"Child Pornographer(?)" convicted in NH - WTF?

[thefool_wa]

OK, I hate child pornographers. There is nothing more vile than someone who defiles the innocence and destroys the psyche of a child for their own perverted pleasure. That being said, check out this article from New Hampshire:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/8905676/detail.html

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- A 59-year-old Massachusetts man who worked as a photographer at a New Hampshire summer camp has been convicted on nine counts of child pornography.

Authorities say Marshal Zidel, of Somerville, Mass., used benign photos of children he took at Camp Young Judea in Amherst and superimposed the heads and faces on pornographic photographs.

Officials say the images were saved on a CD that Zidel accidentally gave to the camp director. He had worked at the camp for over 20 years. Zidel was convicted Friday in Hillsborough County Superior Court and remains free on bail pending sentencing.

I think I need the help of my fellow DU'ers to understand this. I know the article is brief, but it sounds like this guy 1) Never abused a child, 2)Never took a naked picture of a child, and 3)Never attempted to do either of the two former actions.

This raises the question, why is what he did a crime? Sure, its a little (ok, alot) on the weird side, but it sounds like he was possibly trying to stifle his perverted urges without harming children. He probably could use therapy and should have lost his job, but a child porn conviction? Don't you have to actually take/possess pictures of naked children for that?

I never thought I would see the day when someone is put away for "Illegal use of Photoshop to avoid committing a crime". If anyone has further information about this please sounds off. I never thought I would find myself hoping someone is actually a child pornographer, but the alternative in this case is potentially scarier.

They really are trying to build a prison...

[readmoreoften]

1. here's my question

did he superimpose the heads over adult pornography or child pornography? If it's adult pornography, then it's questionable. If it's child pornography, then he's in possession of child pornography.

[thefool_wa]

10. It didn't say

But it stands to reason that, since the trial itself is public record, that fact would not have escaped a modern reporter's opportunity to "sin-up" his article. It was the first question we both asked so surly it was his as well, and I'm certain the lack of its mention means no, it was regular porn.

I'm conflicted here though. Part of me says that this type of behavior would have eventually led to an attack, so this law kinda did its job. Perhaps the "accidental" nature of the discovery was actually what they call in therapy a "cry for help". Yet I can't help but shudder at the implications of a victim-less fiction being illegal, regardless of is motivations. Its the first step toward thought police.

[Cronus Protagonist]

76. Either way, is it a crime to simply BE a sociopath, or must one act on it?

If it is, half our government needs to be arrested tout d'suite. The other half must already be in jail, if it's a crime to simply "be" a certain type of personality.



Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[valerief]

2. I want to know how he accidentally gave it to the camp director.

I think the crime was that he owned the child porn to begin with. How he Photoshopped it probably isn't.

[thefool_wa]

11. I have a theory

I'm thinking this guy was on his way towards hurting one of these kids and it was a cry for help.

They didn't say if the original porn was child porn, so I'm thinking it probably wasn't or they would have said so.

Scary ground with some heavy conflicting emotions.

[LostinVA]

26. Pedophiles don't give "cries for help"

They are sociopaths.

Drug addicts give cries for help. Moms at the end of their rope who are ready to snap give cries for help. Men who are depressed about losing their jobs and are getting desperate give cries for help.

This guy is sick, whether or not many think he technically broke the law or not.

However, he created child porn, since he was using images of minors in sexual photos, regardless of the age of the body the face was superimposed on.

[JHB]

29. So if it was a "cry for help" then by definition...

...he isn't a pedophile?

I'm not trying to be cute or to excuse people who attack children.
I do, however, get awfully uneasy about sweeping generalizations (i.e., all pedophiles never "cry for help"?) and loose terminology (the automatic equating of "pedophile" with "child molester", especially in an age when "pedophile" also gets tossed around regarding issues involving teenagers or even people in their 20s(and older!)). Because it's thanks to such sweeping generalizations and loose terminology that people who do not injure nor threaten to injure anyone else can wind up receiving punishments that were intended for those who DO.

[thefool_wa]

30. Thank you! n/t

[LostinVA]

49. You really don't get this

[LostinVA]

48. You need to read up on sociopaths

All pedophiles are sociopath, sociopaths do not give cries for help because they have no conscience. They cannot eb thread. Some sweeping generalization are correct.

I didn't say child molester, I said pedophile. I'm not interchanging this. Guys who get off on pron images of little kids are pedophiles. Did I say teenagers? Did I say young adults? I am talking about kids.

Way too many people not seeing the severity of this. Seriously, and I mean this sincerely -- you need to talk to a legit child crime investigator or psychiatrist. It's like being a "p
there is no way I will ever agree with you on this. This is truly deviant behavior. I'm gay, and "deviant" is not a word I throw around loosely, as you put it.

I'm hiding this damn thread. It's as bad as some posters on the Duke threads saying rape is okay in some situations. They are some things you cannot compromise on. And protecting a community's children should be one of them.

[_testify_]

51. But doesn't the fact that many child murderers

attempt to hide the body or the evidence of the crime? That indicates they knew they were doing something wrong and therefore they DO have a conscience. They just ignore it.

[Marie26]

62. or, maybe, are trying to avoid being caught. nt

[LostinVA]

69. Bingo -- I answered below

You know that society perceives it as being wrong.

[LostinVA]

68. That just means you know what you're doing is wrong

That society sees it as wrong. That shows you're not insane, not a sociopath. Sociopaths are either organized or disorganized. Ted Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy, Boston Strangler, etc. all were sociopaths, and all hide what they did. That's not what "having no conscience" means.

[mrcheerful]

52. Thats just it YOU CAN'T PROTECT kids with laws

You can only protect by knowing where they are at, knowing what they are doing and who they are doing it with. The responsilbility is yours, not mine, not your neighbors and not the government. And to be honest your kids are at greater risks then being picked up off the street by some perv. How many kids end up strung out on drugs selling their bodies for the next hit? How many kids are willing to trade sex for a 12 pack of beer for crying out loud? Sure theres laws but until the crime happens and the perp is caught that law does nothing. Laws are for after the fact, what your calling for are laws before any crime is committed based on emotions. Today your kid has a greater risk of being shot and killed or hit and killed by a drunk or a bad driver then they are of a stranger doing anything to them. Yet wheres your fears based at? Sure bad things happen in the world. But thats life you can't live without risks and you can't take the risk out of life.

[nickinSTL]

86. I don't think that's true...

I know a therapist who works with sex offenders.

According to her, there are 2 kinds of pedophiles.

One type is the type you are talking about. No remorse, no empathy with the victim, and according to her, cannot be rehabilitated.

The other type over-identifies with children. Cares about them, and empathizes with them. They can be rehabilitated, and it's likely this guy was this second type, who, yes, might give a cry for help to avoid hurting a child.

[Marie26]

61. Doubtful.

He's probably just a pedophile & stupid to boot. The combination is surprisingly common.

[Occulus]

16. The article doesn't say that

What is does say is that the images of the children were themselves benign and the heads were pasted onto "pornographic photos".

Given the current absolute hysteria aurrounding this issue right now, the article most surely would have explicitly stated that there was other child pornography present. As it currently reads, that is not the case.

Once again, no children were actually harmed if the facts are as they are stated in the article, and once again, someone is going to jail over something that didn't actually harm anyone.

I'm getting sick of this shit.

[thefool_wa]

19. I am totally with you

this law scares the shit out of me. My instincts say that they probably got lucky with this guy, but this type of thing needs to go away.

Unfortunately, if my instincts are right, this just helps make the case for those who would support laws of this nature.

[elehhhhna]

39. So if he photshops your kids head on a porno pic and sends it

out on the internets, it causes no harm to your child? HELLO?

[mrcheerful]

45. Yeah and its also documented on how kids are photo shopping pics of

them selves so they can look older in chat rooms. Kids lie about their age to get into adult chats all the time and some will down load some pic they think as sexy and put their face on them. Or how about the boy that has a crush on your daughter and puts her face on nude pics? Or how about the kids out there that do it as a bad joke on someone their mad at? You live in a fantasy world if you don't realize that stuff like that doesn't happen.

[LostinVA]

47. Who the hell lives in the fantasy world?

I'd say you do, if you're defending this guy for doing this.

You're talking about minors doing stuff to other minors, or adults to other adults. Apples and oranges and you KNOW that. Having an adult do it to a minor id totally difefrent... and I'm not talking about a 16-year-old and a 19-year-old. I mean a situation like this.

[mrcheerful]

54. Wrong again when you make laws to protect everyone is included in said law

Thats the nature of the beast law is law without exceptions. Which means that sooner or later it comes back and bites you or the ones your trying to protect. Did you know that a mother was charged with contributing to a minor because she gave her 14 year old son a condom? Sure she beat the rap in court but she also had to mortgage her house to pay for lawyers and lost the house because she lost her job having to go to court. Laws don't prevent a thing, death penalties for murder didn't stop murder in fact the states with the DP have the highest murder rates.

[LostinVA]

50. Not according to a bunch of posters, nope

We're just uptight people making sweeping generalizations who are into thought crimes and the McMartin Trial.

[progressivebydesign]

80. He had ACCESS to the kids he turned into PORN.. that's the point!

It's not that he cut photos out of a magazine and made them into porn.. he took photos of actual children that HE MET, the he worked around, and used them for sexual gratification. You excusers want to tell me that this man should walk free amongst children, working at summer camps?? Geez.. are there any PARENTS out there anymore? Or just a bunch of pedophile enablers on DU?

[TomInTib]

3. The most recent federal child porn laws address this specifically

re: manipulated images.

He's pretty forked.

[PublicWrath]

4. you might find last night's thread on a similar subject interesting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1001317

[Mythsaje]

5. Last night

there was a thread about cartoons depicting sex acts between apparent children and with adults and/or aliens. I argued against this being a crime. Some of it may be sick, but not criminal.

On the other hand, photos of real children used in this manner is both sick AND degrading and not the same thing at all.

[rickrok66]

6. The original COPA

The original Child Online Protection Act was ruled unconsitutional for similar reasons. For example, taking photographs and possessing photographs of children commiting sexual acts was illegal; however, written stories and art were not. I think the manipulations would be a shady area.

Some stuff online is getting that way. A lot of guys are making porn out of the Sims characters - I don't get it.

The argument was that books like Lolita would be considered child pornography as well as paintings of naked cupids from the Renaissance era.

Who knows what has happened in the last few years?

[PublicWrath]

7. Yes, I was thinking about "Lolita" during last night's discussion of

whether cartoons can be considered "child pornography". There was a sub-discussion on whether such an interpretation of the laws could lead to the virtual banning of the study of pedophilia, since such research naturally relies on data about child molesting.

[thefool_wa]

15. that sounds about right

it's not like our society, nay our entire race, doesn't have a long and distinguished history of convincing itself that the solution is to pretend a problem doesn't exist and lock-up, beat, or kill anyone even accused or suspected to be participating in it.

"You want to research it? Why are you even thinking about it!? Seize him!" - its always been the same.

[Catrina]

17. So would Libby's novel which featured bears and children in cages

Yet, all the reviews on his book were more than complimentary ~ and from reputable reviewers. I wondered if they even read the book, or just gave it a good rating because they were told to??

I haven't read the whole article, but from the comments it seems the guy is pretty sick, but was convicted of a thought crime, rather than an actual crime?

Now, I'll go read the article ~ should have done that first, I guess.

[mrcheerful]

8. Excuse me but I remember back when these anti child porn laws started that

people were being arrested for taking nude photos of their naked children on bear skin rugs, a throw back to the 50's ahhhhhhhhh ain't he cute thing. While most were thrown out of court, many were not, it depended on the state one lived in. Just like that day care center in the north east that made all the head lines in the early 1990's, even though since then its been proved that no child had been abused, they showed that the investigators lead the kids on, would reward them when they said something the investigators wanted to hear and they pretty much badgered the kids until the kids started telling them what they wanted to hear. The one guy who got life is still behind bars and the rest are registered sex offenders. From what I been able to find out about child protection act is once your convicted the state will not let you off the hook, even if said child later recants his/her story after the conviction. Also guilty beyond a reasonable doubt goes right out the window when it comes to these crimes. Most states have a its not what the perp intentions were but how the victim felt about the crime that decides guilt or innocence.

[thefool_wa]

9. This is truly scary ground to tread n/t

[readmoreoften]

21. The McMarten Daycare Case

The people were totally innocent. A crazy psychologist brainwashed all the preschoolers into thinking they were sexually abused. There was no physical evidence. Kids were saying that they molested them, then tried to feed them to sharks, and made them fly on purple balloons to lands where dinosaurs lived. Stuff like that. After a horrific case, they were all exonerated (even the son).

For this reason, I don't step near children. So many good folks are afraid of being around children these days, I truly believe that it's leaving tons of job openings for complete pedophile freaks.

[mrcheerful]

24. The last I heard about it was a PBS documentry and the son was still

locked down and the rest were on the states sex offenders list. The show aired 2 years ago. And like you I stay away from interacting with my step sons friends, after his bio father called CPS on me and the boys mother. He was mad because my mate wouldn't sleep with him, he wanted to tell her who she could date, give him a key to our apartment and expected me to sleep on the couch when he made visits with his sons mom. Even though we were cleared by CPS, nothing was said or done about the false filing. If thats how they deal with molesting cases well I can see why theres so many men in prison on those charges. What saved me was the boy told the CPS workers that I was a good father and did things for him that his bio wouldn't. Made me open my eyes, as CPS told my mayr I would have to leave the house before they talked to the kid. That was what the bio was trying to do was force me away.

[LostinVA]

27. Ray McMartin got of prison well over a decade ago

None of the people are on sex offender's lists.

[Gormy Cuss]

36. Clarification. The McMartin case was CA, not the Northeast

McMartin was the case that started the national focus on daycare centers.
I believe the biggest one in the Northeast was Fells Acres Daycare where three members of the same family were jailed (Mother, daughter, son.)

[mrcheerful]

40. Yep thats the one. I also remember the McMartin case, he was odd looking

and was convicted because of how he looked. Later when his conviction was over turned he swore off being a good Samaritan as far as kids where involved.

[Occulus]

12. Convicted for a PHOTOSHOP JOB?

Really?

Seriously.

What. The. FUCK.

This is probably the most insane thing I've seen yet to emerge from this hysteria- and it honesly has become hysteria, in obviously a very dangerous way.

How close are we to people going to jail for making threats to * because of their photoshop cut 'n paste operations?

Swampy- are you aware of this?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

13. Putting real childrens faces on porn bodies

is still child porn imo.

While not as hurtful as traditional child porn, it still harms the child, although in a less direct role.

Think about it. Would you want YOUR face on porn being distributed? How about the face of your children?

Lock'm up as far as Im concerned.

[thefool_wa]

18. I would not want mine or my child's

But it is a civil matter, not a criminal offense. As long as the sick bastard never touched my child, what he does in his bedroom is his concern. If the images ever saw the light of day I would sue his ass and make sure he never had a computer to make his twisted images again.

But you have to consider that up to age 17 is still a child for this offense. How many teenagers do you think there are in this country who have taken their girlfriends face and photoshoped it onto downloaded porn? Probably 90% and the other 10% are slapping their foreheads as they read this in dismay at their lack of vision. There is no way I would consider that a criminal offense, just boys being boys.

This guy, he's probably who the law is there to get, but for every one of him a hundred who would never harm a soul could end up branded a sex offender for their entire lives. Its not worth it.

[LostinVA]

28. I agree -- he created child pornography

I don't understand everyone giving him a pass for this.

I am totally not anti-porn, but I am 100% anti child pron. This is not like the McMartin trial (wtf???) or taking photos of your child naked. This is a guy taking strangers' kids' faces and making these child into pornography objects for pedophiles. Period. This isn't watching two grown-ups boink each other a million different ways, or Hustler. This is illegal.

And, being against this dude doing this doesn't make any of us "uptight" or "puritanical" or "anti=porn." And, I don't have kids. I don't have to to know this is way wrong.

[thefool_wa]

32. The question is

Who really did he hurt? Thought is not crime, action is. He took no overt action and, as I said before, I think he felt he might be becoming one and cried out to stop it. This was not the answer to that cry.

I think there are definite civil grounds for reparations here, but what a person does by themselves in their bedrooms that causes no harm to anyone else is their own business. No one was harmed here except the guy who is going to jail for having a deviant thought and trying to vent it without causing harm to anyone.

I go back to the 17yr old who pastes his girlfriend's face on downloaded porn. Appropriate? Probably not. Does it happen? Oh yes it does. Is it criminal? Hell no.

We all have deviant thoughts and feelings, some more than others, and the vast majority of us know where to draw the line between what we can think and what we can do. This comes dangerously close to that line, but I don't think it in any way crosses it.

[mondo joe]

43. I agree. If you photoshop Bush doing something illegal or

pornographic or being hutr in some way, have you actually harmed him?

I don't think so.

[Ignis]

53. A great analogy, joe! (nt)

[Cronus Protagonist]

75. OMFG I AM SO IN TROUBLE!! THIS IS HUGH!!

Since Bush is clearly underage...

[LostinVA]

46. Who did it hurt??? It hurt the children he did this to

He used their images to create child pron. Child porn he probably masturbated to, child porn he may have shared with others.

This is not like a 17-year-old analogy , and you know that! This is an adult doing it to CHILDREN.

Defending someone making a stranger's child into a pornographic image is just so very strange to me. This isn't any kind of "slippery slope." Trust me, I'm gay, I know all about the RWers "slippery slope" arguments. This is about protecting children from victimization.

HE IS NOT CRYING OUT. Pedophiles are sociopaths. They do not react to therapy.

Thought isn't a crime, but he did more than think about fucking little kids -- he created images from REAL photographs of REAL kids. That isn't a thought, that is a sick action, and a criminal one. This completely crossed the line, there's no way to say he didn't.

Sorry. I make no excuses for child pornographers nor the people who enjoy it.

[mondo joe]

63. In what way was the child hurt?

It's disgusting and offensive, certainly, but in what was was the child hurt?

If he drew a picture of the child and masturbated would the child be hurt?

What if he closed his eyes and just imagined the child?

[progressivebydesign]

82. and he was around these kids for his work. they were not anonymous.

that's what people here aren't getting. These were not anonymous images, these are kids that knew him, that he worked around as a photographer, and kids he could access to, easily. I'm glad he's arrested and will hopefully have to stay away from children forever. He's a pedophile in training..

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. I agree. It is inappropriate to put kids' faces on pictures that are

of a sexual nature, and I would blow a gasket if someone ever did that to my little guys.

[Marie26]

70. Let's not forget

He also photoshopped his own face into those photos. Ewwww. I can understand the concern over something as abstract as a cartoon, but this person was using images of real children to create real pornography. Lock 'em up.

[LisaL]

14. How would you like your kid's head end up on a pornographic

image? He sounds like a sicko.
He was fighting it? WTF did he work taking pictures of children then?

[marions ghost]

20. dunno

this is tough. I wonder what a psychologist would say about the need to "personalize" his porn with pix of children that he knew. It strikes me as crossing a line that might lead to acting out. I would not say he "possibly could use therapy"--I would say he needs a lot of it.

[thefool_wa]

35. I meant probably in a legal sense

Therapy is definitely in order, I only question the right of the law to impose it in this case.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. What if you put cartoon character heads on porno bodies?

How about porno heads on members of the Bush Administration?

Animal heads on Mount Rushmore?

Traffic signs (Yield, Stop) on the heads of members of the Bee Gees?

Help me out. Just how much prison time are we talking about?


I'm not sayin' I've done any of these things, no siree...

I'm just.. wondering.

[shanti]

23. a question for you

would you like a photo of your OWN child superimposed on a pornographic image?

case closed.

[mrcheerful]

25. How do you know that there aren't any out there already?

What are you planning on doing? Ban all cameras and video recorders from public places? Or how about school pictures? You willing to ban pictures of kids being taken at school? How about we just ban all cameras of all types so no images are around? Thats where your thinking is headed. You can't stop people from doing what they are going to do and to try ends up in freedom loss for all not just a few.

[thefool_wa]

34. preach on brother.... n/t

[thefool_wa]

33. I have answered that... n/t

[mondo joe]

41. Whether you'd like it or not is not material.

Whether it is (or should be) criminal is.

[patcox2]

37. The fed law makes fantasizing illegal.

It is equally illegal to draw a cartoon of a minor engaged in sex. There have been several prosecutions for keeping a diary in which sexual fantasies are recorded.

Making film with an adult who looks like a minor, with the intent that the viewers think its a minor, also violates the law.

It truly does make fanatasies illegal. Thought crimes.

Great idea, thought crimes.

[MoonRiver]

38. He's a child pornographer to me.

He created the photos, even if they were photoshopped. Plus, what a violation of those children whose heads he superimposed! I say throw the book at him, and I hope the parents of those kids sue his sick arse off.
:puke:

[Coexist]

44. I agree - this is a person with tendancies towards pedophilia

and if he hasn't acted on them yet, he probably will soon.

Healthy sexual adults don't photoshop children's heads onto naked pictures. Maybe this is the new pedophile's way of posessing child pornography to get around the law.

If I caught my husband doing it - I would NOT feel that the children were safe around him, and that is a man I love.

[Cronus Protagonist]

77. I say we need to ask him what else he was dreaming of...

Maybe there's more indictable offenses that he imagined as well. After all, why stop at just the smutty pics, right? He's probably a terrorist as well. That would make sense.

:sarcasm:

Nasty and abhorrent though these images must have been, the thought is what is being punished here, not the action. It's the thought that's repugnant. The pics are just pixels on a screen arranged in a way that helps the thought processes since none of the events depicted actually happened anywhere in realspace. This is a dangerous precedent to set.

Thoughtcrimes in the land of the free. If this is how it is going to be, I think we need a new motto for the USA....

Welcome to America. Don't even think about it.



Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[progressivebydesign]

79. especially using photos of children he worked with.. that's sick.

And.. you wonder.. if they searched the camp where he worked, if they'd find hidden cameras, or if he's been a little too close to the campers. He's a pornographer. I'd hate to think what a parent might do if they found a photo of their child's face on a naked porno image.. Just add to that the man had ACCESS to the children in the photos, as they return year after year to the same camp.

[mondo joe]

42. Emotionalism gone wild, trampling over legal principles.

Laws against child poprnography should be there to protect children from harm.

This does not meet that definition.

[MsUnderstood]

55. so you are okay that he may have used children's faces

to satisfy his sexual needs?

That is what the photoshop pictures mean to me...he took photos of kids, put their images on naked bodies and then used those images for sexual gratification...or to sell...or whatever he did.

The fact is he took photos of children then exploited those photos.

I would NOT be okay with someone taking photos of my daughter fully clothed then putting her picture on a naked person--anyone else with me?

[mrcheerful]

56. Nobodies saying it was right, what most of us are worried about is where

this will lead. Today photo shops of kids tomorrow prison terms for photo shopping GW? Thats what happens with these types of laws. Take the Meagan law for example, its intent was to keep an eye on truely dangerous sexual predators. What do most states do? They put everyone convicted of a sex crime on the list, from public exposer to prostitution, then to confuse it even more they use criminal code to describe the persons crime so you haven't a clue on what the person did. Why did the states do this? For the simple reason that a dangerous sexual predator is at par with a serial killer, very few are actual predators. Theres only a handful nation wide each year and only 1 or 2 that make it in the national headlines. Case in point how often do you see amber alerts?

[marions ghost]

57. I'm with you

Using actual photos of children he knows --crosses a line that puts this squarely in legal territory. One can argue that he should not be punished so much as helped...but I really don't understand the argument that this does not fall into the legal realm of creation of child porn (like you say, and then were they distributed?) Seems like those who would argue against this view of it are arguing on a very thin technicality IMO.

I am a big supporter of Freedom of Expression. I thought it was ridiculous when they censored the Robert Mapplethorp photos for example. And there's a lot of other porn and depictions that I say have the right to exist (even if I find them offensive).

But you can't be so willing to look the other way when the subject is children, or when people's identities or photos are used without their permission. You cannot allow actual exploitation. There is too much of it going on.

[mrcheerful]

58. Thats just it, the news never said he was passing them out, he accidentally

gave a cd to his boss. People are assuming that he was selling them or giving them out on the net, but the article never said that. In another words, if he would have double checked the cd before turning it over to the boss then this thread wouldn't be here.

[marions ghost]

59. well but since they did get seen accidentally

you can't just ignore it. Who knows if he distributed them? Nobody knows. To me they indicate an interest in these particular children that he works with. That's even more dangerous to me. Maybe the laws can be more refined on this, but basically he was creating child porn with images of children he knows. Are you trying to argue this isn't twisted behavior? If some guy was entertaining himself by photoshopping your head onto pix of naked bodies in sexual positions, how would you feel about it? You gotta realize there are some people who have a big problem with 'boundaries' out there.

[progressivebydesign]

81. you stated it perfectly. he WORKED with these actual children.

I have a feeling he was into way more than cutting a pasting.. that man should NEVER EVER be around children. Again. I applaud the charge, he needs to be away from children.

[mrcheerful]

84. If you would look he worked with and around kids for 20 years, a pedophile

would have acted out a long time ago. Pedophiles are people that can not resist the urge. Every true pedophile has a history of molesting kids, its not something that they can turn on and off at will. It starts in their teenage years and continues right up to the day they die. Every known pedophile has a known history of molestation. Though this guy is twisted, he is not a pedophile. BTW, he only did 9 photoshop pics, thats why he has 9 charges against him, 1 charge for each picture, the news article left that information out to make it sound like he had one charge for the pics plus 8 more that weren't about the pics. The list and the government has pretty much covered up these facts so they could promote the list as saving kids. Though how the list does that is beyond me because the list stops nothing and most states you can't tell a person where they can live after they get out of prison and off parole no matter what their crime was. Theres 5 or 6 of them on the street I live on, guess what, kids run wild with little to no supervision from the parents. So what does that say? The list is worthless and to think one child is protected by the list, well good stuff you have to be smoking. Safety is an illusion that never becomes reality because life is unpredictable. The dangerous ones aren't even on the list and pretty much like child abuse laws that say kids can turn parents in for abuse if a mark is left well there will be some that take advantage of the law when it suits there needs.

[Coexist]

60. :::: raising hand ::::::

see my post above.

[LostinVA]

67. I have no kids... but my niece and nephew? Anyone's kid? Hell yeah

[mondo joe]

64. I don't think anyone is OKAY with it - but that question is

whether it is (or should be) illegal.

[mrcheerful]

65. You know its starting to look like the fundies are getting what they want

women staying at home bare foot and pregnant taking care of the kids. Do you know that the fathers out there are starting to be afraid to watch their own kids and take care of them? I know a few fathers that now refuse to change diapers and give their kids a bath, Fathers are also reluctent to interact with their kids and the days of daddy bouncing his kids on his knee is going too. Why? Because men are being scared by the charge pedophile or being called one.

[mondo joe]

66. Worse: more Americans who want to base law on their kneejerk

reaction than on any legal principle.

And what you say is true. As a man I would NEVER be a teacher because the risk of a false charge or even just suspicion is too great.

[Marie26]

71. I see some knee-jerk reactions

from people who want to defend this. In another thread on this issue, people went on & on about how persecuted the man was, & how "over-emotional" people are on this issue, w/o ever bothering to notice that he faced 54 other counts of real child pornography. That's a knee-jerk reaction. The legal principle here is sound & this person was convicted under a traditional state child pornography law. I guess you can argue w/the state legislature that had enacted the law, but it was correctly applied in this case.

[mondo joe]

72. I don't think anyone wants to "defend" this.

And I don't think the legal principle is sound, but perhaps you could cite it for me.

To my understanding most child porn laws stand on the principle that to produce child porn necessarily harms the child in the production.

But in this case no child was involved in the production - it's the product of imagination.

And I have zero problem with convictions based on actual child porn.

[Marie26]

73. It depends on the state law

This is a New Hampshire law, which apparantly defines child pornography as any "visual representation of a (real) child engaging in sexual activity." So, this clearly qualifies. It looks like his lawyer is going to take it to the NH Supreme Court & argue the state law is unconstitutional & overbroad. I don't know if that'll work, though. This doesn't seem to be a new law. And in this case, the children were harmed once these photos were discovered. These were real children, who actually had to work with this person & would be damaged by what he did. It looks like he'll get 3 years & a fine, and that seems like an appropriate sentence to me.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060422/NEWS01/104220125/-1/YOUTH

[mondo joe]

74. It may meet the standard of the state law, but I'd say that state law

is unjust.

To say the kids were harmed would require one to demonstrate that they have been harmed. You might make that argument, and you might succeed. Or you might not.

[Coexist]

85. if those photos were distributed - that child would be greatly affected

that fact that he had them on a disc, and not his hard drive, might lead one to believe they were meant to be shared.

[marions ghost]

83. I dont think men are more

scared of being called a pedophile than they ever were.

[progressivebydesign]

78. Yep.. that a child pornographer. Sorry.. but it's true.

The constant excuses by DUers for people who deal in child pornography of any kind always slaps me back to the reality that we'll never fucking be in power again... America has moved toward the middle/right, and some people around here can't even fathom why ordinary citizens don't give a shit that people like that are arrested. I don't really fucking care that the guy got arrested. I don't. People like that are NOT benign photo enthusiasts, they molest... they perpetuate molestations. No sympathy here. As a parent, none.