Man Charged In 'Virtual Porn' Case

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Some sicko in Tennessee is facing charges of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor for…get this…photoshopping the faces of minors on to nude adult female bodies. What do you think? Will he get convicted? Acquitted? Taken out back of the tool shed for a beatin’? Heh, that last one should be mandatory.

Investigators do not believe Campbell had any contact with the three girls, but "when you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity," Assistant District Attorney Dave Denny said during Wednesday's hearing. Attempts to contact Denny by CNN Wednesday were unsuccessful.
Click to expand...
 
I'm sorry, but this has to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. I think this will get tossed, very quickly. "imulated sexual activity," thought police, anyone?

Keith
 
I do believe this guy should be beaten senseless...HOWEVER, I dont see how this is breaking the law. UNLESS he actually, physically molested or photographed the girls. I dont understand how photoshopping a face onto a nude body is against the law?
 
I have heard of similar cases and based on what I know of the case he will not be found not guilty. Using faces of minors on adult bodies is not illegal as I recall.
 
syntx said:
I have heard of similar cases and based on what I know of the case he will not be found not guilty. Using faces of minors on adult bodies is not illegal as I recall.
Click to expand...

not be found not guilty
gotta love those doubt negatives
 
lol, I've never even conceived of this. On top of that, I don't see how it would be illegal because it's not the child's bodies that are exposed.

Two of the faces were of local girls -- a 10-year-old and 12-year-old, the station reported. The third face appears to be Miley Cyrus, 16, star of Disney's popular television series "Hannah Montana"
Click to expand...

I literally LOL'ed when I read that, haha. That's so fucking weird..
 
I thought that whole "drawings of minors" thing was shown to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court?

I would expect this go a similar direction. Guy absolutely has some mental problems, but seriously WTF. Guess all those nude fakes of Emma Watson, The Olsen Twins, Miley Cyrus, etc etc etc, is simulated child porn as well.
 
dropper said:
"imulated sexual activity," thought police, anyone?
Click to expand...
+1.

Isn't there already a ruling where its not illegal to have nude pictures of celebs on different bodies? The use of local children is cause for serious consideration. Though the spirit of the law is justified, the letter of the law has not been broken (imo)...but if this guy is on probation then throw the book at him.
 
If he put the pictures on the internet, then that would be criminal activity since he would be using the pictures without permission. If he just downloaded some pictures and modified them on his pc and kept them there, then there's no reason to punish him cause he caused no harm to anyone.

For that matter, I don't think anyone should be punished for creating, posessing or downloading virtual child porn, because it causes no harm.
Ethically I wouldn't have a problem with someone pirating child porn which was actually produced using real children (since he wouldn't be supporting criminal activity cause he wouldn't be paying), however it would be difficult to distinguish between pirating and purchasing child porn so I suppose it would have to remain illegal.
 
edit: Basically as long as an activity causes no direct harm to anyone, it should not be illegal.
 
I have no idea how the SCOTUS will ultimately rule (and if this guy is found guilty in TN, it will go there). But unless these pictures depict sexual acts, I'm definitely on the side of protected by the first amendment.
 
dochmbi said:
If he put the pictures on the internet, then that would be criminal activity since he would be using the pictures without permission. If he just downloaded some pictures and modified them on his pc and kept them there, then there's no reason to punish him cause he caused no harm to anyone.
Click to expand...

If I take a picture of you in the park and post that picture on the web, what crime have committed?
 
Yeah, this shit is pretty dumb.
"THOUGHT POLICE, ARREST HIM QUICKLY! HE WAS FANTASIZING ABOUT RAPING THAT GIRL!!!"
"Oh dear god, what horror! We can't let these THOUGHTS be present in our society!"
 
nilepez said:
If I take a picture of you in the park and post that picture on the web, what crime have committed?
Click to expand...

As far as I know, if you publish a picture of a specific person (not a shot of a crowd) without asking permission of that person, the person of whom the picture was taken of has the right to accuse you (of what exactly, I don't know). This law is pretty good imo.
 
taking a picture of someone in the park = defamation of character? wrong. You are in a public place where photography is allowed. If you are caught cross dressing in public, I can post that on the net as news.

Now if i broke into your home and took pictures of you cross dressing in your private room, then you might have something.



Back to the original topic - yes the guy is creepy but where is the actual crime? What if he used CIG faces onto the bodies of older women? I agree that child porn is bad, and if you produce or distribute it you need to face the penalties.

Why can people photograph naked babies (tastefully) and call it art and get paid for it? this guy plays around in photoshop and gets arrested?

I'm not supporting what he did - just because it might be weird to most people (me included) does not mean he should be locked up forever. What is next? getting locked up for virtual crime? (playing GTA4) or what about thought crime? I can't tell you how many times I've falled asleep dreaming of knocking off an armored car filled with cash, or stuff like that.

Should I be in jail if I draw a picture of me robbing a bank?
 
collegeboy69us said:
taking a picture of someone in the park = defamation of character? wrong. You are in a public place where photography is allowed. If you are caught cross dressing in public, I can post that on the net as news.
Click to expand...


Hmm I guess I was wrong then, or maybe the laws is different in Finland. I haven't really looked into this.
 
the Supreme Court has already ruled that the PROTECT act of '03 is a valid law. holding that even Virtual pictures where there is no actual/real child are illegal.

from what i read about this scumbag, he had used the faces of 2 local girls, both under 13 years old in addition to Miley Cyrus. if he had taken one of my daughters pictures...

...cut em off and feed them to him.
 
xxGriff said:
the Supreme Court has already ruled that the PROTECT act of '03 is a valid law. holding that even Virtual pictures where there is no actual/real child are illegal.
Click to expand...

So it seems the US has a bunch of conflicting laws concerning what boils down to thought crime. Land of the free!
 
collegeboy69us said:
taking a picture of someone in the park = defamation of character? wrong. You are in a public place where photography is allowed. If you are caught cross dressing in public, I can post that on the net as news.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you take a picture of me in the park and then Photo shop me having sex with a 12 year old girl and that photo got released which caused a negative effect on me then I would have a rather solid case for defamation.

the photo alone isn't but what you do with that photo can be.
 
intent is part of any crime, both in terms of determination of a crime, and in its sentence. this person was arrested, he still has a trial where he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will take a huge leap and guess that this scumbag had no artistic intent. the pictures were purely for wanking, there is a huge difference between what this guy was doing and taking a picture of a baby having its diaper changed or being bathed. wanna bet he looks to a plea?
 
xxGriff said:
intent is part of any crime, both in terms of determination of a crime, and in its sentence. this person was arrested, he still has a trial where he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will take a huge leap and guess that this scumbag had no artistic intent. the pictures were purely for wanking, there is a huge difference between what this guy was doing and taking a picture of a baby having its diaper changed or being bathed. wanna bet he looks to a plea?
Click to expand...

Hmm yes because wanking to images of children == having sex with children, I see.
 
Quick, thought police! Arrest this man for intending to wack off to drawn pictures I disapprove of!
 
xxGriff said:
the Supreme Court has already ruled that the PROTECT act of '03 is a valid law. holding that even Virtual pictures where there is no actual/real child are illegal.

from what i read about this scumbag, he had used the faces of 2 local girls, both under 13 years old in addition to Miley Cyrus. if he had taken one of my daughters pictures...

...cut em off and feed them to him.
Click to expand...

When did the SCOTUS make that decision. In the only case that I'm aware of, an appeals court upheld that provision of the law, not the SCOTUS.

Regardless, that act doesn't apply, because there's no mention of these pictures being explicit. Just because a minor is naked doesn't mean it's Child pornography.
 
xxGriff said:
intent is part of any crime, both in terms of determination of a crime, and in its sentence. this person was arrested, he still has a trial where he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will take a huge leap and guess that this scumbag had no artistic intent. the pictures were purely for wanking, there is a huge difference between what this guy was doing and taking a picture of a baby having its diaper changed or being bathed. wanna bet he looks to a plea?
Click to expand...

really? So you don't think a man or woman who gets off on babies (or toddlers) becomes aroused by those pics?

Look, the idea that this is child porn doesn't make much sense. Pedophiles get off on prepubescent kids. Sticking a young kids face on a mature body is not something a pedophile would get off on. Frankly, it sound like something a kid might fantasize about....his 12 year-old classmate with boobs.

Sorry, but unless these pics are explicit, it doesn't appear he's committed a criminal act. Whether or not the 2 girls (Miley's a celeb and she ain't gonna win) could win a civil action I have no clue.
 
1) Nobody is being exploited in the creation of these images.

2) A childs face on a mature body would not be something a pedo would get off on.

So I don't see why this should be a big deal. Is it bizarre? Sure. Does it make the guy some kind of predator? No. The whole reason he photochopped those images is because his bizarre little fantasy doesn't exist in the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top