if all the moral arguments here are completely off - was he really masturbating to a picture of his daughter? or trying to sell it to make money? is it possible he was trying to cash in on other perverts?

I suspect legally, the man will be severely scrutinized and charged accordingly.
edit on 9-6-2011 by Forevever because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 9-6-2011 @ 09:52 AM by 547000
Originally posted by Kali74
Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to
post by Kali74



if you read the article it is quite clear. it isnt child pornography because the images are not of minors. e was charged with several other crimes, though.


I read it and I'm saying it is wrong. He was pasting his daughter face on naked grown women with the intent of sexual gratification, that is what makes it child pornography. That judge was wrong...all of it wrong. Seriously I hope you all are just addicted to arguing and don't really feel this is ok.


So that means almost any picture of a woman's face is pornography, because it has the potential to be used that way. What about hand or feet model pornography?


reply posted on 9-6-2011 @ 09:54 AM by Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
reply to post by gabby2011



By your rational it should also be a crime to imagine what somebody looks like naked for the purpose of sexual gratification.


reply posted on 9-6-2011 @ 09:54 AM by incrediblelousminds
Originally posted by Kali74
Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to
post by Kali74



if you read the article it is quite clear. it isnt child pornography because the images are not of minors. e was charged with several other crimes, though.


I read it and I'm saying it is wrong. He was pasting his daughter face on naked grown women with the intent of sexual gratification, that is what makes it child pornography. That judge was wrong...all of it wrong. Seriously I hope you all are just addicted to arguing and don't really feel this is ok.


i dont feel it's 'okay'. I'm saying the there is nothing illegal about that specific action. 'child pornography' is clearly defined, and this did not fall under that category, since the ACTUAL EXPLICIT PHOTOS were of legally-aged women.

sick, yes. illegal, no.
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>    ^^TOP^^