adult nude bodies with kids paces pasted on them- is this child pornography?

[Seeker]

"so good that it seems real, but is not"

But how to tell!! Of course every offender will say it was fake.

[Tom201]

Just like any crime the police has the proove there was a crime commited and the suspect is the one who done it.
Anything else is not acceptable for a Constitutional state (hm hope that was the right word )

Usually there should be some victim, like the child that was used for the pictures when it wasnt a fake. Probably the parents have told the police their child is missing and so on. This way u can trace it for example.

[Felch]

Every crime requires a victim.

I think reasonable people can accept that. In assault or larceny cases, the victim is clear. For tax evasion, the victim is the sovereign (which in the U.S. means the citizens.) In a car accident, the victim is the person who was hurt by another person's irresponsible driving. If two people are driving badly, then they are each the other person's victim. If neither driver was wrong, then they are simply victims of fate (e.g. Car gets hit by lightning bolt and driver loses control.) This is certainly not a crime, no matter the consequences, since being hit by lightning is not a realistically forseeable event.

To that end, criminal justice serves to defend the rights of victims. If some young girl's face is cut and pasted onto a nude image, she (or her parents/guardians) should certainly be able to press charges against the publisher for defamation of character, or something along those lines. At the very least, a civil suit should be brought against the publisher. The same holds true for anybody whose likeness is used without their permission.

If the girl is unaffected by the image, and she was not actually made to pose pornographically, then there shouldn't be any problem. No victim, no crime.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tom201
U mean drawing a picture, that has childporn as the theme and is drawn so good that it seems real, but is not <- the important part
And unacceptable meaning it should be forbidden by law?

I thank you for admitting the existance of unacceptable pornography, albeit in a back-handed-convoluted way.

[Seeker]

"I thank you for admitting the existance of unacceptable pornography, albeit in a back-handed-convoluted way. "

umm I thought he was talking about the abuse of a real, live victim?

A picture of itself is not criminal, it is the manner in which that picture is produced that is. And all real life child porn is necessarily produced in this reprehensible manner.

[Tom201]

@DinoDoc
I never argued that one. Of course ChildPorn (when real, meaning has a child as a victim) is unacceptable and should be forbidden by law.

Im just saying that everyone can draw whatever he likes.

Hm, by the way I dont fully understand the term "back-handed-convoluted".


Hm, we agree on something

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Seeker
And all real life child porn is necessarily produced in this reprehensible manner.

Exactly, Seeker. Tom201 just couldn't openly admit that there are instances of "unacceptable pornographic art".

[Seeker]

BWAAGG..

I said no picture is of itself criminal! You put words in mouths not of your own...

[Tom201]

Tom201 just couldn't openly admit that there are instances of "unacceptable pornographic art

Yup and there arent

With Art I obviously mean drawings (no pictures of real persons).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Seeker
I said no picture is of itself criminal! You put words in mouths not of your own...

Do you not think that the way a picture is produced can make it unaceptable? If so, then I fail to see how I have put words in your mouth.

Tom: With Art I obviously mean drawings (no pictures of real persons).

Is photgraphy not artistic in your eyes?

[Seeker]

"Do you not think that the way a picture is produced can make it unaceptable? If so, then I fail to see how I have put words in your mouth. "


No I do not. It is the way that the picture was produced that can be criminal, NOT the picture itself.

Let's say I killed your mother, and put it on film.

The crime is the MURDER, NOT the putting it on film!

The film is not 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable' in a moral sense, only in an artistic sense.

[Tom201]

Hm, now it gets tricky.

Ok I rephrase my statement to:
There is no such thing as unacceptable pornographic Drawings

Hope that makes it clear

[Eroberer]

Originally posted by Asher
I think it should be considered child pornography.

I'm attaching an image so the paperclip shows next to this thread title...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Seeker
I think the idea behind this is that realistically digitally altered images can be used as a defense.

It can be very difficult to tell if a picture is doctored or real, and if they use legal models who look very young for the fakes, it would be hard to tell them apart from real pictures of older illegal children, so why make work? You know, "Oh no officer, these are just fakes. Yeah, that model sure looks young."

But for drawings? LOL there is no way sketches, cartoons, oilpaintings etc should be 'illegal' no matter what's on them, even if they are drawn in a very realistic way or erotic. There are whole bunchs of Greek and Roman statuary and urns that will have to be smashed...

Case: Ya know those little pissing cherubs? What if someone had two ****ing cherubs (the statues)? Or a painting or whatever.

Terribly bad taste, but not a crime.

All crimes should have a victim or victims. If the depiction is imaginary, not a picture of a real event, then you can't arrest them for that. It's not even 'spreading hate' if it's in private.

There must be hundreds of websites on the internet that show naked young looking women and then advertise them as "hot teens" and /or dress them in a way that evokes schoolgirls. As far as I know these sites are generally considered legal, probably because if required to do so they can prove that the models were bone fide adults.

If you take the picture of a real child and paste it on a picture of a naked adult you are still though using part of the body of the child and in a way you are inviting or encouraging the viewer to consider abusing the child. The viewer may be excited by the adult's body, but it is the child's face he ( or what the heck, she ) would identify. Could the child sue for damages? Wait a minute, it's a child, so it can't sue. The parents could sue, but then wait a minute, suppose the parent's refuse to do so? Could a parent legally give permission for part of the child's body to be used in such a fashion?

I wonder how the law would deal with images that were digitally created?

[Giancarlo]

Here is a link on the FBI's standpoint:

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/gallagher062101.htm

Some interesting pieces of that article:

Pursuant to Title 18, U.S.C., §2516(3), the government can apply to a federal district court judge for authority to intercept electronic communications (pager, facsimile and computer transmissions) when such interception may yield evidence of any federal felony. Communications carried out by means of the Internet are electronic communications and thus are covered by this limited authority. However, when it comes to oral communications (those intercepted by means of a concealed microphone) and wire communications (communications intercepted by wiretap), authority for interception can only be granted when the predicate offense being investigated is specifically enumerated in Title 18, U.S.C., §2516(1).

It is our strong belief that Title 18, U.S.C., §2252a, entitled certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography, should be designated as one of those Title III predicate offenses.

Note: The bolded sentence is rather key here.