Pseudo Child ****Follow

If they hadn't been leaked, would there really be any harm done to the children? Probably not. There would be absolutely no difference between the guy fantasizing and fantasizing with an aid.

I'm perfectly aware that this leads to a conclusion that privacy only matters when the spied upon is aware of the violation, and well, perhaps that is true also. Is it immoral to take pictures of someone in a locker room, provided that there is a 100% guarantee of absolutely noone ever being the wiser? If it doesn't hurt you to be the object of someone's fantasy, then having your privacy violated without consent, provided that the information is permanently innert, would also not hurt you.

Though I'm not sure if I've truly appraised that well; I'm sort of in a rush.

Either way, even if it does turn out to be wrong to violate privacy, that's all you really have on the guy; you can't nail him for child pornography, but merely an invasion of privacy. An adult's privacy is just as valuable as a child's, and whatever penalty comes with that should be sufficient punnishment.

I suppose this makes a certain amount of sense, but you'd have to prove that harm could be done, and that it's in the best interests of society as a whole to prevent that harm (as with your nuclear weapon analogy, or counterfeiting money, which may be more apt).

Um, the law can only deal with people that get caught. Whether it is morally right or wrong is between you and your God. My argument is from a legal standpoint of people that get caught.

I haven't read all the replies, so if someone else allready mentioned it, sorry.

This isn't illegal.

1st amendment.

Not illegal.


Yes, absolutely. Using that argument you could say that taking pictures of kids in the locker room isn't harming them. Throw the sicko to the sharks

Ludicrously bad analogy.



I suppose a jury would have to make that call. My argument is more of a generality against digitally created pornography, It would have to be a case by case basis. While I feel digital images that the average person could mistake for real should be illegal,

I'm sure they are in Iran and the like. While we still tituraly have a Constitution, they're not in the US. Sorry, Charlie. The good news is that we're moving closer and closer to the totalitarian state you'd prefer, so there's that.




Long settled case law. He can probably sue and win to get his job back unless they charge him with something else.



Edited, Dec 27th 2007 5:27pm by Smasharoo

Messed up? Uhuh

Well, obviously. Allowing it to be made illegal, though, would validate similar laws outlawing simulated animal cruelty, shooting people in movies, etc. Believe it or not, children are not made of magic fairy dust that makes them a super special case where it should be illegal for people to even *imagine* situations where they might be harmed.

Off the cuff, I'd guess he violated some standards policy with the district which would validate his dismissal even if the kiddie **** charges don't stick.

Maybe. Seems rather unlikely they'd codify what he's accused of as against policy. I'd say it's not entirely unlikely he didn't even took the pictures. Something I'm curious about is what prompted the search here. None of the articles seem to mention what the probable cause or complaint was to show and up find things in his briefcase. If there's some *other actually illegal* activity that was being investigated, they'd be wise to pursue that, instead of sending 15 people to search his house for kiddie ****.

He has been suspended with pay

Public service rules.

Yet, you quote only mine! I feel kind of honored, does this go back to the muslim hell thing, or is it just because my worm is hanging out in my AV?

My analogy wasn't bad at all, neither activity hurts or affects the children in any way at the time it is done, yet, if either set of photos were released they could have the same devestating effects.

It's as if you live in a black and white world. Yes we have the freedom of speech, but in a society freedom is by design limited to the extent that it does not impinge upon others basic rights. Freedom without limitation is anarchy. This form of expression has the potential to cause significant emotional harm to these children. Protecting children is hardly totalitarianism.



Society is based on the culture of the people, laws are created to protect the values of the society. That's why I cant go to your house and stab you in the face for making stupid posts on the internet. In my eyes I might be doing the world a favor, and thus removing the potential for you to harm anyone further with your drivel, hell that might be the opinion of the entire forum, or even the entire internet, however, the majority of the society that both you and I live in feels that stabbing you in the face is a far more harmfull act than just allowing you to type whatever you please. It's the same reason I can't walk around the mall with no pants on. In my eyes I'm not doing anything wrong, hell, I'd probably be more comfortable.

We are bound by these laws not because you and I agree with them, but because the society that we live in and benefit from overwhelmingly does. It feels that the potential for harm from deliberatly or inadvertantly releasing child pornography far outweighs protecting the rights of those who wish to posess it. He will get a fair trial by his peers if the people decide to charge him, hell, the people will even pay for his attorney if he requires it, but in the end his fate will be decided by the law that the majority of the society he lives in feels is right.

It's a tough call in my opinion. I personally wouldn't call it child ****, since no child was involved in the pornographic part of the composite picture, but there has to be some other law that he can be convicted for. Like others have said, if those pictures were distributed, the children would be subject to possible problems in the future. I personally don't believe that every sexual fantasy is one that a person will carry out, hence the word fantasy.

A parallel situation comes to mind for me, the game Grand Theft Auto. Many people enjoy the game, but not many of them are hitmen or carjackers in real life, nor have any desire to be one. Some people do use it as an outlet for their criminal desires, but the game does not breed the desires itself. The man probably should not be allowed to work around children, because the temptation may be too great for him, and it could be a bad idea to risk it. Especially I do think that a full child **** conviction would be extreme in this case. He did have the pictures at work, so that's another no-no for sure, whether or not there were children in it. Yes he should go to jail. No he's not a real pedo.

As the pictures are described, as a young face on a mature body, how can one say that it is child pornography? Why not a legal aged girl with a younger looking face? Meh, I don't know. Just wondering what each lawyer's tactics are going to be, because that's all that really matters. A school principle doesn't have enough money for star quality defense.

It feels that the potential for harm from deliberatly or inadvertantly releasing child pornography far outweighs protecting the rights of those who wish to posess it.

Who gives a fuck what it *feels* like. It *felt* like black people were inferior and didn't deserve the same rights as white people. It *feels* like gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. It *feels* like trading liberty for security is a good idea. Basing decisions or laws on what things "feel" like has lead to more death and pain than any other human weakness. Feelings are easily, easily manipulated. Structure isn't. I don't think society benefits much from people being able to proclaim that other people are evil and will be punished in the afterlife for their sin. I think society would suffer immeasurably if they were sent to jail for saying or thinking such.

Thus I arrive at a common conclusion for me on this board. You're more than entitled to state your beliefs and opinions, they just happen to be mindbogglingly wrong and obviously so, to anyone with even a hint of critical thinking ability.

Smash, I have an honest question. Might you care to make explicit the distinction that you see between the teachers' actions and xythex's analogy to candid photos of locker room dwellers?

I can think of several but I'm not really satisfied with any of the answers with which I came up.

Adult bodies most likely refer to naked ones, which suggests pornography. Stick a kids head on it and you've got pornographic pictures of kids. Case pretty much closed I'ld say.

Ofcourse then you can start to hunt down a lot of fanfiction writers of for instance Harry Potter. Or close down a lot of hentai sites.

Here's an article about forensic psychologists.There isn't really anything out there that can actually conclusively prove a correlation, although the two quoted studies are even conflicting among themselves, one showing that child abusers use **** after the indulgence in their behavior, one saying it wasn't an issue at all. It's more of a gut feeling among people than a scientifically proven theory, much less fact.

Not really, no. You've got someone who pastes kid's heads on naked adult bodies. Looking at this critically, there is a reason the heads had to be transposed. The person looking at them wasn't getting off from the children's bodies. I would say this suggest something other or in addition to garden-variety pedophilia.

Edited, Dec 28th 2007 6:09am by Atomicflea