It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
A Milpitas [California] man who used a computer to paste photos of his 13-year-old daughter's head onto bodies of women in graphic poses shouldn't have been convicted of possessing child pornography because the pictures didn't show minors engaging in sex acts, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.
Originally posted by badw0lf
gah, heres where we need wankers like jeffrey dahmer... grrr
How can the court system let this go unpunished?
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by badw0lf
gah, heres where we need wankers like jeffrey dahmer... grrr
That doesn't make sense.
What do you mean?
FYI, Dahmer was a serial killer who targeted innocent people and did horrible things to them. He was never 'needed'.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by badw0lf
gah, heres where we need wankers like jeffrey dahmer... grrr
That doesn't make sense.
What do you mean?
FYI, Dahmer was a serial killer who targeted innocent people and did horrible things to them. He was never 'needed'.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by badw0lf
gah, heres where we need wankers like jeffrey dahmer... grrr
That doesn't make sense.
What do you mean?
FYI, Dahmer was a serial killer who targeted innocent people and did horrible things to them. He was never 'needed'.
Originally posted by felonius
Personally, a family member should take this sucker and feed him to the hogs.
Exactly. This is an important question. Are fantasies/drawings/fake images of children performing sex acts actually equal to putting real children in those positions? One Australian judge seems to think so:
Originally posted by boondock-saint
I believe they had the same court discussions
about anime which is artist renderings of children
performing sex acts. No children were used
for the so-called art work. Does it make it
illegal to think it or draw it? Where do you
draw the line with the thought police ???
Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson are at the center of a legal case in Australia that ponders a bizarre — and slightly creepy — question: Are drawings that depict the younger members of the Simpsons clan engaged in carnal activities merely offensive and crude? or do they actually constitute child pornography?
Yesterday, an Australian judge ruled that such images are indeed illegal. The decision upholds the conviction of a man who was found guilty in February of possessing child pornography, after the offending cartoons (which were piracies and not official Simpsons ware) were discovered on his computer. It is not clear how or why the man was arrested, or whether his arrest was part of a larger sting operation.
thelede.blogs.nytimes.com...
Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by boondock-saint
You are comparing thoughts from children in the the same grade with simulated childporn by an adult.
I think you need to rethink your strategy here.
I could say the same for you really.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by boondock-saint
You are comparing thoughts from children in the the same grade with simulated childporn by an adult.
I think you need to rethink your strategy here.
Originally posted by boondock-saint
In the Bible...
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by boondock-saint
In the Bible...
Yeah, let's bring the Bible into this.
Let's quote ancient books and pretend to not be off-topic whilst doing it.