Child Porn or Not Child Porn, that is the question.

[shemp]

A Massachusetts man has been found guilty of nine counts of possession of child pornography. No, he didn't actually have any images of children engaging in sexual activity. No, he didn't expose children to sexual activity. He took pictures of children, cut the heads off their pictures and pasted them onto images the torsos of adults having sex.


Photographer guilty in child porn case

Manchester -- A Massachusetts man was found guilty yesterday of nine counts of possession of child pornography stemming from his more than 20-year association as a photographer for a youth camp in Amherst.

Marshal Zidel, 59, of Somerville, Mass., was convicted after a stipulated facts trial before Justice John M. Lewis in Hillsborough County Superior Court, North.

Each charge alleged Zidel "knowingly possessed a visual representation of a child engaged in sexual activity."

Zidel was a longtime photographer at Camp Young Judea in Amherst, where he took photos of campers and compiled them into yearbooks. He used those photos to create what he called his own "personal fantasy," according to a county attorney press release.

Zidel was accused of juxtaposing the heads and faces of campers onto images that depicted the youngsters engaging in sexual activity. Those images, saved on a CD ROM, were accidentally given to the camp's director, according to the press release.

My personal opinion of this conviction is that it is senseless. No children were harmed. No children were involved in sexual activity. No children were even photographed naked. I won't deny that this guy is a pervert, and I don't want him to be around children, but this seems to me to be stretching the law. I'd be interested to hear some other views on this.

 

[aerosolben]

My personal opinion of this conviction is that it is senseless. No children were harmed. No children were involved in sexual activity. No children were even photographed naked. I won't deny that this guy is a pervert, and I don't want him to be around children, but this seems to me to be stretching the law. I'd be interested to hear some other views on this.

I could see an argument (a weak one, probably) if he had distributed the pictures; assuming the only person who saw them before the arrest-causing incident was him, there appear to be no grounds for harm.

However, I don't know what the laws around child pornography are in Massachusetts (my general impression of CP laws is that they are more designed to expose pedophiles than protect children), so I don't know that I can say the conviction itself was inappropriate.

 

[Skeptic]

I think the point is that the complete images are child porn, regardless of how they were made, and therefore possessing them counts as possessing child porn.

 

[Cain]

You're right -- it's nonsense. Didn't the supreme court rule on this sort of "virtual" child pornography?

"Skeptic" writes:

I think the point is that the complete images are child porn, regardless of how they were made, and therefore possessing them counts as possessing child porn.

What matters, morally speaking, is how the images were created, not what the images depict. I think someone, maybe it was Shanek, brought up a case where a pornography website that distributed stories of childern in sexual situations got shut down.

Also, Shemp, I don't like your question. Does child porn necessarily involve actual children? I dont' think so. (Consider the case of drawings.) Ha- complex question fallacy.

 

[BPSCG]

Badly-worded question. I voted "Planet X" (and immediately got transported to the "Does Your Money Belong to You or the Government?" thread - admins, someone needs to check this), because it's a two-part question that can have two different answers.

Is it kiddie porn? Yes, by the statute's definition.
Should he go to prison? Not in my opinion, unless the state can show who he harmed by Photoshopping some pictures and burning them onto a CD for his own private use.

 

[brodski]

This issue came up in the UK regarding an art exhibition, and was satirized perfectly in the "BrassEye Paedophile special" (although in the real case the artist was not jailed, and the works where deemed to be obscene under the obscene publications act, not under child protection statutes).The satire consisted of a fake interviewer (Chris Morris) talking to a Senior police officer (who was not aware that the programme was a satire), during the interview Morris showed the officer a number of composite pictures, of children (or dolls) heads on adult or animal bodies in sexually explicit poses. During the interview Morris cut the heads out of these different "valuable works of art" and swapped the around, asking the horrified officer if the pictures where obscene in various different combinations, apparently some where, and other's weren’t. I fail to see how the combining of two perfectly legal images into one can be illegal. In the US are drawings of illegal acts illegal? How about written descriptions? I really fail to see the difference.

 

[Bikewer]

There has been a lot of discussion as well about the legality of so-called "virtual child porn". In this case, "enthusiasts" use a program like Poser to create child-porn images. Poser comes with juvenile figures, and of course, anyone familiar with computer graphics can manufacture their own, and even animate them.
It's also the case that there is a huge body of Japanese anime that has all sorts of sexual themes ranging from mild to extreme, and featuring characters that have the visual appearance of young teens. (with disclaimers to the effect that the "characters" portray individuals older than 18!)

 

[tkingdoll]

Don't forget, though, that the guy in this case was using photographs of real children and making them explicit - even though he was just using their heads, those children and their parents would, presumably, not want their image used this way.

I assume he was using the photographs he made to get sexual kicks? So, imagine (if it's not too icky for you) this guy pleasuring himself while looking at your child's face on Jenna Jameson's body. And imagine your child finding out about it. Not so OK now. It's a crime because there are still children involved.

 

[Beerina]

In the US are drawings of illegal acts illegal? How about written descriptions? I really fail to see the difference.

From what I recall, the current status is this:

- Writing, perfectly legal.

- Faked pictures, I thought were legal.

A few years back some fashion magazines and advertisements started posing 18 years olds, who looked younger, in sexually suggestive poses, so the government passed a law making this illegal.

Immediately along came the new Lolita movie, with (so I've heard, haven't seen it) sexual situations between the "girl" (actually played by an 18 year old) and the man. The federal government made a big stink about it.

Showtime (paid cable channel) ran a "No fear" campaign and broadcast the thing in its entirety. The government did absolutely nothing, knowing the Supreme Court would absolutely destroy them in a court case.

But as far as I know, the law is still on the books.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

I have no problem with locking up pedophiles for the crime of being a pedophile. There is no proof of a victim but they often get away with it for decades before a victim grows up and finds the courage to speak out.

If we discover attack plans on a terrorists computer is that enough for a conviction? He can claim its just fantasy after all.

 

[aerosolben]

I assume he was using the photographs he made to get sexual kicks? So, imagine (if it's not too icky for you) this guy pleasuring himself while looking at your child's face on Jenna Jameson's body. And imagine your child finding out about it. Not so OK now. It's a crime because there are still children involved.

What if he was using the unaltered photos for sexual gratification? This fits in pretty well with your above justification (I made a small alteration so it fits perfectly) - still child porn?

 

[tkingdoll]

What if he was using the unaltered photos for sexual gratification? This fits in pretty well with your above justification (I made a small alteration so it fits perfectly) - still child porn?

I would say not, as the content of the photographs would not be sexually explicit. The point of sexually explicit images is to arouse, and no other, so to put children's heads on them is to clearly make sexually arousing pictures of children.

What it comes down to is that he put porn and children together. That's a no no. If he gets himself off looking at non-pornographic pictures of kids, dogs, hats, whatever, I would guess that there's nothing the law could do. I don't believe it's illegal to own non-pornographic images of children regardless of what you do with them.

Your example is in no way similar to mine, because it does not contain ANY pornographic elements, and that is the crux of this matter. Anything else is just photos - regardless of what they are used for.

 

[aerocontrols]

You're right -- it's nonsense. Didn't the supreme court rule on this sort of "virtual" child pornography?

The SC ruled on virtual child pornography, but not of this sort. As I recall, part of their reasoning in permitting virtual pornography is that no actual children were involved.

No doubt the judge in this case thinks that the inclusion of actual children means that the Court has not ruled on this question.

 

[toddjh]

I have no problem with locking up pedophiles for the crime of being a pedophile. There is no proof of a victim but they often get away with it for decades before a victim grows up and finds the courage to speak out.

So it's okay to lock somebody up for what he likes, even if there is no evidence that a crime against another person has ever been, or will ever be, committed?

People really need to start learning the distinction between a pedophile and a child molester. Most pedophiles know it is wrong and don't act on their feelings, the same way that a person who fantasizes about killing the guy who cut him off in traffic somehow manages to restrain himself.

Pedophilia is a mental illness, and a yucky one, but is it, in the absence of any intent to harm another, deserving of imprisonment? Most people fantasize about illegal or unethical behavior, at least occasionally. Do you have any evidence that pedophiles are more likely to act upon their twisted fantasies than you or me?

 

[aerosolben]

I would say not, as the content of the photographs would not be sexually explicit. The point of sexually explicit images is to arouse, and no other, so to put children's heads on them is to clearly make sexually arousing pictures of children.

What it comes down to is that he put porn and children together. That's a no no. If he gets himself off looking at non-pornographic pictures of kids, dogs, hats, whatever, I would guess that there's nothing the law could do. I don't believe it's illegal to own non-pornographic images of children regardless of what you do with them.

Your example is in no way similar to mine, because it does not contain ANY pornographic elements, and that is the crux of this matter. Anything else is just photos - regardless of what they are used for.

Fair enough.

 

[tkingdoll]

So it's okay to lock somebody up for what he likes, even if there is no evidence that a crime against another person has ever been, or will ever be, committed?

People really need to start learning the distinction between a pedophile and a child molester. Most pedophiles know it is wrong and don't act on their feelings, the same way that a person who fantasizes about killing the guy who cut him off in traffic somehow manages to restrain himself.

Pedophilia is a mental illness, and a yucky one, but is it, in the absence of any intent to harm another, deserving of imprisonment? Most people fantasize about illegal or unethical behavior, at least occasionally. Do you have any evidence that pedophiles are more likely to act upon their twisted fantasies than you or me?

I agree, you cannot lock someone up simply because they find something sexually arousing that most of society do not. The crime is in acting on that attraction, not having it.

'Thought' crimes? Ugh.

 

[ChristineR]

I thought we'd been through this in the U.S. and the Supremes declared it legal.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

Planning terrorist attacks harms nobody. Do we have to wait for victims before acting on anything?

 

[tkingdoll]

Planning terrorist attacks harms nobody. Do we have to wait for victims before acting on anything?

Ha ha! That's hilarious. Planning a terrorist attack is like fantasising about a child?

Riiight.

Planning is not thinking. You can think about a terrorist attack all you like, you certainly shouldn't be arrested for it. If you go out and buy 200lbs of explosive, a map of the White House with 'president sits here' marked in red, and a fake security badge, then you should.

I think about asassinating Bush often. Should I be locked up?

 

[BryanLower]

So it's okay to lock somebody up for what he likes, even if there is no evidence that a crime against another person has ever been, or will ever be, committed?

People really need to start learning the distinction between a pedophile and a child molester. Most pedophiles know it is wrong and don't act on their feelings, the same way that a person who fantasizes about killing the guy who cut him off in traffic somehow manages to restrain himself.

Pedophilia is a mental illness, and a yucky one, but is it, in the absence of any intent to harm another, deserving of imprisonment? Most people fantasize about illegal or unethical behavior, at least occasionally. Do you have any evidence that pedophiles are more likely to act upon their twisted fantasies than you or me?

But putting children and porn together is a way of "acting on it". Other posts on this thread illustrate how children could be harmed by it. So it fits all the criteria of child porn, so it is a crime.

It is not a "thought crime". They are not punishing him for thinking about creating child porn. Nor are they punishing him for having sexual thoughts about children. They're punishing him for creating the photos. That's an act, not a thought.