Photoshopping Adult Porn Nets Man 10-Year Sentence

heatlesssun said:
Wow. For a crowd that's supposedly knows everything about everything, it's amazing the simple things that seem to be beyond it. In men pedophilia is pretty easy to detect. Hook them up to a peter meter, give then child porn and look for an erection. It's that simple. In considerably more difficult to detect in women because they don't have peters.
Click to expand...

So how is that related to my post? did the article say he got an erection when connected to a "peter meter"?
 
What he did was both disgusting and wrong, I certainly do not disagree with you on that. Jail him for a short while or put him on probation for harassment, or sending perv picks to a minor, and not child porn.
Click to expand...

Do you have a daughter?

See, I have a couple, I'd save you and the taxpayers the money and shoot the fucker in the head, be done with it. You get the law passed and you can find the "hangman" right here.
 
Exavior said:
Lets assume for a minute that your crazy thought is correct and he was just telling her in a few years this will be me and you. IT IS STILL HIS SISTER

the lengths at which you guys are trying to justify why a 28 year old should be allowed to fuck his 11 year old sister, or to tell her that he is going to fuck her is crazy. I hope that none of you have young sisters or daughters.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the use of the word pedophilia. Word definitions actually matter. Kinda like when a loser calls another person a looser. I may understand what they meant, but it nevertheless doesn't mean what they wrote. Actually that's wrong, because most on here don't seem to understand what the word pedophile means.

Finally, you seem to think I believe he should be allowed to fuck his sister. Maybe if you read the fucking thread, you'd see where I said otherwise. Oh well, I didn't mean to get in the way of your misuse of the English language. Carry on.
 
lcpiper said:
Do you have a daughter?

See, I have a couple, I'd save you and the taxpayers the money and shoot the fucker in the head, be done with it. You get the law passed and you can find the "hangman" right here.
Click to expand...

Never thought I'd see the day I agree with lcpiper on something. :p
 
All us fathers should get together for a good ol' fashioned mob! Bring your emotions and pitch-forks :)
 
DarkStar02 and I said nothing at all about mob justice. I said, "You get the law passed and..."

I hear that executioners commonly have issues with living with what they do. In these cases all a father would need to keep him happy, spry, and on the job would be a little "pick-me-up" video of what some of these sick fuckers do.

Damn Joe, doesn't it ever get to you, you know, the job?"

Well Tom, sometimes, but I got this little vid of this one fucker fisting a 5 year old girl, it fixes your problems and in a few moments your whistling while you work. Know what I mean?

Beethoven's 9th comes readily to mind.

Of course, if you are like me and a terrible whistler, you could always hum "singing in the rain"
 
nilepez said:
I was talking about the use of the word pedophilia. Word definitions actually matter. Kinda like when a loser calls another person a looser. I may understand what they meant, but it nevertheless doesn't mean what they wrote. Actually that's wrong, because most on here don't seem to understand what the word pedophile means.

Finally, you seem to think I believe he should be allowed to fuck his sister. Maybe if you read the fucking thread, you'd see where I said otherwise. Oh well, I didn't mean to get in the way of your misuse of the English language. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Pedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to young children. If you plan on having sex with an 11 year old and want her face on sexual material, I think that does a good job of showing sexual attraction.

The people that don't seem to understand actually seem to be the ones trying so hard to defend the actions and claim nothing wrong was done or that there is nothing wrong with having sex with your 11 year old sister when you are in your late 20s.

There is no misuse of the term pedophile as the term does not actually require you to engage in sex with a child, only having the desire to have sex with a child and being sexually attracted to them. Just like you can be gay and not actually have had sex with somebody of the same sex, all you need is to be sexually attracted to the same sex while not being sexually attracted to the opposite sex. A gay man having sex with a woman doesn't instantly make him not gay.

The same applies for child pornography. The law no longer requires it to be real pictures of it occurring. Cartoons, drawing, computer simulations, even writing that is created with the intent of sexual gratification is included in the law and is considered just as wrong in the eyes of the law as an actual picture or video of a child being sexually assaulted when it comes to being in position of child porn. So in that regards by the definition of the law photo shopping a face of a child onto the face of adults having sex with the intent of sexual gratification is considered child porn.

The same applies to distributing child porn. Once something has been classified as child porn the act of sending it to anther person for any reason is considered by law distributing child porn. This currently doesn't even matter on the age of the person sending it. A 15 year old girl texting nude pictures of herself to her 15 year old boyfriend falls into the same category. The nude pictures of herself is considered child porn as it is made with the intent of sexual gratification. The act of texting them is distributing them.

So in this case this is what we know, a 26 year old took his 11 year old sister's face and put it onto the body of an adult engaging in sex. He then sent her the picture telling her that will be them. The fact that he told his 11 year old sister that he was going to have sex with her means that he has a sexual attraction toward her. This makes him a pedophile, even though no sexual acts as far as we know where carried out against her the fact that he wanted / planned on there being is enough to put him into that classification as he is apparently sexually attracted to her. Next is the picture. It was a sexually themed image made at the very least to show his intended victim what he wanted to do to her and was created using her image. Had it just been some image for artistic personal use that would be one thing, missed up but still a different thing. However in this case it was not created for an artistic purpose, it was created due to a desire and as a graphical depiction of what he wanted to do to his sister. So that places it into the classification of child pornography. Next is the fact that he sent the image to his sister, or anyone of what it matters. Since the image is child pornography, sending it to somebody makes it distribution. So as a result the courts found him guilty of being in possession and distribution child porn and he was given what they found to be the correct sentence for his actions.
 
Pedophilia is not attraction to "young children" it's attraction to pre-pubescent children. That's why he said it shouldn't be used, not because sex wasn't involved.
 
First of all, in the US, "cartoon" child porn is a gray area that prosecutors usually cut a deal to avoid trials. Past legislation that banned cartoon child porn has had first amendment problems and have been deemed unconstitutional by the SC. Text... there really have not been any case where an owner of a text of child sex has been put to trial in the US, and I predict that there never will be such a case.

Now, if we're talking about European (or third world) nations, that's an entirely different ball park as they really don't have as a strong freedom of speech as America.

But, having that said... if the guy sent the pictures to the child... isn't that enough to arrest him on threat of rape and child abuse (like other posters mentioned)? It seems like a slam dunk case against him. Of course, I'd much prefer that he's put away in a mental institution since he's obviously has mental problems.
 
HFBallad said:
First of all, in the US, "cartoon" child porn is a gray area that prosecutors usually cut a deal to avoid trials. Past legislation that banned cartoon child porn has had first amendment problems and have been deemed unconstitutional by the SC. Text... there really have not been any case where an owner of a text of child sex has been put to trial in the US, and I predict that there never will be such a case.

Now, if we're talking about European (or third world) nations, that's an entirely different ball park as they really don't have as a strong freedom of speech as America.

But, having that said... if the guy sent the pictures to the child... isn't that enough to arrest him on threat of rape and child abuse (like other posters mentioned)? It seems like a slam dunk case against him. Of course, I'd much prefer that he's put away in a mental institution since he's obviously has mental problems.
Click to expand...

He was arrested and was charged, now he is in jail for 10 years
 
mope54 said:
Pedophilia is not attraction to "young children" it's attraction to pre-pubescent children. That's why he said it shouldn't be used, not because sex wasn't involved.
Click to expand...

The term seems to be defined both ways as young children and as pre-pubescent, not of all legal definitions. Then again I don't sit around looking up the technical / legal definition per state as I don't plan on getting off to a 13 year old while trying to argue if I am ok doing so or not. But that is me. Lets assume the pre-pubescent part is key here. That is something which girls enter around age 11. So she might be pre-pubescent or might just starting to enter it. Think that is close enough to use the term on this guy. Just like saying something that cost $9.95 is $10. Besides doubt he just suddenly decided he wanted his sister, probably been rolling around in his head for awhile and he just decided to act on it in any way.
 
Pedophilia is not a legal term at all so the points you're raising in that regard aren't relevant. It's a medical term and defined in the dsmIV. Attraction to an 11 year old would constitute pedophilia in medical terms, at least in the US. Age of consent differs widely in the US states and even wider globally. We have an international audience and some might come from countries where 11 is at or near age of consent. In any case, if you believe he's a pedophile then that's a diagnosable and treatable psychological disorder that should be handled by professionals rather than warehousing in prison, which should be reserved for dangerous and violent offenders.
 
mope54 said:
Pedophilia is not a legal term at all so the points you're raising in that regard aren't relevant. It's a medical term and defined in the dsmIV. Attraction to an 11 year old would constitute pedophilia in medical terms, at least in the US. Age of consent differs widely in the US states and even wider globally. We have an international audience and some might come from countries where 11 is at or near age of consent. In any case, if you believe he's a pedophile then that's a diagnosable and treatable psychological disorder that should be handled by professionals rather than warehousing in prison, which should be reserved for dangerous and violent offenders.
Click to expand...

that should have said "not sure of all legal definitions" which I guess I should have said medical definitions then. That said, you now seem to agree that sexual attraction to an 11 year old would count. So in that case your above comment about the age invalidating such term being used is not correct.

We know about different ages in different places. However 11 is not close to legal in any US state.
 
I never disagreed in the first place; I only pointed out that he wasn't basing his disagreement with the term on whether sex was involved or whether a young child was involved because neither are part of the definition. The AMA and APA considers 11 to fit within the upper range of the definition but he may come from somewhere that doesn't.
 
The purpose of the law is to provide equal rights, to protect people from being victims, and to provide recourse if there are victims.

They could have prosecuted on:
Child Endangerment
Threats to a minor
Libel (through photo-chopped photo) which can result in huge monetary rewards.
Sexual assault (Lewdness upon a minor)

That said, the man's a bastard. If I was the judge I would have issued a mandatory restraining order and thrown his ass in jail along with psyche counseling for the above offenses.

As an adult you can have whatever fantasies you want. But if you start corrupting/forcing those who don't know any better, or don't have the option, then you got a serious problem.
 
Doesn't matter where this guy came from, what matters is that in the United States and in particular, the State of Nebraska, 11 is jail bait and this dude bit hard.

And not disagreeing with this whole definition argument you guys got going, but I do wonder at the trail of logic a bit Mope54. Somehow you begin a post with this statement;
Pedophilia is not a legal term at all ....
Click to expand...
And then wander along this path;
Age of consent differs widely in the US states and even wider globally.
Click to expand...
And wind up here;
if you believe he's a pedophile then that's a diagnosable and treatable psychological disorder that should be handled by professionals rather than warehousing in prison, which should be reserved for dangerous and violent offenders.
Click to expand...
Which I only agree with up to the point that he seeks treatment before he actually breaks the law, once he breaks the law I give one rats ass hair about his psychological problems because now he has done harm to others and it's off with his fucked up head as far as I am concerned.

Some people are all about the bleeding fucking heart with no care or concern for the people these fucked up animals hurt. I am not lumping you into this camp Mope54, I am just stating my position on it so don't get your back up, I am not calling you out.

All I am saying is if a guy has a screw loose and it is identified and treatment sought before he has done harm then by all means get him some help. But if we find out after the bull has had his turn in the china closet then it's too late for that kindness shit, he's made a mess that can't be properly picked up without more extreme measures.

You don't just tell victims and families that the person who just royally fucked up your lives was sick. "Sorry bout that", doesn't cut it.
 
DiggitalGriffen, although most of those charges might have worked, I don't think Libel would have made the cut. For Libel to have been applicable he would have had to send the photo to others damaging what others think of the person, as in their reputation. Sending it only to the victim is not an attack on the victim's character. I think You would have to show defamation to get Libel to stick.
 
lcpiper said:
And wind up here;

Which I only agree with up to the point that he seeks treatment before he actually breaks the law, once he breaks the law I give one rats ass hair about his psychological problems because now he has done harm to others and it's off with his fucked up head as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

The problem being there is no known treatment that works other then making them empathize with the damage he causes the victim so he realizes what he's doing is wrong.

And even if there were a treatment, psychologist by law have to submit any persons name they think a threat to anyone else. As soon as the p-word comes up, they generally run to the police. So there's no real safe haven for treatment.

I just hope those who are out there who do have these desires knows the difference between fantasy and the damaging reality and don't act upon them the way this guy did with real kids.
 
lcpiper said:
Doesn't matter where this guy came from, what matters is that in the United States and in particular, the State of Nebraska, 11 is jail bait and this dude bit hard.

And not disagreeing with this whole definition argument you guys got going, but I do wonder at the trail of logic a bit Mope54. Somehow you begin a post with this statement;

And then wander along this path;

And wind up here;

Which I only agree with up to the point that he seeks treatment before he actually breaks the law, once he breaks the law I give one rats ass hair about his psychological problems because now he has done harm to others and it's off with his fucked up head as far as I am concerned.

Some people are all about the bleeding fucking heart with no care or concern for the people these fucked up animals hurt. I am not lumping you into this camp Mope54, I am just stating my position on it so don't get your back up, I am not calling you out.

All I am saying is if a guy has a screw loose and it is identified and treatment sought before he has done harm then by all means get him some help. But if we find out after the bull has had his turn in the china closet then it's too late for that kindness shit, he's made a mess that can't be properly picked up without more extreme measures.

You don't just tell victims and families that the person who just royally fucked up your lives was sick. "Sorry bout that", doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...
we don't have unlimited prison capacity so we either have to decide to house non-violent offenders, like this person who sent a photograph to someone, or someone who actually steals something or physically harms someone.

it's not about being "kind" to an offender it's about using our limited resources to protect society in the most effective way. As someone mentioned earlier, going to prison with people who have actually raped children, with people who have assaulted and murdered people, and putting him in a situation that makes his ability to become a productive citizen in the future from when he gets out (around 35) until his death 60 years later is a bizarre over-reaction to sending a photoshopped image of sexual behavior to a minor.

Unless you really want to advocate murdering people for sending illicit photos to minors you really ought to tone down the rhetoric because it doesn't help anyone. This is also a crime that occurred between family members--don't misread that as somehow lessening the seriousness of the problem--so it's highly improbable that the victims would agree he should be executed :rolleyes:
 
But what about private prison quotas? Easier to fill them up with non-violent offenders since they're easier to manage :p
 
Really, bizarre overreaction? What percent of the population do you think would override all of the societal stigma and internal impulses to send a photoshopped picture and a rape threat to their 11 year old sister?!?! 0.01%? I'm sure we can find room for them.

What I find as bizarre overreaction is the huge pushback against this guys sentence. If anything, it's light because people sick in this way are likely to go right back to it once out.
 
get right back to sending photochopped images of sexual activity to minors? OH THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!

We can't "find room" for them because our prisons are already operating at over 200% capacity. We don't even have room for people who actually harmed someone.

Of course, if you actually read who I was responding to he said the guy should be executed. So you really think we should execute people who send photos to people?
 
I wouldn't be against executing people who send pictures of pornographic images to minors, with said minors face photoshopped onto them, along with a rape threat. I don't believe that is a type of person you can rehabilitate nor will ever be a functioning member of society.
 
ITT, people just figuring out that we have some pretty fucked up individuals in our society and not really having a clue about how broken our judicial and mental health systems are
 
Are all punitive populists this stupid?

The state committed an act of violence against him for manipulating some bits on a computer. There are any number of things that he did wrong that they could have gotten him for (like the rape threat) but the district shyster chose to engage in the usual rank sophistry that I've come to expect from the legal "profession" as if manipulating some bits in photoshop is equivalent to taking pictures of actual naked children.
 
damicatz said:
Are all punitive populists this stupid?

The state committed an act of violence against him for manipulating some bits on a computer. There are any number of things that he did wrong that they could have gotten him for (like the rape threat) but the district shyster chose to engage in the usual rank sophistry that I've come to expect from the legal "profession" as if manipulating some bits in photoshop is equivalent to taking pictures of actual naked children.
Click to expand...

Look hardcore libertarians - choose a different martyr here. This guy should have been strung up on any charges available. He was clearly mentally unstable in a dangerous way. Spare me the outrage.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Look hardcore libertarians - choose a different martyr here. This guy should have been strung up on any charges available. He was clearly mentally unstable in a dangerous way. Spare me the outrage.
Click to expand...

Seriously. If you read some of the details of the case, this guy was using a fake name on the account and it was the girl's mother that called the authorities and she gave them permission to use her daughter's account and it was at this point that Anderson sent this particular image, there had been other stuff he has been sending her. At some point the notion of the onerous state becomes absurd when clearly it can't be proper for adults to send these kinds of images to children. Maybe the sentencing was incorrect but that's another issue.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Look hardcore libertarians - choose a different martyr here. This guy should have been strung up on any charges available. He was clearly mentally unstable in a dangerous way. Spare me the outrage.
Click to expand...

They won't listen, there are too many people in this thread that are pro raping your little sister / daughter. This man is part of their group and you will not convince them that anything here is wrong. There are a lot of people here that I hope are not ever alone with young girls in their family.
 
Yeah all these law and everyday we have millions of children in the US being used as sexual slaves.
This is hypocrisy at its max, I bet the judge who rules on this case uses kids as his sexual slaves.
Thus the insanity wheel keeps spinning!

Now don't get me wrong this guy should be in jail for what he did. What my point is that they make these laws to try and cover up what is really going on. Kids being sexual slaves is a much bigger problem then you all think.
 
NastyNative said:
Now don't get me wrong this guy should be in jail for what he did. What my point is that they make these laws to try and cover up what is really going on. Kids being sexual slaves is a much bigger problem then you all think.
Click to expand...

When you look at what's happened with the Catholic Church, Penn State, etc. it's pretty obvious that these types of crimes are routinely swept under the rug.
 
Exavior said:
They won't listen, there are too many people in this thread that are pro raping your little sister / daughter. This man is part of their group and you will not convince them that anything here is wrong. There are a lot of people here that I hope are not ever alone with young girls in their family.
Click to expand...
lol you have some real issues. You should be in prison right along with the guy for advocating murder.
 
mope54 said:
lol you have some real issues. You should be in prison right along with the guy for advocating murder.
Click to expand...

Taking the law into one's hands isn't right. I don't have children but it's hard for me to conceive that any parent that loves their 11 year old daughter could see something like this and think "it's only pixels." That lack of an emotional response would put a Vulcan to shame.
 
heatlesssun said:
Taking the law into one's hands isn't right. I don't have children but it's hard for me to conceive that any parent that loves their 11 year old daughter could see something like this and think "it's only pixels." That lack of an emotional response would put a Vulcan to shame.
Click to expand...
perhaps, but Exavior is lumping his response in with those of us pointing out that this guy needs mental health counseling and that he isn't going to get that in prison and that 10 years in prison is disproportionate to the crime he was ultimately convicted of doing compared to how we treat people who actually rape children and other adults, rob people, and kill others in some cases. He also previously advocated executing this particular person for the crime of photoshopping a picture and sending it to a minor and saying he wanted to have sex with her.

Now he's calling anyone saying that he's over-reacting child molesters and rapists is beyond the pale. He needs mental counseling himself if this is the size brick he's going to carry on his shoulder and start applying to people having a reasonable discussion those kinds of labels. It's far beyond simply being a concerned parent. In fact, I can't imagine how he thinks he's a good role model for the daughter he claims to have if this is how he reacts to disagreement.
 
mope54 said:
perhaps, but Exavior is lumping his response in with those of us pointing out that this guy needs mental health counseling and that he isn't going to get that in prison and that 10 years in prison is disproportionate to the crime he was ultimately convicted of doing compared to how we treat people who actually rape children and other adults, rob people, and kill others in some cases. He also previously advocated executing this particular person for the crime of photoshopping a picture and sending it to a minor and saying he wanted to have sex with her.
Click to expand...

The issue is, mental health counseling doesn't "fix" pedophilia, not at all.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia said:
Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change. The goal of treatment, therefore, is to prevent someone from acting on pedophile urges — either by decreasing sexual arousal around children or increasing the ability to manage that arousal. But neither is as effective for reducing harm as preventing access to children, or providing close supervision.
Click to expand...

Estimates of recidivism vary because studies define this term in different ways. One review found recidivism rates of 10% to 50% among pedophiles previously convicted of sexual abuse, although this could include anything from an arrest for any offense to reconviction on a crime against a child. One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children.
Click to expand...
 
By Mope54;

Unless you really want to advocate murdering people for sending illicit photos to minors you really ought to tone down the rhetoric because it doesn't help anyone.
Click to expand...

Not murder Mope54, Capitol Punishment and they are not the same thing and it wouldn't be just for sending the photo, it's for the overt threat that he sent along with the photo.

The court also noted that the photo was delivered to the girl with a message: "'This is what we will do."
Click to expand...

Like I said, you change the law and I'll do the rest, no problems.
 
Emotions are good, just not in the hands of the one/s determining the punishment :) Otherwise you get sentiments like "lock him up for life and torture him and make him pay because I want him to suffer!" :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top