Is this really considered child porn? (NEWS link) - GoFuckYourself.com

DatingGold · 06-02-2006, 11:06 PM

Ok I know the guy is sick and demented. But they are saying that cutting and pasting a kids head onto a nake body is called child pornography.

I think that is a little far fetched.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/kcra/20060602/lo_kcra/9312684

what do you think?

fallenmuffin · 06-02-2006, 11:08 PM

Yup, any images protraying a minor in sexual conduct..

darnit · 06-02-2006, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallenmuffin

Yup, any images protraying a minor in sexual conduct..

Sorry, but you are wrong in this case. "Virtual" child porn is legal - morally reprehensible, but legal. It appears from the limited info in the article that this is what the suspect created.

Read about the recent supreme court decision addressing that exact issue below.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/...al.child.porn/

sweetmedialogan · 06-03-2006, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darnit

Sorry, but you are wrong in this case. "Virtual" child porn is legal - morally reprehensible, but legal. It appears from the limited info in the article that this is what the suspect created.

Read about the recent supreme court decision addressing that exact issue below.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/...al.child.porn/

True. Congress keeps passing stupid laws with such broad descriptions that define 90% of pornography as child porn that the courts have to declare then unconstitutional.

Webby · 06-03-2006, 02:10 AM

Quote:

"While Luke did not take actual pictures of children, he used a computer to cut and paste pictures of identifiable children onto pornographic images," Detective Joe Mendonza said in a prepared statement.

Fucking weirdo either way, but the law seems equally weirdo.

Suppose that's one way of making cut and paste a criminal offense

Damian_Maxcash · 06-03-2006, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darnit

Sorry, but you are wrong in this case. "Virtual" child porn is legal - morally reprehensible, but legal. It appears from the limited info in the article that this is what the suspect created.

Read about the recent supreme court decision addressing that exact issue below.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/...al.child.porn/

The 'virtual' child porn thing is just a mess.

There was a thread here about the Simpon's cartoons - Picture this

"Bart giving Lisa oral sex"

If you see a slightly amusing toon in bad taste then fine - if you see child porn then I think you need to have a good look at yourself and seek help.

stev0 · 06-03-2006, 10:21 AM

Thats fucked up, think about every fake celeb site that was featuring the olsen twins a few years back. The guy may be a little twisted, but charging him with cp charges would be like prosecuting a guy that drew a picture of himself killing someone for murder.

MrKinkade · 06-03-2006, 11:32 AM

its not the tits or ass or cootch or legs that A guy who watches porn looks at first its the face and then the tits or ass or cootch... so if you put a childs face on anything pornographic then yes it becomes chiild porn because the person is fantacizing about the kid and wishes it was like that.... thats fucking vile... t also depends there are some place like walgren that have to notify police if theres a baby or kids in the tub and you take thier picture....

either way thats fucked up!!

teg0 · 06-03-2006, 11:41 AM

I dunno... the idea of an "illegal photoshop" is dumb to me. There isn't a victim in what he is doing. Its an alternative to him breaking the law with taking actual photos or finding actual photos. The same thing goes with 3D modeling of children. Sure its fucked up, but i'd go as far as saying its their equivalent to a nicotine patch. Whatever keeps them from actually exploiting children.

DatingGold · 06-03-2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darnit

Sorry, but you are wrong in this case. "Virtual" child porn is legal - morally reprehensible, but legal. It appears from the limited info in the article that this is what the suspect created.

Read about the recent supreme court decision addressing that exact issue below.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/...al.child.porn/

I don't think it would hold up unless he has a real shitty lawyer.

ffmihai · 06-03-2006, 11:53 AM

that is sick

madawgz · 06-03-2006, 12:37 PM

thats one reallllllly fucked up guy, but i dont think thats illegal

06-02-2006, 11:06 PM	#1
DatingGold $6 PER EMAIL JOiN Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 13,185	Is this really considered child porn? (NEWS link) Ok I know the guy is sick and demented. But they are saying that cutting and pasting a kids head onto a nake body is called child pornography. I think that is a little far fetched. http://news.yahoo.com/s/kcra/20060602/lo_kcra/9312684 what do you think? __________________ 9 Years of SOLID payouts and conversions! ADULT DATING - $100 PPS LIVE CAMS - $214 PPS WWW.DATINGGOLD.COM ICQ: 27442303

06-03-2006, 11:32 AM	#8
MrKinkade Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 619	its not the tits or ass or cootch or legs that A guy who watches porn looks at first its the face and then the tits or ass or cootch... so if you put a childs face on anything pornographic then yes it becomes chiild porn because the person is fantacizing about the kid and wishes it was like that.... thats fucking vile... t also depends there are some place like walgren that have to notify police if theres a baby or kids in the tub and you take thier picture.... either way thats fucked up!! __________________ wanna join the best swingers club in Cincinnati go to http://www.club440online.com

06-03-2006, 11:53 AM	#11
ffmihai keep walking... Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 7,177	that is sick __________________

06-03-2006, 12:37 PM	#12
madawgz 8.8.8.8 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Noordermarkt Posts: 30,509	thats one reallllllly fucked up guy, but i dont think thats illegal __________________ TAEMDLRMSKRJIXMRLSMRJ.

06-02-2006, 11:08 PM	#2
fallenmuffin Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 8,170	Yup, any images protraying a minor in sexual conduct..

06-03-2006, 10:21 AM	#7
stev0 Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta Posts: 6,801	Thats fucked up, think about every fake celeb site that was featuring the olsen twins a few years back. The guy may be a little twisted, but charging him with cp charges would be like prosecuting a guy that drew a picture of himself killing someone for murder.

06-03-2006, 11:41 AM	#9
teg0 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Gringo in Puerto Rico Posts: 4,204	I dunno... the idea of an "illegal photoshop" is dumb to me. There isn't a victim in what he is doing. Its an alternative to him breaking the law with taking actual photos or finding actual photos. The same thing goes with 3D modeling of children. Sure its fucked up, but i'd go as far as saying its their equivalent to a nicotine patch. Whatever keeps them from actually exploiting children.