UPDATE: John Stelmack Is Convicted
EX POLK PRINCIPAL CONVICTED OF CHILD PORN CHARGES
by Elaine Silvestrini
The Tampa Tribune
Bartow, FL – Although a jury convicted a former Polk County school principal on child pornography charges today, appeals courts likely will have the last word on whether his actions were a crime.
Prosecutors say John Stelmack had in his possession photos that had been altered into child pornography. They say someone had superimposed the faces of two girls on photos of nude women to make it appear as if the girls were in lewd poses.
Stelmack (His Court Records), 62, remained quiet and showed no visible reaction as the verdict was read. He faces up to 25 years in prison.
Courts have ruled that most pornography is protected by the First Amendment. Child pornography is not, however, because the government has a strong interest in protecting children from exploitation.
But what about pornography that appears to depict children but was produced without involving children in lewd or sexual activity?
“There are definite potential constitutional problems,” said Becky Steele, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “You can’t constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person’s private thoughts.”
In Stelmack’s case, she said, “No children were actually involved in sexually harmful conduct.”
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 overturned a federal law that made computer-simulated child pornography illegal. The high court ruled that because the computer-generated depictions were not the product of the actual sexual abuse of children they were protected by the First Amendment.
Stelmack’s attorney, Robert Gray, maintains the photos at the center of his client’s case are not child pornography.
After the verdict was announced, Gray asked that Stelmack be allowed to remain free pending his appeal, but the judge ordered him held without bail.
Circuit Judge Mark Carpanini had refused to dismiss the charges against Stelmack before the trial. Although Carpanini didn’t issue a written opinion, his rationale was similar to that rendered by another judge in a similar Polk case.
Danny Lynn Parker, a volunteer Sunday school teacher, was charged with producing child pornography after authorities said he took photographs of children and superimposed their faces over adult images.
In Parker’s case, which is set for trial in July, Judge Donald Jacobsen ruled the prosecution could proceed because the faces were of “identifiable real children in pornographic photographs” of “what appear to be children engaged in sexual conduct.”
Jacobsen’s decision did not mention the 2002 high court case, Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition.
In Stelmack’s case, the girls whose faces were used were 11 and 12 at the time, a Polk school investigator testified.
The investigator, Chuck Smith, said he found four photos in which shots of the girls’ faces were superimposed on photos of at least one nude woman. The photos were found in a briefcase in Stelmack’s office closet at Scott Lake Elementary in Lakeland.
One of the girls was a Scott Lake student and the other was a student at a New York school where Stelmack once was an administrator, Smith said.
Charles Rose, a Stetson University College of Law professor, said Florida lawmakers constructed the state’s child pornography statute “to get around the Ashcroft case problem. Whether the Florida law will hold up on appeal I don’t know.”
Rose said he believes Stelmack’s case will hinge on just how explicit the photographs were and whether the courts deem them to involve sexual conduct, rather than merely nudity.
“There has got to be a sexual conduct component to it,” Rose said.
You know, I’m all for the ACLU most of the time, in spite of their propensity for taking on some causes that rub me the wrong way. I think one of the prices we have to pay to live in a free society is the fact that we have to put up with neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and racists having the same right to have websites, write books, and make speeches supporting their causes as I do about mine.
However, Becky Steele, the attorney for the ACLU who was quoted in the article, is dead wrong about this case. Yes, the government cannot legislate my thoughts. But John Stelmack pasted the photos of the heads of his students onto pictures of adults in sexual poses – One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to know what his intent was, and what the implications of a school principal possessing that kind of material are.
Sorry Becky, but I just don’t see the difference between child pornography and simulated child pornography. Admittedly, I’m not a lawyer, but it just seems like common sense. Maybe that’s what the justices of the Supreme Court forgot when they overturned that federal law that made computer-simulated child pornography illegal.
Does it make more sense to wait until John Stelmack abused a child to stop him. Should he have continued in his job as principal of Scott Lake Elementary, since he hasn’t broken any laws. Would any of these people who see this case as a constitutional issue want their kids or grandkids around this man? I know they wouldn’t, and so do they.
127 Comments »
Similar Posts:
- John Stelmack
- Principal Learns That Strip Searching Teenage Girls Is Not OK
- William Constable
- Jay Bernard Gillilland
- UPDATE: Lloyd Sherwood Pleads Guilty To Reduced Charges
- Anthony Stanci
- Maybe Convicted Sexual Predators Shouldn’t Have Child Porn In Their Treatment Center Rooms
- Mark Hoffman and Katherine Hoffman
This is simply wrong. While I understand the fears, you cannot lock someone up on the likelihood they will commit a crime. Or on a simulation of a crime. That opens up floodgates that simply cannot be controlled.
I haven’t seen a person on here yet that shouldn’t be in jail, but this guy hasn’t actually committed a crime. Is what he did twisted? Sure. But people do alot of things I think are twisted but legal. They should probably get him some help. But trying to twist the justice system to get him locked away is an abuse of the system itself. When we can’t trust the people that make up the system to respect it and use it properly, then we have lost already.
While I definitely share your concerns about abuses of power in our justice system, I think the prosecutor and judge have done the right thing in this case. There is no doubt in my mind that John Stelmack is a pedophile; what other reason could there be for possessing what was obviously simulated child pornography? Nevermind that he was the principal of the same elementary school that the kids whose heads he used to create his secret stash attended.
No, Stelmack belongs in prison with the rest of the diddlers. We should be grateful to Law Enforcement for catching this clown before he actually acted on his desires for young children.
You are not a pedophile until you actually commit the act. You aren’t a murderer until you kill someone.
There are people every day that I see that show symptoms and high likelihood of going one way or another. However, we cannot lock people up based on suspicions and hunches.
We have a system predicated on the notion of innocent until proven guilty.(though that seems to be less and less the case) But now we want to convict people before they even commit the crime. Unfortunately this isn’t Minority Report. We don’t have the means to see into the future. We only have our suspicions, and we see how well those work out when it comes to those of Middle Eastern heritage who get on planes. People will see things there if they want to see them.
Do I think the writing is on the wall for this guy? Yeah. But then again, he might never cross that line. He still has that ability. Not everyone that has those urges acts on them. It is because we have the ability to change our destinies that we can’t convict someone based on what they might do. Because there is always the fact that they might not do it too.
Pedophile:
–noun Psychiatry.
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.
He is a pedophile, he is a pedophiliac, but he is not or has not been convicted of being a child molester or rapist.
He is a child pornographer, in as much as he produces, by definition, child pornography.
The definitions on this are firmly in the court’s favor. The degree of the crime is arguable only on the 1st amendment rights to your own voice and opinion, but you can’t defame someone and you can’t abuse them…..
That’s not a fair comparison thatsmystapler. I enjoy watching violent movies like Ichi The Killer and Silence Of The Lambs, and you’re right, there’s no way it makes me a murderer, but it’s also neither illegal or socially and morally unacceptable. Viewing child pornography is most certainly both illegal and unacceptable.
That being said, I honestly hope you’re right about John Stelmack. I hope he never crosses the line from desire to action. But none of that makes him innocent of the charges for which he was arrested, tried, and convicted of by a jury of his peers. It may be a close call, but when it come to protecting children, I believe we have to err in the direction of caution.
Child pornography is most certainly illegal and unacceptable. But that brings us back to the discussion of if what he had was child pornography. No child was submitted to a sexual act. The bodies were those of adults. The children were not even aware of it. Those all seem to go against what child porn is.
And we have to err on the side of caution? Even to the trampling of rights? I can’t get behind that. If we truly did that, we would need to take it further. Make it illegal for kids to be on the internet. Keep strangers and kids from associating with one another. Stores for families, stores for single people. I know it is over-the-top, but that is what happens when we keep erring on the side of caution, because everywhere we look there is danger.
The key to this, as far as I am concerned, is the sexual exploitation of children. These kids were sexually exploited by this idiots foray into the realms of photoshop.
Were they physically harmed in the process like most victims are … thank god no … but are they any less victims of his own brand of sexual exploitation … HELL NO!!!
He tried to make his own Child Porn …. and in this case … if it looks like a duck … and it quacks like a duck …….
I think I wouldn’t like it much if there were pix circulating on the web of my underaged child- even if they were forgeries. I think I would sue the sexual offender that posted them.
I would also sue anyone that photoshopped my head onto some porn scene and then put it on the internet.
I guess the POS can only hope that his next victim (and there will be a next) will see the value of freedom of speech as it applies to her situation. I’ going to guess she won’t. She’ll probably just feel humiliated.
What to do, what to do.
c
No one is saying that’s not wrong. Just is that a crime? Is it wrong to paste my male head on a female body? Yes, most assuredly, however it’s not illegal. a 10 year olds head on a 25 year old porn star? That’s fantasy, not pedophilia. Wrong? Yes…illegal…is a grey area.
I’m torn here Kenny, because I think the definition here is the problem.
Title 18: Part 1. Chapter 110: 2256 2 exclusive
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256—-000-.html
“sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated— …
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
This was simulated child pornography that had lascivious exhibition of the genitals and pubic area of the minors, so was by definition child pornography.
The convicted “produced” this material. He also specifically put a picture of a girl he knew and had authority over at his school, over the face of an under-aged girl(child pornography) that he did not produce. He altered child pornography in his possession(possession being a felony) to associate it with another child he had taken pictures of.
We call altered works derivative, and unattributed works plagiarism, but in this case, a derivative work of child porn should still be called child porn, right?
Child porn laws stress whether or not someone has been exploited. I think you might be coming from the position that since no one was hurt and there was no action, that this is a thought crime, but I argue that this was exploitive first of the girl’s who were altered, second of the children who he gained unlawful access to, photographed and later affixed to his creations. Additionally, in unlawful transport and production of these “creations” he risked exposing these girls to risk and ridicule.
I think it’s still “gray,” but much darker than anything that should truly give a jury or justice much concern.
Did he actually photograph them, or did he say, cut a yearbook picture or school newspaper picture and paste it on the body of an over 18 year old woman? See, I guess I’m seeing at as he got his jollies off imagining the girl as an adult, not the child…which fatasizing of an adult is fine and dandy. If he took pictures specifically to deface them or get his jollies off…then yeah, totally wrong…I just honestly don’t know
He cut the heads out of some type of school publication Kenny. I agree that it’s a close call, but I still believe in cases involving kids we need to err on the side of caution. IMHO anyways.
I agree with you. This is nonsense. If he had superimposed the faces of little girls on photos of animals having sex… would this have ever even gone to a courtroom? If a crime was committed it was more likely to have been the crime of poor photo shopping. My brother photo shopped my sister as a baby being 3 times her normal size. Should he be charged with defamation of character? He photo shopped my boyfriend’s shirt to say “Old Gravy” instead of “Old Navy”. Should that be copyright infringement or logo theft? I don’t think so. Perhaps someone should be suing Photo Shop for the capability of misuse by potential pedophiles. Money to be made? It’s the American way!
“Some employees made complaints that Stelmack was inappropriately hugging fifth-grade girls. He was placed on suspension Dec. 14, 2007, so school officials could conduct an internal investigation.
Stelmack was ordered not to have any contact with school employees or students during the suspension.
Days later, Stelmack called and asked whether a teacher’s aide could check on “something” in the principal’s office. An investigator searched Stelmack’s office, finding a black briefcase with the five images depicting two girls’ faces affixed to copies of a nude 19-year-old woman’s body.”
Interesting that the defense chose 2 lines of defense…. the ‘it wasn’t mine, somebody planted it’ AND the ‘but it isn’t childporn’ angles. I think we all remember the ‘it wasn’t mine’ excuse from our teenage years, and our parents never really bought that. I kept it simple- I didn’t try to argue that not only was it not mine, but it really wasn’t even weed anyway- it was oregano. Oregano that wasn’t mine. Or had been planted in my bedroom by some disgruntled sibling to make it look like I had pot in my room.
Yawn. Anyway-
His atty tried the story that disgruntled teachers had planted it. Planted it while he was already on administrative leave for teachers not liking how much he touched and hugged 5th grade girls. And they were smart, those planters, because they not only pasted the face of a girl attending his particular school onto porn, but they also got access to and pasted the pic of a little girl from a school far away- a school he just happened to have worked at onto another. Pure genius, those ‘planters’.
I think he was right about one thing- the teachers were disgruntled. They tend to get that way when they think principals may be molesting their students.
As an afterthought, where’s forensics when you need them? Surely his fingerprints couldn’t be on those pics, could they? Ohhhh, now I get the ‘and it isn’t childporn’ angle. Covering his ass much?
c
talk to the parents of the two little girls whose faces he wacked off to and i bet you anything that they will disagree. Did those girls deserve to have their privacy invaded, and their trust destroyed by this marauding perpetraor of filth and corruption. What? It’s okay for some sick fuck to take pictures of oh, say, my three year old, glue them to porn, undoubtably use them to stimulate his sick (and ILLEGAL) desires, possibly distribute them and all the while maintain his position as an educator and “protector” of children. This could be any ANY child. “This is simply wrong?” I say piss off. You’re simply an idiot. Go look for your stapler, and when ya find it, stick it up your ass. Maybe you’ll joggle your brain and start thinking like a sane person.
Personal assaults against people for posting their opinions on here shows a lack of class. And it is EXACTLY reactions like yours why I don’t trust society to act on suspicions rather than hard law.
I do think what he did is sick. But the question at hand is if it is illegal. Immoral and illegal are two different things. If he picks up a parenting magazine and “wacks off” to that, is it illegal? Would the parents of the child in the ad be any more ok with it? What about guys that just go to the park and watch kids and then go get their rocks off to the memories? Parents don’t like that idea either. But where do we draw the line?
The fact is, it is impossible to stop people from getting their jollies from kids. And the difference between this and actual child porn/rape is there is no victim. The child isn’t going to wake up from nightmares for years because a guy pasted their pic into a Playboy. I’m not saying that it makes the behavior acceptable or moral, but it does make it legal.
uh, did you get that this guy was the principle of the school these girls attended? I don’t know if you are missing that or not. He had contact with these girls. think about that please, then reconsider your position.
Thank you.
I’m well aware that he was a principal. It doesn’t change the facts or my position or the law.
As I clearly stated to Ad Hominem,
You are wrong about the law.
You can find the exact law cited in this comment here:
http://pysih.com/2009/06/16/update-john-stelmack-is-convicted/#comment-41201
You don’t know the law.
You should try to know the law.
The only argument here is on the constitutionality of the law and the definition. The only way this is going to change is if the Supreme Court weighs in and one of its 5 conservative members change their mind and all of the liberal or centrist justices come along for the ride.
It’s not going to happen on this case.
dare i say it?
is that school by any chance known as Polk high?
i vaguely recall an old sitcom about a family in which the dad was a former football star who scored 6 touchdowns in a single game?
Someone in my neighborhood did this very same thing! I thought it was bizarre, I didn’t know that there were others into this. In the case here, it was the face of a 12 year old relative. I think the intentions are clear, and it is no different than child porn. I am very interested to see what happens with this case. The man here was arrested, lost his job, and I hope he will move out of our neighborhood!
IMO, this is just the first step to becoming a a child molester. Stop these guys before they hurt an innocent child.
to go ontopic btw, i don’t think convicting him is fair at all, he’s a pervert, but as long as he hasn’t hurt any kids he can do whatever the hell he wants as far as i’m concerned. they’re altered pictures for crying out loud, there’s tons of those on the internet.
i’ve found several of underage stars that had theirs heads superimposed on another girl’s naked body and though i’m sure the stars “featured” in those pics don’t like it, i see little wrong with that (i’ve looked at them, does that make me a pedo?)
Were they elementary school-aged children DD? If they weren’t, then no, you’re not a pedophile, but if they are, and you got off on them, then yeah, you have something to worry about (speaking hypothetically, of course). That’s the point I think some people are missing. He was the principal of and elementary school, the same school that the kids whose heads he used to create his secret stash attended. Can you think of any legitimate reason for someone doing that, because I can’t. How would you feel if one of those cut-out heads belonged to your son or daughter? Should we wait until Stelmack acts on his obvious attraction to young children before we act?
Like I said in the article, to me there is no difference between child pornography and simulated child pornography. Anyone who possesses the later is getting off on the same feelings and sick desires as the one who uses real kiddie porn to get his rocks off.
ah, little kids’ head on full grown naked female bodies? although i still don’t think that’s such a big deal, that’s not something i’d look at (actually, trying to picture that it looks REALLY freaky, can’t really understand how that would turn someone on. what i mean for example is Lindsay Lohan when she was still 17, there where pictures of a naked lady with a hot body with Lindsay’s head on it, that looked pretty hot i must admit.
bottom line for me is that i’d rather those people fabricate pictures in stead of making real ones. if the choice is between those two, i much prefer the former. same goes for animated child porn, though it’s very sick and twisted, it’s better then the real thing right?
the point i’m trying to make here is that no matter how much we want it to change, these perverts are here to stay and there will be new ones born on a constant basis. if the number of molested children goes down because pervert are making fabricated kiddie porn, i again see little problem in it.
on another note, just because i’m honest about it doesn’t mean i’m one of the few people thinking this. the situation is described earlier with Lindsay Lohan, are all of the men here going to tell me that they haven’t looked at her in a sexual way before she turned 18?
Liar!
“Should we wait until Stelmack acts on his obvious attraction to young children before we act?”
As a matter of fact, yes. That’s how criminal law works. You don’t put people in jail on suspicion that they MIGHT commit a crime someday, and there’s no guarantee he would eventually act. We don’t convict people of murder or even attempted murder until they actually act on their violent urges. To do otherwise is called “thoughtcrime”. Hello 1984. Big Brother is watching you. How about Minority Report’s “precrime”, a similar idea. Should we lock someone up because a psychological test indicates they’ve got violent tendencies too? How about people who think illicit drugs should be legal? Obviously these people are likely to use illegal drugs so let’s lock them up in advance before they act on their urges. Or how about we lock up all the Muslims? Suicide bombers tend to be Muslim, so are we just going to wait for them to act on this and kill innocent children? I’m sure you see where I’m going with this.
It’s morally reprehensible to be a pedophile, but it’s not ILLEGAL to be one so long as they don’t act on their urges and actually molest children (or attempt to). We don’t outlaw certain thoughts and beliefs in this country.
At most, I think this man should have been fired and banned from taking up any similar job.
you don’t care huh! Thats real nice and thats why where having a problem now with being infested with child molesters its at an all time high and thats because theres people like Mr. Staplegun up there and Dual down here that turn a cheek on these disgusting child rapers. A child star is still a child am i right? “CHILD” star? no? don’t see any child in that statement? regardless if the Star is in front of the child. Still a child dualdenz! Do you have little sisters or little nieces or cousins how about daughters? What if this old perv or some other old perv used their picture on one of these what you would call “featured” pictures? probably wouldn’t matter to you eh being that you look at them yourself!! YES dualperv we would call that being a pedo!! What a fuckin jerk your disgusting and maybe thats why your sticking up for this nasty ass dude! I say no more chances! Those are kids that can not defend themselves its time that we defend them and knock all of these arceholes out of the frame! Send him to jail lock him up toss the key and let it be known that he fantasizes about little kids let the Inmates have at them all!!! including you ARCE DENZE!
oddly enough, your barrage of insults made me laugh.
Posts like yours and wondermom are usually why I lurk and don’t post. Too much emotion without the logic.
I didn’t turn a cheek to a child raper. I think everyone can agree that he did not rape any children. If there is anyone that doesn’t know the difference between what he did and actual child rape, I suggest they do some research and come back when they are a bit more informed.
I got thinking about an example reading through the comments. We know rape is bad. It is illegal. However, there is porn that simulates rape. It is meant for the gratification from a horrendous act. But it is not illegal. Simulated crimes are not crimes. They can be cringe-worthy, disturbing, weird, immoral, or any other adjective that you won’t to give them. But at the end of the day, they are not illegal.
I am SO not getting the purpose of his actions.
If you paste the face of a child over an adult in a pornographic pose, you have neither an adult or a child. You have some weird melange. If you look at the picture you don’t see a child – you see an adult body with breasts and pubic hair, with a little kid’s face on it. It doesn’t exist in reality. It does not look real. To me, it would look like you’re imagining a teenager, at best. You’re certainly not imagining a little kid – the picture has adult sexual characteristics. But it’s still a little kid’s face.
It’s neither one. This is one of the strangest fixations I think I’ve ever heard of. Like you can’t figure out if you like regular porn or child porn.
i saw a US ad a while ago, it was about preventing your kids from growing up too fast or something like that, it showed the body of a scantily clad lady with a hot body and kid’s head superimposed on it, it looked SO weird.
He belongs in jail…..he definitely had the urges for young girls. If he hadn’t been stopped, he would have acted out eventually. At least this way we know he won’t be molesting someone’s child. He’s a fucking pervert …period!
Yeah I agree what i sick pervertt even if the pictures are fake he showed society what he would do if he pout his hands on a child. Hope he rots.
He…. wait, what? He would cut off little girls heads and duct tape them to grown women’s bodies? What?
Someone could photoshop George Bush’s/Barack Obama’s(choose your poison) head exploding or a penis going into their mouths, but noone arrests them for “threatening the president”.
I honestly think what this guy did was totally harmless. If someone used one of MY pictures and photoshopped it onto a transexual being done by a dog, I’d be grossed out IF I found out, but really there’s no actual abuse or harm being perpetrated.
Oo-er! I don’t like sound of this guy somehow… His job places him in a position of trust… Pictures might well of been fake but my gut feeling is they are prob only tip of the iceberg… If i’m wrong i will hang my head in shame but for now i’m with max… This guy not the sort of person i’d want around my children… ;(
I like you, Dual- but based on this-
“i’ve found several of underage stars that had theirs heads superimposed on another girl’s naked body and though i’m sure the stars “featured” in those pics don’t like it, i see little wrong with that (i’ve looked at them, does that make me a pedo?)”
In my opinion, yes. if what you searched to look at had adults with children’s heads superimposed on chidren’s bodies, or vise versa, I don’t know what to think. In your statement you acknowlege that what you searched was for underaged girls. I search all day for info on the internet, and I never have any pop-ups that ask me to view underaged girls, whether photoshopped or otherwise.
Based on my internet experiences, it is a myth that innocent internet surfing pops up porn, especially child porn or implied photoshopped child porn.
I like your viewpoints on a lot of topics. This isn’t one of them.
c
don’t worry GloryBug, i don’t go out and look for underage girls specifically. in the case i mentioned in my previous post i didn’t even know she wasn’t 18 at the time, i just thought she was hot and went looking for nekkid pics of her (i do that sometimes).
oh and in regards to porn popus with kiddie, i’m in IT and can tell you with 100% certainty that if you weren’t looking for it, you wouldn’t get popups of it. to put that in perspective, when you’re looking for porn, you’re running the risk of seeing things you don’t want to see and unfortunately there’s a saying going round the ‘net
“what has been seen, cannot be unseen”
i think people are missing the point a bit though, isn’t the fact that peadophiles are fabricating kiddie porn good news? to me that means that the law is getting better and better at preventing sexcrimes with kids and the criminals are being forced to use other means to get what they want, isn’t that a LOT better then the alternative?
heck, maybe it’s just me being crazy here, but i rather read a story like this then one about a child having been molested by his/her own parens for most of his/her life. nobody was physically or mentally hurt here (i hope).
DD- THANK YOU for clarifying something that only seems like common sense, but which people deny- that internet surfing that does not involve porn or nudity does not ‘pop’ porn onto your computer. It drives me nuts. I’m no prude, and have nothing against nudity- while in college I took three years of figure-drawing, and I have several paintings of nudes. I’ve looked on the internet at some pretty well-known photographer’s nudes, and I never got pop-up porn. Yes, there were some links that might have been iffy if I’d click them, but I didn’t.
I don’t believe that this POS did his little collage-art because childporn is so hard to find. I think he did it because there wasn’t any kiddie-porn of the specific students he wanted to see porn of. And to me, that’s problematic.
I can see why some people have a problem with the whole ‘thought-crime’ aspect to this, but I’ll stick to my unpopular opinion. I’d really like to see more research done re-childporn and rapeporn. Just a gut feeling, but it seems 100% more likely that someone who seeks out this kind of porn will be more likely to eventually act it out, than it would that someone like me who has no attraction to that type of sexuality would. Doesn’t it only make sense that people who have no desire for nor propensity for those sexual crimes wouldn’t be surfing childporn/rapeporn or making their own DIY porn, and that people interested in the topic to begin with, would?
Is it just a coincidence that I NEVER surf hunting or meat sites? That while I do frequent cooking sites I stay clear of meat recipes? Even when they have meat ads right next to the vegetarian recipe I was looking up? I don’t ever intend to kill animals, or to eat meat up to the day I die. Does it seem more likely that I will hunt, kill and eat an animal, or that one of the people who purposefully surfs those sites (even if they’ve never hunted and animal yet or cooked a steak) will someday, if given the right situation, would be the one who would do that? Isn’t it more likely that someone will get into a hot-air balloon if they are interested in it and they’ve looked at pictures of it and seen movies of it, that would a person who’d never had any interest in hot-ballooning to begin with.
These things are interesting and challenging to debate. Intellectual and all that. Personal rights and free speech and thought crimes.
Unless you have children, which I do. It certainly makes it more compelling to ignore the intellectualism in favour of common sense.
What’s the average number of sex-crimes a person commits before they actually get caught? It doesn’t seem likely that every POS gets caught the first, second or even third time. Research needs to be done regarding that. What we illegal doesn’t always agree with everyone’s morality, and if it’s shown that people who think about or passively act on sex crimes are more likely to actually commit them, then we as a society certainly have a right to make those activities illegal. Laws aren’t always about intellectual arguments or personal reality- sometimes they’re just to protect citizens from harm.
c
i must admit i hadn’t done the 180 degree view yet and have to say that i can’t deny there’s the risk that this guy will act out when the pictures no longer satisfy him, a most disconcerting thought.
though i still have little problems with modified pictures, the context matter and with this in mind, i agree there should be a line, but where? (this guy crossed the line, i will agree to that). i’ve also seen pictures of young people superimposed on older bodies (none nudes) as a joke, what if the body that was used was naked and the person involved was something like 14? if it’s meant as a joke it should be ok, but it’s still fabricated child porn.
man, this is turning out to be a brain cruncher, i much rather see these pervert fabricate porn then creating it, but where do you draw the line?
Number one, his desires, no matter how disgusting they may be, are not illegal (no matter how many capitals the writer above uses to enhance their ideas), and there is a legitimate public need for a balance between the freedom of expression (both privately held and publicly exposed) and the society’s desire to protect it’s citizens.
I survived childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a peodphile who did put his desires into action. I hate the man, and if I were to see him today I’d desire to put a gun to the back of his head and end his ability to ever harm another child. The state would rightly punish me for those actions, but I doubt there is anyone who would try to restrict from me my desires.
Likewise you all on this site express desires constantly that can only be held legitimate in the eyes of those who agree with you. I have seen posts on here by some of those above describing levels of torture they would personally inflict on those described in these articles that could only be described as punishment far exceeding the crime … should you all be prosecuted for your desires, no matter how self-justified?
A person with strong pedophilic fantasies who, in a long life, never takes them outside his private life, never harms a child except in fantasy, and otherwise lives a just and fruitful life is a hero for overcoming that base instinct … in like fashion someone who gives in to the darker side of protectionism and legislates a morality of thought and action is, in every way, a noble villain.
This is an example of the need for a better law, and the ACLU should help fight this one right to the supreme court, because this is a grey area in the law and only through continued debate and jurisprudence can we hope to find the living balance between liberty and tyranny.
Also, if sense were common, this site would not exist.
I am sorry for the abuse you suffered. I sufferd abuse as a child as well.
However, there are no studies that haven been taken that show that people with pedo leanings DON’T act on them. That would be a perfect world, eh? Sadly. studies have proven the opposite. That pedophiles have compulsions they claim they cannot stop.
Anyone who believes pedophiles can manage their thoughts and desires (even if they haven’t been caught yet for things they’ve done) should have no problem with some person (who has admitted they crave children) moving in right next door to them.
Yeah, I thought you’d have a problem with that. It’s ok though when it happens in someone else’s neighborhood.
This POS had pix of his students faces superimposed onto porn stars in hardcore action. Would it be ok with you if he’d used a pic of your child’s face on some porn scene of double anal porn?
I’m going to guess you wouldn’t like it if it was YOUR kid. How selfish and self-centered can you get?
c
How, precisely, would you do such a study? Even the studies that support your idea can only find subjects to study who have already acted on an impulse, as non-acting pedophiles are not exactly a self-identifying group. That’s like saying that all of the people who have committed murder acted on an impulse they couldn’t control. I know I’ve thought I murder, most eloquently in fact, but I’m no more likely to commit an act based on those impulses than you are.
Resorting to statistics and studies of pedophiles is a weak argument because the basis for those studies is flawed. Statistics would indicate that most male survivors of sexual abuse go on to commit acts of sexual abuse, for instance, but only because we as a group tend not to self identify until we are in therapy, and many do not find that therapy until mandated to by the state.
So, since studies would support the idea that I am a sexual predator waiting to happen (male victim of a violent sexual assault by an adult male stranger, parents ignored problem, school system proceeded to treat child acting out as a “problem child”, etc.) should I be locked up?
Also I have no problem with the person living next door to me having private pediphilic tendencies precisely because I couldn’t possibly know and am not going to walk around assuming everyone is a predator. If and when their tendencies become known then no, I would not wan them near my child. This man shouldn’t be a principal, granted, and now that his desires are publicly exposed I’m sure he won’t be, but the matter before us is did he do something illegal, and, more importantly, is the law valid in our democracy?
Don’t presume to think you know my mind; I don’t subscribe to the NIMBY philosophy. If I found out that my daughters face were in those photos i’d be justifiably pissed, but my only legal recourse would be to sue the man for defemation, therebye exposing his tendencies and letting society judge his suitability and employability … But I would not consider it a criminal act unless the law supported that position.
Shun him, fine, sue him, no problem, but incarcerate him for a sick tendency with photoshop? No, sorry, doesn’t make sense to me.
Actually, you’re incorrect. The Protect Act of 2003 and USA v Dwight Whorly (Protect stands for “Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today”). Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003). This extends to pictures of minors as well. It’s very much illegal.
That still doesn’t extend to these images; if they were images of children’s bodies he would have been charged with possession of child pornography, therefore the bodies on which these faces were applied are not children’s bodies, and there is a great deal of adult pornography that does not pass the test of being deemed obscene. If the faces attached to those bodies are those of the people involved in the act and that is not obscene, then it’s hardly clear that obscenity exists with other faces applied.
The law is weak and dangerously close to infringing upon First Amendment protected expression; the indignation of the people on this site aside there are legitimate arguments for allowing the private thoughts of an individual, even in these areas … Otherwise Nabokov could not have written Lolita.
I believe I have sufficient legitimacy on this point to make the devil’s argument; as a victim of someone like this man who did go past these actions, I can honestly say I would have rather had him freely able to relieve his urges in private via whatever fantasy material that did not actually harm another, including my face pasted on whatever he wanted, rather than have had him violate me as he did out of his own frustration.
I have every cause in the world to hate child molesters … but it gives me great pause to think my nation will try and legislate away unpopular thoughts and unseemly, but not actually harmful, actions.
Ad – as I said below, his rights end at the point where he impedes on the rights of others. These children have the right to not have their images used in pornographic depictions.
I don’t think this is even close to a constitutional issue. There is plenty of precedent regarding the freedom of expression, and though this exact circumstance may not have happened, the concept is clear.
So rest assured – you will not lose your constitutional rights because of this scumball.
Mazzi- I think you’re spot on about this having no constitutional protection.
I also think it’s kind of funny that ‘freedom of expression’ so often is applied on other people’s behalf. This POS has every right to broadcast to the world that he enjoys pasting the heads of kids onto porn women’s bodies and that he is sexually attracted to that. He rightfully has the freedom of expression to do so. But he hasn’t- why not? Probably because I still have the right to the freedom to express my disgust for people who think like him. And I have that right whether he’s already commited crimes and just wasn’t caught, or if he just hasn’t commited them. Even if he never does.
People who like to talk about the constitution and ‘freedom of expression’ always seem to be doing so on behalf of POSs- and they always seem to forget that I also have all those rights. Not only do I have the right to express my disapproval and disgust, I have the right to get together with like-minded people and work to have laws enacted to prevent certain behaviours- even if the people engaging in them don’t like it. It’s how law works. Things are only illegal because people pass laws to make them illegal.
As long as people defend POSs using the constitution and ‘freedom of expression’ arguments, I’ll keep asserting my right to be disgusted, to disagree, and to work to make certain actions illegal. Child-porn lovers can assert their rights as they see them as well. They can wear tshirts that say ‘I’m proud to be the kind of person who fantasizes about having sex with children- but I haven’t actually actually commited the crime yet’. They have the right to do that, and I’m all for their right to do so. I’m also all for my rights to say they disgust me, to say I don’t want them living next door to my children, and to generally make it unpleasant for them to be anywhere near any children. Even if they haven’t commited the crime yet, I have the right to not like them, and to say so.
People get so worried about protecting the rights of POSs that they seem to forget that they have any rights themselves.
c
If I am not mistaken, isn’t this POS the principal that used actual pitures of the children that had been in his office to paste on his porno pix?
So it wasn’t like he was whacking off to anonymous children (if that wasn’t bad enough), but actual children he had access to?
I seem to remember that this was the case. Would you really like your children’s school principal to be pasting the head of your child over porn and whacking off to it, or would prefer them not to? If you were a parent, would you be reassured that your kid hadn’t been molested – yet? Obviously if your kid’s head was on that porn, the freak wanted to fuck them.
And we aren’t talking about switching heads of everyday movie stars with porn stars, or even porn stars with innocent pix of kids-
““identifiable real children in pornographic photographs” of “what appear to be children engaged in sexual conduct.”
Whether it’s your child’s innocent face being falsely superimposed over these images or someone else’s, the facts show it was not being superimposed over legal adult porn. If you like that, you are a pedophile.
Bottom line is that people who like looking at child porn, whether through porn movies, the internet, or even asian cartoon porn—- YOU like child porn, are attracted to it, and are essentially a pedophile.
I’d like for you to come up with some other excuse at this point, because right now I’m more than disappointed in your viewpoint.
c
Yep, he’s the guy Glory. That’s why I don’t buy the argument that it violates that Supreme Court ruling about virtual child porn (which makes no sense to me either, but that’s an debate for another day).
Thanks for clarifying that. It seems like everybody wants to get under the ‘free speech’ umbrella nowadays.
I have some fantasies about my fiance. He’s on an adult baseball team. I think he looks hot in his game gear. I don’t personally like baseball, but when I see it on TV, and see those men in their outfits, it makes me think about how hot I think my fiance looks in his. You can imagine what that leads to.
So, to say that looking at even fake child porn won’t lead to thoughts of acting on it is just plain stupid.
In my experience thinking about things leads to things happening. I call it ‘opening the window’. Once you think about something, you essentially allow it to happen. You give it space and room and validity.
My suggestion is to not think about things you shouldn’t, and to get mental help when what you think about is essentially abusing other people.
How stupid is allowing virtual child porn? How about virtual snuff films. Or virtural terrorist films? After all, the terrorists didn’t actually ACT on it! They just pretended to cut off the guy’s head. Oh, wait- they did cut off that guy’s head- but that doesn’t mean they’d do it again!!!???
Please.. Cheaters don’t not cheat, and pedophiles don’t not molest kids. Zebras don’t not have stripes. I am aware that my writing is not proper at this point- but for a reason.
Every time someone wants to come to the aid of some murderer or child abuser I want to say- then you have no problem leaving YOUR child with them for the weekend? Luckily, I think most of the hipocrits would decline, but it saddens me that there’s that one percent that would say eh- I trust them.
Go figure.
c
no one is taking his trust for granted anymore, now that he’s been discovered. We just aren’t certain that it’s illegal. Suer, put him on teh sex offender registry, but jail time? I don’t think your own fantasy (btw…I know of those pictures DualD’s seen, I had a friend that enjoyed them, emphasis on had, and I avoid them when they show up on searches) should not present jail time.
Thank you Glory, for stating so eloquently what I was too disturbed to express. This man had free and easy access to these children. He had constant daily contact with these girls, and yet people come here and defend his rights. I just cannot fathom it.
I really really hate practicing pedophiles, and think what this guy did was sick. But I honestly don’t think he should be jailed on child pornography charges. I think he should be treated so he doesn’t move on to an actual crime, but this isn’t a crime. I hate pedophilia because of what it does to the victims, and there are no victims in this case. What he did was demented, but it hurt no one. Treating this the same way you would treat actual pedophilia is a slap in the face to those who have been victimized IMO.
So you don’t hate the ‘non-practicing ‘ pedophiles?’
What defines ‘practicing’? Pedophilia does not mean that you literally have sex with children any more that saying a heterosexual person IS having sex with someone of the opposite sex. It just defines what the person is interested in. Pedophiles are interested in having sex with children.
Whether or not they act on it CAN be illegal, if it involves actual images of children. A pedo who has never attacked a child can still be arrested simply for whacking off to child porn on their computer. Being involved in the exploitation of children sexually IS illegal, and whether or not you were the person who originally took pix of the abuse doesn’t matter. Anyone who views those pix is purposefully engaging in illegal activities and should be prosecuted.
It’s not like nobody knows that it’s illegal to have sex with children, or to posess depictions of that, so anyone who does, does it knowing the penalties.
In this case, not only was it exploitative to use pix of children that the POS personally knew and had access to, he pasted their photos over OTHER children’s pix- Pix that were of children having sex with adults. So whether you approve of adults whacking off to ‘depictions’ of children or not, in this case the POS was in possession of illegal child pornography and deserves to be jailed. It’s just nasty icing on the cake that he pasted his student’s pix onto his illegal child porn- and I’m going to bet that the parents of the children he was lusting after are really glad he’s going to be jailed BEFORE anything worse happened to their kids.
What this POS did IS illegal, and he is rightly being punished for it. He should be put on the sexual offenders list, and he should never be allowed to have a job that puts him near children.
c
The term “pedophile” has become too loosely defined. A 19yo guy that has sex with his 17yo girl is legally defined as a pedophile in the areas where it is illegal. Are people that think of sex with corpses necrophiles or just those that actually do it? You say in another post that cheaters cheat. Is someone that thinks about cheating a cheater? At what point do thought and action converge into being the same thing?
He should most certainly lose his job. He violated the trust of the kids over whom he was in charge. Like if a highschool teacher has sex with an 18yo student. While not illegal, it still was an abuse of their position. However, he did not break laws, and as such should not be on a sex registry either. Again, that list isn’t for deviants or people we suspect of being future criminals.
This is a scary spot to be in assuredly. He has shown that he will violate the trust that is put in him. He has toed the line without going over it. Unfortunately, most lines can’t be crossed until the crime is committed and there is a victim. While we retain our free agency and the option of always choosing the right decision, regardless of urges, we cannot generally act until it is too late. True justice will always be re-active not pro-active.
If someone is attracted to children because their brain is fucked up, but never acts on those impulses because they know it’s disgusting, then I have no beef with them at all. It’s only when they do the crime that they become monsters. If the pornography behind those childrens faces were children, then it’s a crime. If he just took normal porn and put kids faces on them then it’s not. It’s still disgusting, but there’s no victim. I was under the impression that it was adults in the image having sex.
I’m confusing cases. In this one the bodies being pasted over were adult.
That makes me even happier- that there was a conviction not reliant on a separate childporn count.
Years ago, I might have thought differently, but now I have children. It opens your eyes a bit.
I write online, so I am researching and referencing for my articles all day- and I’ve never stumbled across (or had popups for) child porn. I have stumbled across tons of sexual content that borders on the bizarre, but not childporn. So it makes me wonder what a person could be googling for that would bring up child porn. Considering that it is illegal, it seems hardly likely that it could be accessed wothout puposefully searching for it.
c
Many years ago, I stumbled onto some child porn that was buried in a newsgroup. I immediately contacted the FBI, wrote several letters guiding them to the nasty shit and kept records of everything. And then I backed up my important files and reformatted my hard drive.
Finding the child porn is not the problem… it’s what you do with it if you do.
For the record, my heart sank to my ankles when I saw it, and I felt like puking. I would never wish that sight on any of you. It’s bad enough to hear about it in general terms, but in reality, it is the stuff nightmares are made of.
It’s exaclty because it was adult bodies in, likely, consensual acts that this will end up overturned.
If he was a zoophile and put the faces of puppy dogs on adult human bodies it would be a joke to try and convict the man of animal abuse. Would a reasonable person believe that the body belonged to the face, and infer from the face that the body was that of a child? If not you’re making just as absurd a move out of righteous indignation as you would be in the situation i’ve just described.
The law shouldn’t be a joke, and it shouldn’t be ambiguous … people on here are disgreeing with this application of tv law for a reason.
And yes, to me, at least, throwing the book at this guy, and not just getting him some serious psychological help, is a slap in the face, because there are real crimes out there to deal with, and the law of the land is that you have to have actually committed one to be held criminally liable.
‘not just getting him some serious psychological help, is a slap in the face’
A slap in the face to whom? Please cite studies that prove that any pyschological ‘help’ has atually helped anyone? That it has prevented further crimes. Because my researching had not found any studies that show that ‘psychological help’ actually ‘helps’ anyone. Certainly not future victims. Study after study has shown that sexually motivated criminals do NOT change their behaviour after counseling. Or after incareration.
Whose face is really getting slapped? The current victims and future victims.
‘because there are real crimes out there to deal with’– yeah, and this is also a real crime. The key is to prosecute ALL crimes, and to not avoid prosecuting crimes just because they strike a little too close to home for you. There is no reason to tolerate or give outs to people involved with child abuse or child porn unless you personally have a predilection towards child porn yourself.
People who hate child porn will see nothing ambiguous in this sentencing.
Just saying.
c
Again, how many studies could be done that show psychology helping someone redirect their thoughts BEFORE they became a criminal? This is like the idiocy of trying to prove via statistics that the death penalty either does or does not prevent murder. You’re resorting to an authority that has a weak basis, which does not strengthen your argument.
The face being slapped is mine, as an actual victim of an actual crime; I was physically molested, the course of my life was violently interupted by the actions of a sick individual, and I have felt the actual touch of evil. One way or another the actions described by this man involved no actual harm to, nor present threat of harm to, these girls that can clearly and unequivocably be considered criminal.
It is precisely that ambiguity that forms the basis for what I believe would make an ultimately succesful appeal in this case.
As for your ad hominem attack, in which you infer from my argument for the rule of law that I have a predilection for child pornography, I’d suggest you review some of the rules of logic. Ergo hoc, ergo proctor hoc. Trying to impugn by implication is the weakest form of personal attack, just as siding with the masses does not make their position correct.
As for a study, I’d suggest showing a control group images of adult pornography while showing a test group the same images with children’s faces and guaging the relative shift in their excitement/revulsion. I’m guessing you’d find that most people consider the prurient part what the bodies are doing, and not the faces.
In other words it’s NOT clear that this imagery constitutes child pornography, while it is clear that if he’d had images of children’s bodies enagsd in sexual acts and pasted on the faces of grandmothers he’d met at nursing homes he would have committed a crime.
If at no point in the production of this imagery was this man in possession of illegal imagery then I for one am hard pressed to believe that the results are manifestly illegal.
I having a hard time reconciling the fact that you are a victim of child molestation with your position about this case. I hesitate to call you a bald-faced liar, but I have to say I honestly have my doubts about your claim.
I know many victims of different types of crimes; incest survivors, rape survivors and victims of child abuse, both physical and sexual, and every one of them was very much a supporter of aggressive prosecution of people accused of similar crimes to the ones committed against them. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone state an opinion to the contrary, until you of course.
The opponents of Mr. Selmack’s conviction are splitting legal hairs in their attempt to convince the rest of us of the wrongness of it, but their words ring hollow when one remembers that he knew the children who’d likenesses he borrowed, they were students at HIS school, and there is NO legitimate reason for possessing the pictures for which he was arrested.
I know I keep repeating the same things, but no one has addressed those three facts to my satisfaction. All I’ve heard is alot of legalspeak designed to confuse people. The bottom line is I’m a common sense guy, and to me, if something makes sense, then I stick with it. Your arguments do not pass my common sense smell test because they make no sense.
To be fair, most people I’ve met that are survivors of some trauma tend to respond to things very emotionally. Ad has said that he has been though therapy for what happened to him. I see that he is choosing to look at things more logically than emotionally. Maybe it is because I tend to be more logical than emotional that I can see where he is coming from.
I think we all agree that what the guy did is wrong. And none of us want him to remain in his position with the school. But the question is over the legality.
Did he have a legitimate reason to have pictures of his students? Nope. But when is have pictures(non-porno) illegal? Him having regular pictures of the students is not illegal. Him having adult pornography is not illegal. Him pasting one on another is not illegal.
I’ve seen plenty of arguments why what he did is wrong and immoral. And of that I agree. But no one has been able to give a good solid argument of why it is illegal. It is all based around conjecture of what he is likely to do. Or the fact that he knew the students. It’s not any better or worse because he knew the kids or not. Without speculating on what he MIGHT do, why should he be convicted? Where are the victims? What actions did he commit now that justifies dying in prison? From what I have read, there are no facts supporting that, regardless of our personal feelings on the man.
Max,
Just because something is outside of your limited experience does not make it untrue. I exhausted my emotional reactions to what happened to me years ago; I was five when the assault occurred, it’s been 29 long years and a lot of therapy and thought since then. I have also had the fortune / misfortune to be present at great many other highly traumatic events. I now approach almost every situation dispassionately, because the passionate response is rarely the right one. Again attempting to attack me personally (the very meaning of ad hominem) does little but weaken your argument.
I was a victim of an actual crime; hands touched me, body parts penetrated and violated me, someone raped and attempted to kill me … The girls in these photos share nothing with me because they have not actually been victimized.
The disdain of the community is more than enough for this individual, but a logical approach (and the law is inherently dispassionate) says that this application of the law is weak.
Also common sense is not the sense of Franklin or Jefferson, it takes uncommon sense to define the law and allow it to work as it intended, and not merely as our guts wish it would work.
That was not a personal attack ad hominem, that was my honest opinion, and I stand by it. If you can’t take it, then may be you don’t belong here. Your position is is hard for me to understand, and in spite of my ‘limited experience’, I know bullshit when I smell it. Possession of child pornography IS a crime, and if those were your kids heads on someone’s naked body I know you’d be singing a different tune. If you deny that, then you really are a liar.
Believe it or not, I’m very much a supporter of the First Amendment. But you people are asking too much, and my conscience just wont allow me to accept your argument. It goes against everything I stand for concerning protecting children and punishing those who would hurt and exploit them. I believe it our duty to protect our kids from an asshole like John Selmack, and my concern for HIS rights only go so far. I feel very strongly about this, and anyone who knows me know how true this is. My heart breaks for every dead little kid I write about who was raped and murdered by a scumbag pedophile, and I burn for every son of a bitch who uses a young child as his personal sexual plaything. That’s why I am the way I am, and I apologize to no one for it. So don’t ask me to cut any slack for John Selmack, because he’s just too interested in getting off to images that offend the hell out of me.
I agree with you Max. I do understand the legalities and his constitutional rights ans all of that – but here is what I was taught in law school: HIS rights end when they impede on the rights of others. So the legal question (not necessarily the ethical one) is whether this sack of scum impeded on the rights of the girls when he pasted their faces on pornographic images.
I think he did impede on their rights. Those children have the right to NOT have their images used in such a fashion. It’s possibly a slippery decision, since we use precedent to determine the law in later cases, but to allow this guy to get off would be a dangerous precedent in the other direction.
Our society cannot afford to keep pushing the envelope on these kinds of cases. Of course people should have freedom of speech. Of course they should not be subject to criminal prosecution for having “bad thoughts”, but this guy crossed the line. I can’t say exactly where he crossed it, but it has been breached, and anyone with a shred of decency can understand that. Unfortunately, “decency” is not a prerequisite for attorneys.
Attacking the credibility of the person, and not their position, is the first resort of someone who has lost perspective. I have zero cause to lie and am not doing so, likewise I can far and above stand the heat of tho particular kitchen, thank you very much.
Your hatred of people who offend you is blinding you to the larger argument being made, which basically comes down to the old “he who would trade liberty for security deserves neither.”
By casting so wide a net in order to protect the children you dedicate resources that would be better spent prosecuting crimes that have actually occurred and for which a victim can be found. As is this appeal will win, which will result in much wringing of hands and self righteous idiocy, ultimately leading us nowhere of value.
Bit thank you for your well reasoned contribution.
You really are a hateful little prick, aren’t you? You try very hard to hide it behind pretty words and alot of pseudo-intellectual bullshit, but the more I challenge you, the more it oozes out around the edges.
I’m glad you think a person that has dedicated his life to fighting the same type of crime that you claim to be a victim of is so amusing, but I’m not surprised. It just reinforces my earlier sense that you just might be full of shit.
And you still haven’t responded to this – if those were your kids heads on somebody else’s naked body, you’d be singing a different tune – you know that’s true, and that make you a hypocrite too.
But if it makes you feel better to think you’re superior to me, thats fine. I’ve dealt with enough of your type of person that it actually amuses me to see you in action. You might think you’re an impressive example of a man, but to all us regular folk you’re just a pompous ass who’s a legend in his own mind.
Max – have no worries. That cretin is not fit to shine your shoes. You are a good and decent man, and it shines through constantly.
Ad Hominem is a weak and whining little sniveler who clearly shows his character simply by the selection of his screen name. Ad hominem is just a fancy way of saying “Internet Troll”, lol. How much clearer can he be? Or is just an example of his big words covering up a burning ignorance?
Anyway Max, don’t even bother with this loser. He is just trying to jerk your chain. And, he’s not even very good at it. Once you get past his pompous bluster, his argument is weak.
Actually I chose the screen name because I noticed thy all I read on here in terms of responses to the articles are vitriol and self righteous finger pointing, and a slew of ad hominem attacks by the regulars on anyone that fares have a different opinion than them.
Now you’ve both resorted to name calling without even bothering to discuss the content of my argument; instead you attack my character, and now you resort to witless retorts about my intelleigence. Those are ad hominem attacks, and they are pointless.
Max: no, I wouldn’t feel differently about the criminality of his actions. I’d sue him, I’d hound him out of town by every civil means available, but I would not pursue criminal charges against him as I know the law in use to have been unconstitutionally interpreted by an over zealous prosecutor.
Now, were he to touch my child I would simply, and without malice or anger, kill him, and no force on earth would stop me from doing so.
Stop being childish; I am arguing a point of law and a point of logic, I haven’t resorted to name calling or finger waggling, nor do I attack your personal history simply because I disagree with your interpretation in this matter; it’s schoolyard antics to come at me the way you have been.
Regardless, I see there is no point in discussing, this is merely another site for sycophants and voyeurs.
Ad Hominem,
Your arguments are actually just as much an “Argument to the Man” as the rest of the statements on this post. To be fallacious, however, the Ad Hominem attack must be false. Max is engaging in an Ad Hominem attack, in that he questions how anyone can be a victim of child abuse and attack someone who defends children from child predators, there’s a question there that you either answer, or you lose that particular debate.
I’ve argued against thatsmystapler and you by defining the actual points of law. These fall under the definition of child pornography that include “simulated” child pornography that show “lascivious” display of the genital region or sex acts. Drawings can be be considered child porn as can photographs which are clever capture in chemical or digital form of reflected events. These compilations are child pornography as certainly as a death threat composed of the individual letters from other works to state “I am going to kill you” on a page is still a death threat, though the derivative works never said it before they were added to the “collage.”
In short, this is child porn because it obeys the legal definition and its intent was to be child porn and nothing else short of it.
I hope Max is keeping track of you, Stapler, Rendo and good old James. I think you’re the same people or an associated group. You talk in similar patterns, when you make grammatical errors you do in them in the same places, with the same words. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that you folks slipped up and made comments from the same computer at least once or are geographically close, if not the same person. It’s not a reference to attack you personally, but an observation of fact that indicts you for a separate act of dishonesty.
All of you, and yes this is an attack based on the genetic fallacy, but still provable, is Tautological. You folk(s) seem to stress this knowledge you have that we don’t, but don’t present facts, only your own General Rules(Fallacy of the General Rule), Argument From Age, Argument to the Future, and Argument of Authority that pretty much falls short every time because,
a. You fail to provide a definition, legal or otherwise that supports your position.
b. Expect to be treated fairly when you choose to denigrate first, and provide argument later.
c. Claim anonymity when you most certainly do not.
Perhaps (all of) you don’t really focus long enough to imagine there are people here who have experiences that add up to more than your own experience and knowledge. People who honestly are experts, are inspired by insights you don’t have, and perhaps might just be worth arguing in a fashion in which you present your case, concede the points they make that are valid, and then try to refute their points, case by case, item by item.
Maybe that might make your arguments a little stronger.
Mazzi, Jason – Thanks for having my back. You guys are my friends and have the only opinions of me that matter. Both of you know that I have reconsidered things I’ve said and done because of something one of you has said. I ‘m stubborn, but not so stubborn that I can’t admit when I’m wrong.
Ad Hominem, I was not wrong about you. I’m glad you were finally able to admit your real agenda wasn’t the Selmack case but embarrassing the people on this website. I sensed something fishy about you from the start, a feeling that you were not quite as sincere as you wanted us to believe. It wasn’t that your position on this issue was so contrary to mine – I never got the same feeling with ‘thatsmystapler’, and he put up a better argument than you did. The truth is I kind of of like the guy and hope I haven’t insulted him.
I knew if I kept the pressure on you’d show your real motives eventually, and now you have. How does it feel to be outsmarted by a high-school-educated burned out ex-doper? I’ll tell you what, I could have never pulled this off against someone as smart as Jason, but I eat phonies like you for breakfast – LOL.
Like alot of people, you love to judge the people who come to this website, because you have no understanding of things like empathy. We exist solely to support the victims of violent crime and their families. The kinds of cases we cover – Rape, murder, baby killing, child abuse, etc… – are all emotional issues, and if someone wants to vent their anger by posting a vitriolic comment then they’re welcome to do it. If a family member or supporter of a particular perpetrator chooses to post a comment attacking the story about his friend/family member, then he better be prepared to back it up with some concrete facts or he’s going to find a very hostile reception for his ‘theories’. Like I said to you, if you can’t stand the heat, stay the fuck out of the kitchen.
BTW, you DO know most of us don’t really believe we’re sending anyone to hell with our polls, right?
I’m proud of this website, what it stands for, and the people who come here every day to either just read the stories or comment afterwards. I think the hours of work I put into it on a daily basis is the best thing I’ve ever done with my life since I married my wife and had children. The friends I’ve made here are some of the finest people I know, and I make no apologies for them, myself or this website.
If you don’t like us you have two choices, you can continue to comment here and try and convince us that you’re right, or you can quietly disappear from view. Be smart – go away. Don’t go away mad, just go away.
Trollboy – you claim that you are “arguing a point of law and a point of logic”. So why can’t you address my very simple legal and logical principle – that HIS rights end when they impede on the rights of others? Or do you believe that the victims do NOT have the right to not be depicted in pornographic depictions without their consent?
It is a simple legal, ethical and logical principle. For all of your blather, I am a little surprised that you don’t get it. This is not about a guy “thinking” bad thoughts – he violated those children’s rights.
This will not have a chilling effect on authors and artists and common citizens, any more than child porn laws prevent parents from taking naked-butt baby pictures. You are arguing apples and oranges. However, if someone wants to write a Lolita-esque novel about their next door neighbor’s kid – they will probably be sued. As well they should be.
Sued yes, convicted of a crime no. You’re confusing civil issues with criminal ones. I agree these children have a civil right to control the use of their own image in the public sphere (at least in California, the use of a persons image has historically been each States perogative, and the civil penalties are generally a state issue), but that’s an issue for the civil courts and civil law, not criminal.
I’ve said repeatedly this man can suffer whatever civil penalties you wish to heap on him, only a rank idiot would think I’m here trying to defend this man or attack those who seek to expose him, though as always I see no lack of rank idiots, but civil law and criminal law are seperate for a reason. These children and their families suffered financial loss, emotional loss, and a feeling of an invasion of their privacy, and all of those have existing civil penalties, but his actions in this particular case don’t constitute a breach of the public peace, so I believe the charges filed against him are ridiculous.
I’m not trolling for anything, fighting with the pair of you is about as pointless as this argument, as you’re so disinclined to consider anything but your own egos in the mix.
Enjoy your lives.
Michael
I am not confusing anything. You are attempting to twist my statements around. I said that someone could be sued for writing a novel about their next door neighbors kid, as a completely separate point from the manipulation of child pornographic images. It was in response to your earlier concerns about the chilling effect of censorship (MY words – yours were not so succinct.)
You really lack an ability to comprehend others writings don’t you? That is typical of egotistical people who believe that they know better than everyone else – you just skim over what the “little” people write and then try to impress everyone with your big words and your “superiority”. I call shenanigans.
I hope that this was your last post. You really are too ignorant to continue to respond to – but you are like a sore tooth – even though it hurts, there is an inexplicable desire to mess with it.
I would say that you should also have a nice life, but unfortunately, I know you wont. Carrying that 50-lb chip on your shoulder should guarantee that you will remain miserable for ever.
Michael (Ad Hominem),
Let me simplify this:
You are wrong.
You don’t know the law.
Here is the law:
Title 18: Part 1. Chapter 110: 2256 2 exclusive
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256—-000-.html
“sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated— …
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
I spelled this out earlier, but you continue to act like you know what you’re talking about and you don’t.
Click on the link, it belongs to Cornell’s law school, read the entire page and recognize that the only basis left for your argument is the same one stated in the source article by the ACLU and even they know that what they’re attempting to do is challenge a law on the books as unconstitutional.
Given the current balance of the court, do you think anything is going to change even if this gets to the Supreme Court?
“As for your ad hominem attack, in which you infer from my argument for the rule of law that I have a predilection for child pornography, I’d suggest you review some of the rules of logic. Ergo hoc, ergo proctor hoc. Trying to impugn by implication is the weakest form of personal attack, just as siding with the masses does not make their position correct.’
WTF? Blah blah blah. Using big words doesn’t make what you’re saying any more intelligent. My first inclination is that from your reaction, I have touched a nerve with you and your viewpoints of childporn and pedophilia. I wouldn’t have a strong reaction to any implictations about myself and pedophilia/childporn, because I’m not attracted to it and therefore don’t feel personally threatened like that.
I am going to have to go with Max on this one. Not that I’m calling you a troll, per se, but I find your position highly questionable since you claim to have suffered abuse yourself. Your opinion of ‘counseling’ is interesting. You’ve claimed that your counseling has led you to your opinions on this subject. If that’s even true, I’d suggest you get a different counselor. I’ve gone through much therapy myself for child abuse, and I didn’t come out the end of it with an unending sympathy for abusers. I also would never allow my kids to be near anyone I suspected of being abusive or pedophiliac- common sense says to err on the side of my children, rather than to explain to them that the suspected pedophile has the right to have the freedom to be near them. My children’s right to be safe is more important than some pedo’s right to whack off thinking about children.
Do you really believe that counseling changes what people are attracted to? Turned on by? Do you belong to one of those churches that claim that homosexuality can be ‘cured’ through counseling? Do you?
I find it disturbing especially that you claim you were raped, and that the children involved in these allegations hadn’t been, and therefore haven’t suffered as much as you, therfore no crime has been committed. Suffer from lack of empathy much? Do victims have to suffer exactly what you did before you perceive them as victims? Does this really sound like a very mentally healthy aproach to you? It disturbs me.
I don’t like people who want to have sex with children, and I don’t care all that much if they never act on it. One thing I do know is that nobody rapes children who didn’t think about it and enjoy thinking about it before they did it. Just like your alleged abuser thought about you sexually before they attacked you. Anyone who cannot see why society putting up with people who harbor thoughts like that is WRONG needs to go back for some more therapy. Yours obviosly didn’t take.
c
This case is just creepy! I would have been so enraged if I had found out that one of these children that he used pictures of was my child. It’s scary to think that he was having these thoughts about these girls and that he was the principal of a school. I do hope that he is never allowed to work around children again. You would think that he would automatically never be allowed to work as a principal again, but it would not surprise me if he challenged the right to work as a principal because he didn’t actually molest someone. What a twisted, creepy weirdo! I damn sure wouldn’t want him near my 13 year old daughter!
“Sorry Becky, but I just don’t see the difference between child pornography and simulated child pornography.”
You don’t? SERIOUSLY?
The difference is gigantic and significant—in the former, a child has been directly raped, physically and mentally abused, subjected to potential physical injuries and possible disease, and will carry the psychological scars of that for the rest of their life.
In the latter—as sick as I think it is—none of those things has occurred.
You can argue that you still think the latter should be illegal, but to say there’s no difference between the two is absolutely batshit insane.
Now see that Guav, here we are, having a nice, civil debate about the merits of the state’s case against John Stelmack, and you have to come along and act like a horse’s ass.
Obviously, I was referring to a pedophile possessing pictures like that, not how they’re made. I guess if I had written, “I don’t see any difference between POSSESSING child pornography and POSSESSING simulated child pornography” it would have been a lot clearer, but your reaction is way out of proportion to what you assumed I meant.
Max- some of these arguments are just so stupidic. They are the kind of people that would claim they’d let the POS babysit their kids- because he hadn’t been ‘proven’ to have molested anyone YET. I’m sure that the parents of the children involved and are just overreacting. The POS should get his job as principal back, and their children will be okey-dokey safe going to his school. Just because he pasted THEIR faces onto perfectly legal porn doesn’t mean he likes to think about sex with children, or them in particular. And even if he does, there’s no GUARANTEE he will act on it, and that’s what we need. Guarantees. Until then, just look the other way and hum.
Pedophophiles are people who want to have sex with children, not just people who act on it. And the only reason it isn’t illegal yet is because we haven’t made it illegal yet. And because of asshats who will argue their right to fantasize about abusing children based on idiotic ‘freedoms’ they think they have. All just a tad self-indulgent and suspicious, if you ask me.
c
If I read your reply correctly, you are advocating making certain thoughts or desires illegal?
And what exactly is suspicious to you?
Guav, think about those simulated suffering those poor simulated children went through, though… The simulated rape must have cause an incomprehensible amount of simulated mental anguish and simulated physical pain. I hope the simulated rapists burn in a simulated hell for their simulated crimes….. Simulated.
“the” not “those”, sorry. Got distracted. Guess I’m not as perfect as I thought. Oh, wait…..Yes I am, it was the keyboard that made the mistake. All is well.
Thanks, NavyCop. Now I have to clean off the coffee I just spewed on my keyboard from lol. First laugh of the day is always the best! ;~)
Damn keyboards. Always causing trouble. >:D
I agree that the man does not belong in contact with young children, if this is where his fantasies tend to go.. While the idea of a woman’s body with a child’s face is absolutely bizarre in western society, take a look at some hentai, or manga? One aspect of japanese culture is an obsession/attraction to youth.. Many anime characters look incredibly young.. The idea of the “woman child” is not new.. or really all that unusual..
Should we, as a society tolorate that sort of thing? No.. I dont think it’s right, and a lot of other people here don’t think it’s right.. However, do we string people up for something they MIGHT do? No.. We can’t .. We can however make sure that some things don’t happen..
But he is not being punished for something he “might” do, he is being punished for something he DID do. He took those children’s images and placed them into a simulated sexual environment.
Look at it this way – suppose someone took two innocent photos of naked children and manipulated the photos to resemble a sexual act. Wouldn’t that be child porn? Even though the children really were never near each other?
Hentai is a specific type of Anime animation. The name Hentai means “sexual perversion” in Japanese. Anime is the same style of drawing, but without the perversion. Regardless, the fact that they even call that art style “hentai”, indicates that they know it is sick and wrong. So if the gearing of images is towards young females, it is marked as a perversion. Just like porn that bills itself as “barely legal”. The hentai images (to my understanding, and I am no expert) do not generally show young children engaging in sex. Rather, they show childish faces (big eyes, high foreheads), childish behavior and childish clothing (schoolgirl clothing) on very adult bodies. BUT the faces are generic. They are not photos of actual living breathing children.
Wow, I avoid the site for a couple of days(an HTML code on the site is tripping my anti-virus) and literally the crazy comes out. I’m being accused of being someone else or associated with a group of people because of the way I type?
I didn’t even know about this site until a couple of weeks ago. It was recommended by someone else on another forum I frequent. The title piqued my curiosity and I came here. I use this screen name on many things. Google it. You can probably find me on Twitter or MySpace or in various forums. I have no reason to hide who I am or pretend to be other people to express my views on a subject. I will proudly stand my ground on any issue I believe in, no matter how unpopular.
Jason- You are twisting the law to fit you argument. The lines you keep quoting refer to the body of a CHILD. Not that of an adult. He pasted the pictures of the child on adult bodies. Therefore the laws you are quoting have no bearing here.
Mazza- To answer the question you asked, no- people do not have the right to not have their pics pasted on other’s bodies. At least not any more than I have the right to not be cut off in traffic, or not be annoyed by someone, or not be accused of being someone else. As a general rule, we ALL should have the right to not have anything done by anyone that could bother us or potentially embarrass us. But we don’t.
Max- No, I was not insulted by you. Everyone is entitled to their stance. If I can say so, I think your time on the site has probably impacted you a bit more and made you more biased. I was reminded of agents on Special Victims squads of police departments. How after awhile the cases start to get to them and they start viewing things differently.
I get where your fear with this guy is coming from. I understand the desire to try to stop a potential crime from happening. But the keyword is potential. I’m a religious person. I believe in free agency and that we have the ability to alter our paths with every decision we make. We are not pre-ordained to do any certain thing.
There are people out there with varying urges that don’t act on them. I have no doubt that there are people with urges for kids who have never acted on them. The thing is, no one is ever going to come forward and say so. Look at the reactions on this site alone. Just for having the urges they would become pariahs. So we can’t rely on statistics to tell us that all pedophiles act on their urges because people are never going to be honest about the issue. We have to trust that they will make the right decision until they don’t.
And that goes into a crime is not a crime until it is committed. No matter what we may suspect. From some of the responses I’ve read on this site to different articles, I know some of the readers are nuts. Are we going to lock them up for that? How do we know that one of these overly zealous posters isn’t going to be part of a mob that beats up the wrong guy when a child goes missing? Or that they won’t act on their threat of killing someone? We don’t. But we can’t act until the crime is done or been attempted.
And I know this reply has been long, but what would I do if it was my own kids? I’d make sure that everyone knew what happened. I would make sure he lost his job. Then as a father, I’d likely beat some fear into him. While he may have the right to do it, it doesn’t mean I’ll let it slide. Someone has the right to say what they want about my mom. Doesn’t mean I won’t punch them in the mouth for it.
But I wouldn’t think he should be locked up for something that hasn’t happened yet or for a manipulation of the legal system.
*deep breath* Did I cover everything? :)
LOL – you did a good job covering everything. But I still make the same argument. To put my argument in a different light, compare it to slander/libel laws. If this principal had written or said “little Janie is having sex with the football team”, that would indeed be illegal. It crosses over from his right of free speech and impedes on her rights to not be lied about. It is not a big leap from that to what this perv did.
As for the second point you made, you DO have the right to not be cut off in traffic in many states. If the behavior is so egregious as to be potentially hazardous, the other driver can be charged with assault and battery. So, being cut off and annoyed = porn. Being cut off in a potentially harmful and threatening way = child porn.
As far as the base law that he was convicted under, I see both sides. I would not necessarily scream and yell if that law were overturned. Because the law is mostly designed to prevent people from rendering drawn images of children. I would, however, like to see a replacement law to protect ACTUAL children’s images from being used in simulated porn. On the other hand – society is in a moral decline. If we don’t keep laws like this on the books, we will likely be seeing hard-core graphic depictions of things that most people can’t even imagine yet. While I know that seeing things does not translate into doing things, the type of people who would seek that out ARE the kind of people who would be far more likely to act on the fantasies. Because children are so accessible, and so vulnerable, from a social perspective it is better to simply ban these images.
As far as I am concerned, you are not a troll, at least not by your last post. Respectful disagreement is good. However, the posters who attack others will get it back multi-fold. We don’t take the moral highroad here – if someone attacks we attack back, and we do it better than most, lol.
If he was publishing said pictures, you are correct. However, they were in private. If I slander someone in private to myself, that is not breaking any laws. And with slander and libel, you also have to prove where these situations had an adverse effect on your reputation, business, etc. Did him having these pics in the privacy of his own home effect the girls in any way? Nope.
My example was just an illustration of the concept of impeding rights. I was not trying to apply libel/slander laws to this case.
How the breaking of laws affects someone is not a consideration in the application of legal principles. The girls were probably not affected by the illegal activities (until the activities were discovered), but that does not diminish their rights to not be depicted in such a manner. Even if the girls had “consented” (which, of course is a legal impossibility due to the age of majority), his right to free expression does not hold as great a legal weight as their right to not have their images violated.
Regardless, we are not in a courtroom, and we are not acting as attorneys here. This forum is a social one, and the bounds of socially accepted morality is what the general population here discusses. It is getting a bit tiresome to debate these points ad nauseum.
From a social perspective the guy is a perv – he should not be allowed around any children ever again, and he should be punished for his actions. He violated a position of trust as well, and should be held to a higher standard than someone not in such a position. And, laws need to be enacted which specifically ban this particular kind of aberrant behavior, because some sicko slimeball has forced our hand.
It’s a damned sad day when we have to even argue about something so shameful. It would be so much better if these pedophile slugs just disappeared.
The sad thing is society produces these people. They are not born with those predilections. But the media’s depiction of children, breakdown of the family unit, etc all contribute to this.
And the system goes about it all wrong in going after them. One of my biggest pet peeves is To Catch a Predator. They are not helping with the problem. When it comes to the internet, the problem is the kids. Unsupervised internet access. I’ve been in many chatrooms where teens come in looking for sex, and hit on adults. I’ve been hit on. That is where the focus should be. Parents should be better parents. I’d almost say that kids shouldn’t even be online. But at the very least it should be closely monitored.
Same section, further down the page clarifies that you are not only wrong, but still aren’t bothering to read the law.
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(9) “identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and
(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
You might have something with 11, if you’d bothered to read it, and consider it, but of course there’s this caveat here in that “ordinary person” in this case is a Judge.
You make the same typos as another “set” of posters on this site. I continue to believe that at the very least you write from a similar style or perspective as these other posters. If you think you understand the law “better” than I do, or the judge in this case, please explain what specifically you think makes the difference. This isn’t an Ad Hominem attack, this is a statement of fact with a citation. If you have some source that provides a different interpretation, I’d be happy to see it. From my perspective, this is actually a pretty clear cut case. It shows a weakness in the law, but the definition has been made broad enough to cover any interpretation, photographic or drawn to convey and produce child pornography under this definition a clear cut definition under the law. If a video of the rape of a child is a 10, this is a 2 on the Child porn scale, with a 1 being a lewd drawing of a specific minor in a suggestive manner on the back of a napkin.
It’s still child porn.
Covering another continuous thread in this argument, not necessarily one of yours, as to Pedophilia, it means child love and doesn’t require an act, it is a state of being that can actually be determined through psychiatric observation or the application of an instrument. You don’t have to have sex with children to be a pedophile, though having sex with children is a 100% proof of pedophilia.
I had the same virus blocker problem with the website over the last few days. I had to disable JavaScript for this site because one of the Ads in the rotating squares above has a hijacker script in it and the Advertising service should be notified that they’re messing up royally on their own scans.
You know you are one pretentious SOB right? The fact that you accused me of being someone I am not and can’t admit you are wrong and you still stand by your assertion says alot about your character.
Back on topic, I read what you posted and I think we are interpreting it different ways. You are taking it to mean that if any part of the image is that of a minor. However, you can read it to mean that the image, itself, must be that of a minor. The guidelines you listed are those used for identifying if it is a minor at the time of the picture, drawing, video, etc. The face is an identifying factor, it is not saying if the face is that of a minor that it is child porn.
The fact is the images did NOT depict an identifiable minor engaging in sexual activities. They depicted an identifiable adult doing it. An adult with a child’s head superimposed on their own. This is where the argument will come in. On the identifiable part. And really, the pics likely need to be seen to address this. Was it the face of an 8yo on the body of a woman with DD breasts? That obviously is not identifiable as being a minor. Also with the “known” clause if the body types are different than those of the actual girls in question, a case can be made there. If he put the head of a chubby little girl on the body of a skinny woman for instance.
I’m not a lawyer and I could argue this because it is not cut and dry on it being child porn. I don’t think they had this situation in mind when they wrote this up. IF they want this to be against the law, they need to write a better law for it. But I don’t think you can convict based solely on what is written here.
damn, and I was hoping you were calling me “one pretentious SOB.” :( You guys are hurting my feelings by NOT insulting me.
Well, we can’t have that, can we?
BITCH!
How’s that? Do you feel better?
I’m not a Lawyer, I just work with some and am now related to one. It still doesn’t make me a lawyer, but luckily this is a definition that defines child porn explicitly.
I’m a computer programmer, I specialize in security so I tend to stress the paranoid when I have proof. I don’t have any proof, only conjecture based on analysis. That’s what I do, so forgive me, but you did the following:
1. You presented your argument without facts
2. You claimed a superior understanding with inferior position
3. You used the same level of diction and even made some of the same grammatical errors as someone else.
Those are normally damning in my book.
We disagree on the interpretation of the law. I think you miss the point over and over again. Have you sat on a jury recently?
The Judges in the few cases I’ve sat on specifically said “I will tell you the law. What you know or feel you know about the law may be incorrect. I will instruct you on the point of law as it pertains to this case.”
Imagine for a moment you’re sitting on this jury and you need to set aside all of your preconceptions that this is:
A. harmless
B. disgusting but protected free speech
C. that you understand those definitions I gave you
The judge turns to you after the attorneys have spoken, gives you that speech and then says answer the following questions, if they are yes, you must convict this man of all charges.
1. Was this a simulated picture designed to give the impression that a minor child was naked in a sexually suggestive position?
2. Was this child’s face visible in the composite picture?
You’re a jury member and you’ve been given a worksheet to answer those two questions. The judge gets to determine if a “reasonable person” would be fooled or not. You only get to decide on the portions of the law as he defines them.
lol Thanks for the chuckle by listing one of your credentials as being “related” to a lawyer. That was awesome.
And moving past all your douchebaggey comments of how much more superior you and your stance are, I’ll address one of the questions you say the judge will ask. To #1, I will say I don’t know. It depends on what the lawyers say and the defendant if he takes the stand. Maybe the intention wasn’t to make it look like a minor was having sex, maybe he just wanted the porn star to look younger. Intent is a very hard thing to argue and make a case on. The fact that you can’t see the holes in the way the law is written shows that you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
thatsmystapler – Some of us can change our minds on a subject, and don’t mind saying so publicly. I have changed mine! I didn’t think you were a troll before, but now I do.
How dare you mock Jason? He may not be a lawyer, but he is one of the smartest, most thorough and precise posters on this board. He is smarter than most lawyers I know, and I know more than just a few. You have continued to pick at every argument that has been presented, either because you are deliberately obtuse or because you are an argumentative jerk. I can see why Jason suspected that you might well be one of the other obtuse or ignorant posters in disguise.
((Max – just for hoots, could you please check these posters and see what the likelihood is that they are the same person? Wouldn’t it be funny if Jason was correct? I have a suspicion that he may be, simply because it is hard to imagine so many pretentious blowhards all coming to the same thread at the same time.))
Anyway, Staple Boy, I am done with you and your alter-egos. Keep saying what you will. but remember this. YOU ARE WRONG. He was convicted, which proves you are wrong. Mwuahahah. The very fact that he was convicted makes this precedent, and the only way it can be changed now is by appeals. So all of your posturing and your nitpicking is pointless. Like it or not, what this creep did is and was illegal. End of discussion.
Have a nice day.
The addition of a lawyer was a recent event.
As it stands, you continue to look at the definition differently than the judge in this case.
Why do you think that is?
Do you think the judge was wrong about the law as well?
You’re wrong. You never saw the definition before you set in your mind that you thought you knew what pedophilia, child porn and a host of other terms were. You were wrong and you just can’t face it can you?
I’m glad you didn’t take anything I said personally thatsmystapler. Subtlety isn’t my strong point and sometimes I rub people the wrong way. It may be that I’ve been affected by all the stories I’ve researched about child abuse, or maybe it’s just that I’m more aware of the damage a gay like Selmack can do if he chooses to act on his fantasies. I don’t know.
I’ve thought about this alot myself, and I wondered to myself how the founding fathers would see this issue. I believe when they they drew up the First Amendment they were concerned about government legislating the thoughts and ideas of their citizens. One of the first thing a totalitarian regime tries to do is to control the media and set up a secret police to infiltrate the regular folk and recruit people to spy on their own citizens. This way they know who to arrest when the inevitable crackdown on free speech goes down. The First Amendment is one of the way they hoped to prevent that from happening here.
I doubt they had a case like John Selmack’s in mind, and if they were here today, they’d agree with me that the freedoms that the Constitution guarantee us does not extend to the right to posses child pornography, simulated or otherwise. I know all about the slippery slope, and that’s why I don’t object to the KKK marching down main street or to websites like Stormfront and Vanguard. But I just can’t come up with one legitimate reason for having those pictures Selmack had in someone’s possession that doesn’t involve pedophilia in some form. To me it’s common sense, to you it’s an attack on our freedom. The fact that you and I can argue this point for days in a public forum and not have to worry about going to prison or being lynched by an angry mob tells me the Constitution is still a very healthy document.
I don’t think I’ve been totally clear. I’m not arguing freedom of speech here. I’m not that big a fanatic over it as some that I think it should encompass this. I’m arguing that he hasn’t broken any laws that are on the books currently. I’m arguing that this is not child pornography. I’m arguing that he shouldn’t be locked up because of what he might, or even likely, will do.
If they want to alter the law to blatantly say this is illegal, then that is another story. But the law isn’t that concise on it, regardless of how some want to interpret it. I don’t think anyone should be locked up until they actually break a law. Even if we know they likely will in the future. It opens up a door that will lead to profiling like you have never seen before. Where you only will take it to include people like this guy. Someone else will progress it to include inner city youth(numbers show they are more likely to be criminals). Another will include men in general.(we are all vicious wife-beaters dontcha know?)
Oh yes Max, MUUUUUUCH better. All is now well in the world
It is the First Amendment that allows us all to argue these points into oblivion also allows for the “good” citizens of the United States to call our servicemembers “baby-killers,” and allows family members of REAL baby-killers to defend the idiots against public opinion in public forums. I love America… By the way, does begging to be insulted make me a masochist? Just wondering. Good night all, keep spreading the truth, (or as some of the afore-mentioned family members would say, “propaganda”) I’ll check back in on Monday.
Mazzi- He was asking for it. His comments were condescending. I haven’t read a post of his where it simply states his opinion without also stating why he is superior and the other person is wrong. No matter how smart you think he is, that is douchebaggery at its finest. And Max or anyone else is free to do any research they want on me. I’m not whomever you all think I am and I would LOVE for that to be proven and watch you and Jason eat crow.
Jason- Judges are not infallible. And I know for a fact that other people HAVE gotten off(no pun intended) for this exact same thing. And since you love facts I refer you to the case of Marshal Zidel(found with 15 seconds of Googling). Read more about how the courts ruled that it was NOT child porn here:
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/20/court-rules-that-childrens-faces-put-on-adult-bodies-does-not-constitute-child-porn/
He was initially convicted and had it overturned. Here is the PDF of the court paperwork from that:
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2008/zidel005.pdf
***And I found some parts interesting. Of note is this:
[The State counters that because the defendant’s images “incorporate identifiable pictures of real children,” they “create harm to those children, even if the original pictures did not involve sexual activity, [since] those children are depicted as participating in such activity through manipulation of their likeness.” The State argues that “harm is caused even when only one person views such an image,” and, thus, “the State has a legitimate interest in preventing that harm, and no right of free speech is violated by prohibiting the possession of such images.”]
***This is EXACTLY the things being said by most here. And here are some key parts of the court’s response to that:
[While this interest is undoubtedly compelling, Ferber, 458 U.S. at 756-57, criminalizing the possession of materials depicting heads and necks of identifiable minor females superimposed upon naked female bodies, where the naked bodies do not depict body parts of actual children engaging in sexual activity, does not promote this interest. Contrary to the State’s assertion, when no part of the image is “the product of sexual abuse,” Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 249, and a person merely possesses the image, no demonstrable harm results to the child whose face is depicted in the image.]
[Further, while Osborne proscribes the mere possession of pornography produced with real children, see Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 245-46; Osborne, 495 U.S. at 111, its holding is anchored in “the concern for the participants, those whom it called the ‘victims of child pornography,’” Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 250 (quoting Osborne, 495 U.S. at 110). These participants are the children who have been sexually abused or exploited in the production of the materials. Ferber, 458 U.S. at 759. The mere possession of morphed images depicting no victims of child pornography cannot “haunt[] the children in years to come,” Osborne, 495 U.S. at 111, since the children do not know of their existence and did not participate in their production. Therefore, the foundation for Osborne’s proscription on possession of child pornography is not present here.]
***This one was of interest since others mentioned the fact that the children are not harmed since they are ignorant of the images existence.
[Finally, however distasteful, reprehensible, and valueless this conduct might seem, cf. Ferber, 458 U.S. at 762, the First Amendment protects “the individual’s right to . . . observe what he pleases,” Stanley, 394 U.S. at 567-68. This protection is central to our long and sacred tradition of prohibiting the government from intruding into the privacy of our thoughts and the contents of our homes. We cannot displace this guarantee simply because the materials at issue may express ideas that are unconventional and not shared by a majority. See id. at 566.]
*** So Jason, YOU are the one that is wrong here. I’ve just presented actual legal proof of it. Are you happy? And it’s ridiculous that things had to go this far when we all agree that it is a morally reprehensible act. However, it remains a legal one for the time being. If you don’t like the thought of that, write your local congressman. You will have a lot more luck with that than trying to prove your intellectual superiority to me on a website.
Actually been waiting for someone, anyone to bring this case up actually Stapler, and I actually applaud you for being the one to do it. Perhaps I will eat crow in this one respect, but you continue to be wrong, since in this case the High court specified that “teenagers engaging in sexual activity…is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries.”
Sex with a child under 10 is not acceptable.
The Supreme court of New Hampshire’s ruling is interesting in that it occurred in 2007 on actions discovered in 2005.
This definition was modified in 2008
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ401.110
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/HowCurrent.php/?tn=18&fragid=T18F00868&extid=usc_sec_18_00002256—-000-&sourcedate=2009-05-20&proctime=Thu%20May%2021%2009:59:22%202009
The addition meant to close exactly that loophole includes section 1466A.
“B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; ”
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1466A&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001466—A000-.html
Now we have something to argue about. Whether or not you bothered to notice that Congress actually bothered to address these issues and modified the specific definition to make your case precedent moot is a minor point. Whether law passed by congress trumps this ruling successfully appears to have been answered.
And I don’t see it as being cut and dry still. Because artistic merit is debatable. I don’t think a lot of things are art that are classified as such. I don’t think porn is art. Others do. That right there will open the door to the argument that to this individual, the pictures are artistic. It is the problem you have when you try to base a law on subjectivity.
Until they draft a law that flat out spells out that putting the heads of children on adult bodies is illegal, there is always going to be room for appeals and to side-step the intent. With all these lines you keep posting, it almost looks like the lawmakers are dancing around the issue. And I think it is because they are afraid of the First Amendment arguments. So they are making it as vague as possible. Hoping the prosecutors will have enough rope to hang the defendant with, while not being blunt enough to supposedly infringe on constitutional rights.
Talk to an attorney and get back on this one.
You’re wrong, the laws were changed specifically to close this loophole.
well, either way, stapler, you’re still a fuckball, and emotionally speaking, i still hate your stupid guts. no logic needed, warranted or implied. you’re a gross affront to a lot of people here, so go find a dark, smelly, morally ambiguous hole and kindly crawl into it. if you are lucky, it’ll be the same one that Zidel crawled into, and you guys can jerk eachother off while you discuss how legal it was to do what he did.
Jason poses well thought out and factually supported arguments, Mazzi is emotional but still maintains logic in her statements, and both have blown your lame ass out of the water. I am responding in a manner that is totally emotional, i have no desire to enter into any form of debate, primarily because i have seen that you will conclusively continue to refute any opinion other than your own. That said, I just want to kick your ass.
***I had two paragraphs of witty retorts here before getting on to the rest of my reply. But after writing the rest of it, I felt it would lose its spirit by being preceded by such comments. So those two paragraphs have been deleted.***
Do I think like most of the posters here? Nope. I went through my stage of life where I cheered the death penalty and wanted to hurt every criminal around. Then I grew up. I realized how flawed our legal system is. Rather than wishing revenge on some slimeball I never met, I found myself wishing it never happened in the first place. Rather than wondering how we could punish those who commit the crimes in the most heinous manner possible, I found myself wondering how we can stop it from happening to begin with.
Our justice system is very screwed up. I find it is creating the criminals that we abhor. Fox News reported a couple of years ago that 1 out of every 7 Americans has been in jail or on probation. The U.S. has 25% of the world’s imprisoned male population ages 18-35. Why does supposedly the world’s greatest nation have more people in prison than anyone else? Why do we have more violent crime than Canada? We are one of two western nations that has the death penalty and it doesn’t seem to be lessening our crime problem. Our problem is with our system and society.
Because of that, I can’t find myself taking stances of “kill them” like so many of you do when I read these articles. Some of them make me cringe with how horrible they are, but I know there is more to the story. No one is born like this. So what took them to that point? Was it their parents? Were they molested themselves? What happened to get them to this point? I don’t think the answer justifies their actions. But we need to be asking those questions in order to solve this problem. Simply getting a blind rage isn’t going to accomplish anything.
And I also believe in the power of repentance. Christ died for all our sins. I won’t be the one judging in the final days. None of us will be. And that is because we don’t know all the details that lead up to what happened. We don’t know the hearts or mind of the person now. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t punish said individuals. And it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do something if it was one of my own family members. I’m not a perfect person after all. But because of my beliefs, I find it harder to lash out in blind hatred over someone I don’t know. Though I must admit Tyler Weinman and Cheyenne Cherry trip my base primal urges. However, I reign in my anger as it would be wasted and find myself petting my cats just a little bit more when I read stories like theirs.
Fabulous, go pray and pet your pussy and hope for the best.
Whatever, as long as you shut up because Jason has proven you wrong, wrong, wroooong. heh heh heh
So UH!
For those of you who disagree with this POS going to jail I have but a few comments to make:
a) do you not see this as maybe a HUGE RED LIGHT that dude is on his way to worse things, dont we always comment and think “I wish there had been a way to stop this before it happened.”
b) when dude is released and does finally commit a crime are you going to be the people to go up to the victim -if they are still alive- and their parents and say “sorry your life has been destroyed, but I agreed he shouldn’t have been put in jail in the beginning cause it was just a thought he had”, well NEWS FLASH, if it were me, I would knock you right out there on the spot! Cause they are probably thinking who would have let this creep out to have this chance!
c) imagine being the parents and family who kids faces were on there because believe me if that were my kid, dud would want protection from my family cause I would want to see to it they would never be able to see that image again. That wouldnt be a threat, that would be a promise!
d) imagine being those kids and having to deal with this, emotionally he has impacted them and who knows how they will move on from this! They are by all right victims to a crime!
Thats all!
The thing is, our system is based on punishing people for crimes they committed, not showing signs of future crimes. Like I said before, there is always the chance they won’t ever do the crime. We can see signs in just about anyone if we wanna look.
As an example, I think wondermom is nuts based on her posts. She has displayed desires of violence based on what a stranger has said online. Her posts don’t reveal a stable individual. So do we lock her up before she does something in real life? Do we lock her up before one of her threats becomes a reality? I’m appalled by the fact that she behaves this way and has children. Do we take away her kids out of fear of what she may do to them or the example she may set? While there are definitely red flags there with her, we cannot act on theories of what she may do in the future.
And as for the kids in the pics, there are many kids who have been through worse. These kids had no idea it even happened. Some may not even hear about it still. I have no idea if they identified everyone he had photos of. But this is not one of those situations that would scar a kid for life. The only way it is going to impact them is if the people around them keep it alive.
How do you know it will not scar them? Are YOU able to predict that future but not one of a already pedophile? How about the family? You never answer how those parents must feel, even if their child don’t know! We are to uphold the law and protect the right of others but what about their rights? Don’t you think the childrens and the parents rights have been violated? Dont you feel that they are victims based off the injustice this POS has caused them by placing their children into this ?
When we take our children to school we are under the assumption that while they are there, that the school and staff will not only share our interest in saftey but also do their best to assist with this. They must share similar interest for our children with taking on a occupation that will help children strive towards a better future. You have teachers who spend their extra time and lunch hours holding sports teams, assisting children whom are falling behind or require extra 1 on 1 time, spending extra time hosting plays and preparing for big events like graduation. For an individual whom was not only suppose to be doing this but in charge of the whole school, dont you think hes put the children in danger by using their photos -which he probably obtained through the school- and using it for his own sexual pleasures.
Would you want your child, niece, nephew, grandchildren around this man? Would you trust him to live on your street unpunished whole they go outside and play and not think about what he has done in the past?
Some people may be verbally violent but when it comes to children it is different, it may seem like a stretch and unfair in some circumstance to some but that’s the way it is! If a parent threatened their child – while at least where I am- they would be investigated and determined if they are a threat, usually the children are taken away to ensure their safety. Our job as parents and adults are to ensure the safety of our children and provide a safe world for them, obviously we often fail miserably, but there a still people who try. This man is an obvious threat to their safety!
How would it scar them? These kids were oblivious to what happened. At most they may be told that pictures of them were put on pictures of adults. How much thought do you think a kid will give to that? They aren’t going to have the capacity to draw the assumptions and worry the same worries that adults do.
And to answer your question, I don’t think any rights were violated by what he did. It was repugnant. It was immoral. It was disturbing. But a violation of rights? No. We are not born with the inherent right that our pics won’t be photoshopped for someone else’s pleasure. Someone could jack a camel off onto a picture of me and while I think it is gross, I wouldn’t say it was a violation of my rights. And I certainly don’t think his using the photos put the kids in danger. Using them would put them in danger. Using pics does not.
As for the school issue. I think we can agree that the reality of schools has been growing further away from the hopes of the parents. Yes you want to be able to trust that the teachers and principals are not pervs. You also want to trust that teachers can pass the very tests they are giving. You want to trust that the principal won’t walk around with booze in his coffee cup.(as mine did) Yet these aren’t always the case. I agree 100% that he should have lost his job after it was discovered.
Would I want my own kids around him? Nope. I don’t want my kids around Scientologists either. Doesn’t mean I think we should lock them up. This is where a parent steps in and is aware of their surroundings and keeps an eye on their kid and their activities. As you said, as parents, it is our job to protect our children. But at the same time, we cannot be overly paranoid either. There actually is more good in the world than evil.
Word spreads and as much as you try to protect your children from certain news it is not always possible. When Tori Stanford went missing in Ontario and was later determined killed and possible sexually abused I didn’t want my child knowing but she found out at 8 years old through a friend who’s mom was a cop! You don’t think these kids will not hear stories and then when they found out it was them be emotionally scarred as a result!
I definitely don’t agree with you about the right but, it sounds like your as strong as your opinion as I am on mine! And I would take great pleasure to see you confront his next victims family or even his current one and express your opinions to them! Would you still express the same opinions if the victims in the case were 1 and 2 instead? Cause to their parents it doesn’t matter what the age that is still your child!
In the long run it really doesn’t matter cause if he gets put in front of a jury with even a few parents I’m sure he will pay and if not karma ! You may think my views make me overly paranoid nut in a world where people are burning the children, kidnapping kids for sexual purposes, shooting each other for no other reason then to prove a point, etc how else are you suppose to protect your kids!
As for these school I don’t know what kind of school you went to but I take pride knowing each teacher in my daughters school share a huge interest in child protection, put forth a great effort to ensure their safety and further their learning, and have no criminal records thanks to the new fingerprinting being done.
One of the main differences in your example and this is media coverage. A missing child gets reported with her name and whatever the outcome is. In this case, the name of the children is not released to the media, because they are children. It will show up in court records and likely during the trial. Only the people involved with the trial will know. Are they going to be running around telling people what kids were in the pictures? I imagine the authorities notified the parents. The kids maybe even got interviewed to see if it went beyond photos. But do you think the parents sat down and told their kids what happened? Would you as a parent?
I really doubt the kids even know if they were one of them in the pictures. And even if they did, the details given would be scant. No one is going to go into detail on what they were doing in the picture. Most wouldn’t even understand it at their age. So no, I don’t think we are going to be seeing emotional scarring from this. The children are well-shielded and their age alone makes them less likely to worry about it as much as adults are.
And age doesn’t make a difference here. We are talking about inherent rights. Most Americans think they are entitled to rights they actually don’t have. We don’t have the right not to get photoshopped, child or otherwise. Now if we start talking about distribution a case can be made for defamation, but that wasn’t the case here. A person could take your picture the next time you are at the grocery store, take it home and do vile things to it. You don’t have the right for that not to happen. Gross, disturbing, immoral, etc, but not a violation of rights.
And you protect your kids by loving them, setting a good example, an making them aware and smart. You can’t shelter them. There are predators for every species on Earth and they still live their lives. We are never getting rid of our predators. And we can’t be everywhere with our kids. We just have to have some faith and prepare our kids the best we can. I feel bad for kids that don’t get to leave their homes, or ride their bikes around the neighborhood, or go to parks with their friends. We are letting these freaks of society take away our kid’s childhood. And that in turn makes every child a victim.
I get it now… you think this is about a victim. You said it a few times, but I thought you were just beggaring the point. You think the victim in this crime is the child, and as a secondary state the child is a victim. In this type of law though, the actual victim is the State. The community where these girls live and the standards we enforce to protect people from predation.
We have a freedom of speech that extends no further than the tip of our own nose. That freedom of speech can extend further so long as it does not trample the rights of others or the community at large. You can’t put up a bill board of a giant naked woman, even if the model gave legal consent because we have a series of laws that protect the common good. You can’t put up pictures of child porn because they disadvantage the minor and they also disadvantage the public. You can’t create or distribute child porn, even in a simulated way because it is defamatory to the subjects and it is an attack on the values of a community.
This isn’t a religiously protected activity. This isn’t a right which is protected, because the intent was personal, but also betrayed a trust. This principal was placed in a position of public trust and given access to minors to perform a service for his community that he was paid for. His “extra-curricular” activities are illegal (as above) and are a gross violation of the trust the community gave him. In a corporate job, all we can do is fine him and report him to the authorities, but we actually have laws on the books when we’re trying to protect a classification of citizens that rarely have rights they themselves can protect. We have entire classifications of law that protect less-than-citizens that just so happen to be minors above and beyond the normal laws. We don’t allow them to work 40 hour work weeks on school weeks, we don’t allow them to be raped or abused, and we protect them from defamation in very specific ways. When we add to this the laws we add to civil servants, this becomes a much larger, compound crime, aggravated by circumstances that you continue to ignore.
Call a lawyer, ask for some free advice on this one, and come back better informed.
1. I never was a pro-ponent of the “Freedom of Speech” argument and have already stated so.
2. I don’t need a lawyer to tell me that your “logic” is flawed. The examples you gave involved displaying something publically or using a child in a physically inappropriate manner. He used no children and it was in private. He didn’t distribute it. And many things people do degrade the values of the community and are not illegal. Some people think homosexuality degrades the value of the community. You going to tell them they are wrong for their beliefs?
3. His is illegal based on YOURS and others interpretation of the law. Given the precedence of the case I mentioned and the subjective nature of the line you said was added to stop it, don’t be surprised if he gets let go on appeal. We do agree that he violated the trust of his position. But we are not going to agree on legality with the way the law is currently written. Simply violating a trust, even one involving children, does not automatically make it illegal.
4. Defamation of children does not break any laws. I refer you to the recent Letterman/Palin incident. He made a joke about statuatory rape on a child. Is he in jail? He defamed her. His joke was in poor taste, but it was not illegal. No legal action was taken against him at all.
5. Are you able to put together a thought without insults? Just curious. If not, you may want to look into that. Or play in traffic. Either or.
1. Then you have no legal basis for your argument. It is the only thing his attorney was able to present.
2. My logic is sound and even linear. You’re attempting to prove a negative…. Remember how nearly impossible that is? (Not impossible because there are no “purely negative” statements. I’m proving guilt by definition. The same definition used to convict in this case.) The precedent you presented was brought forward, but it was proven that there was no significant artistic value in this case because the defendant was not a professional artist at this time and was not engaged for pay at the time of his conviction. In point of fact no one even had to go into that very deeply, because he was actually employed as a School Principal, and engaging in “art” of this nature would have been against the nature of his employment.
3. Law is interpreted by the community and its principle defenders. You have a right to your opinion, but your opinion must be persuasive to sway the community to your belief. You aren’t convinced that I know what I’m talking about. You’ve sought no external source for your convictions and I’ve asked you to avail yourself of an attorney in this matter. Odds are high you know of someone who knows an attorney who’d be willing to discuss this case for free. I’m trying to tell you that even the average tax attorney would know that given the changes made in the law, anyone other than a professional artist would now be convicted under the current definition.
4. Actually Letterman’s intent was to defame “Bristol Palin” because the joke writer in question did not realize the daughter traveling with Palin was not Bristol. Letterman apologized and that apology was eventually accepted by Sarah Palin. The defamation of a minor is in fact illegal in every State in the Union and if a prosecutor had “wanted” to prosecute, he could have attempted it. To prove defamation in this case, the prosecution would have had to prove Letterman’s joke was directed at Piper and not Bristol, which would have required that they prove Letterman’s knowledge and state of mind at the rehearsal of the show.
This case remains different. The principal actually interacted with the girls he used to alter his pornography. He knew and had access to those children and witnesses as well as documents in the State’s trust can demonstrate that knowledge. At no time can he claim the ignorance that David Letterman had because he admitted to producing these pictures.
5. It may seem insulting, but my definitions are accurate and pertinent to this discussion. Requesting that you seek some other authority than your own convictions is also reasonable in that you have not changed your opinion or considered anyone else’s opinions in this matter, including those of the legal counsel who tried this case, the legislators who directly altered the law or the intent of this case as a challenge to prior precedent. I additionally argue that at no time have you not been insulting. That’s actually not wrong, simply your entire argument strategy throughout your time here.
Seriously, you’ve been presumptive that you knew the law in question better than those who presented it to you. You’ve consistently brought up less than relevant side banter. You’ve been boldly rude, as have I to you whenever you’ve refused to consider the basic source of the law. You’ve been less than civil from the first post to the last and your contempt starts with the site, ends with the comments and in between stresses that you do not consider any piece of anyone else’s argument to be reasoned or considerate. I at least concede valid points.
Perhaps if you looked up the word insult, you’d see that I just spent a paragraph using the definition of that word to use every adjective and descriptor to present my case that you too have been insulting.
Consider the last to be informative as I still hold a great deal of contempt for your argument because you never bother to consider the points for what they are. You claim to understand logic but then ignore it when it’s presented. You could attack the logic and attempt to damage one of the proof statements, but instead you go for the global and state it’s all untrue without even delving into the details. From personal experience, that would hurt your ability to make reasonable changes to repair a logic proof.
I don’t know if your trying to imply anything here but my oldest does get to ride her bike and play with her friends but as a responsible parent it is always under supervision, she has a wonderful childhood while still being protected by our family. Our protection is for her safety and not to make her a victim. We had an incident with child pornography on our street and your damn right I tighten down because I want her to be safe and if that makes me a bad person by making her a victim then I guess I’m guilty.
Nonetheless it looks like you are very strong on your opinion and me on mine so there really is no point in bantering if neither of us are willing to accept the others.
New laws are created all the time, so I guess we will just have to see how this goes!
You know, I signed off for awhile because i was so sick of TMS’ pompous bs. It disturbed me greatly that he kept claiming the children involved were not suffering any consequences from this. As if middle schoolers and their parents don’t talk amongst themselves. I am in California and I am aware of this, so why on earth wouldn’t the victims be impacted? I thank you, both Jason and Jessica, for bringing up such valid points in regards to how damaging this is to the victims, and society as well.
Apparently TMS thinks I am scary… lol!
Hey, if actively hating pedophiles and the scum who defends them makes me wrong, I don’t wanna be right!
I understand completely wondermom. Now he’s started a ridiculously pointless argument in the Justin Shine story. I’m not biting, and I hope no one else does either. It’s painfully obvious to me that he picks his opinions based on setting people up for another pissing contest, and really has no point.
You’re really just getting ridiculous. The other thread was just a pondering over events and contained nothing confrontational. For someone who claims “not to be biting”, that is all you are doing. I’m tickled pink that I have such an impact on you that you feel the need to dedicate so many posts to me.
And you do realize that a lack of professionalism is an attribute of Yellow Journalism right? I’m just saying. And the fact that you can’t see how off the deep-end some of these people are.(see the Lori Drew comments)
So what are the names of the victims?
What?
Don’t know? That’s because they weren’t listed. So how are you going to sit around amongst other adults and middle schoolers and discuss it? Knowing about the story doesn’t give you the details that could impact the victim’s life. That is why they refrain from releasing that info to the media.
And the fact that you can’t tell the difference between supporting a pedophile and debating a point of legal contention is scary. Someone that can’t tell something as simple as that shouldn’t be allowed to interact with society, let alone breed.
i’d tell you to go blow yourself, but as usual, it seems you have a mouthful o’ dick already.
i really bug ya, don’t i?
haha!
Maybe you should go and pray about the fact that omnipotent you are so affected by someone as ignorant as lil’ ol’ moi.
you defend this asshole’s “rights” to sexually harass little girls, but you want to sterilize me bcuz i call it like i see it.
awesome. way to show that Christian spirit of yours. i’ve seen enough on here to know that i am not the only one who is sick of your shit, so i am guessin’ it’s a you problem, not a me problem. Unfortunately for you, there is no such thing as a personality transplant, so from here on out, i will be ignoring your bullshit.
Unless, of course you want to pay me to keep arguing…….
As usual, you are bringing the class to the convo. And given the responses, it is clear that I have WAY more of an impact on you. You don’t register your level of anger otherwise.
We are going to have to disagree on the definition of harassment here apparently. And you should be sterilized because you are nuts. You are a horrible person, so there is no way you are a good mom. You “calling it like you see it” just means you are either 1. insane and/or 2. partially retarded because you DO see it that way.
lol And I love how people like you resort to Christianity in exchanges like this. Apparently you can be Athiest and be a good person, but aren’t held to the same standards of decorum as Christians? So because you are an Athiest, you reserve the right to be a bitch, and as a Christian, I should just take it? Yet somehow, in your mind, you are a better person than me? Maybe someday you can explain how that works.
am not.