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?

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/

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.

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

Suppose that's one way of making cut and paste a criminal offense :1orglaugh

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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

that is sick

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