"It's sick out there and getting sicker"
Posted on 06/09/2011 10:29:41 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A Milpitas man who used a computer to paste photos of his 13-year-old daughter's head onto bodies of women in graphic poses shouldn't have been convicted of possessing child pornography because the pictures didn't show minors engaging in sex acts, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.
California's child porn ban, punishable by up to three years in prison, "requires a real child to have actually engaged in or simulated the sexual act depicted," said the Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose.
The court said the law was intended to prevent exploitation of children. Interpreting it broadly to apply to computer-altered photos might violate the constitutional standard the U.S. Supreme Court established in 2002 when it struck down a federal law banning "virtual child pornography," sexually explicit images that were entirely computer-generated, the appellate panel said.
"Although we may find such altered images morally repugnant, we conclude that mere possession of them remains protected by the First Amendment," Justice Franklin Elia said in the 3-0 ruling.
The court ordered a Santa Clara County judge to resentence Joseph Gerber, convicted in 2009 of possessing child pornography and furnishing drugs to his daughter. He was sentenced to 13 years and four months in prison.
The court said the teenager's mother suggested to her daughter in 2008 that she work to build a relationship with the girl's father, Gerber, from whom the mother had been separated for about 12 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
This could be seen coming once the USSC said that the exploitation of children was the only reason to allow a ban on such porn. I wonder who these pix got shared with, though.
"It's sick out there and getting sicker"
>>California’s child porn ban, punishable by up to three years in prison, “requires a real child to have actually engaged in or simulated the sexual act depicted,” said the Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose. <<
I can tell you exactly where this will lead: Computer graphic sex videos with child characters. As technology improves, pedophiles can get all the computer generated sex videos of young children doing pretty much anything - and it will be completely legal since no real child engaged in anything.
The dad needs his parental rights taken from him and mandatory counseling.
I’m not gonna get into a discussion about the niceties of free speech ... but if Child Protective services isn’t ALL over this ... I mean, wow.
i’m confused. i thought the courts ruled a drawing of an act is as good as the act. like drawing a gun or an animation of a child having sex.
this would be an animation but done with poor talent
this would obviously be kiddie porn.
either way, the kid should immediately be moved and put into witness protection.. identity changed... and just get the h*ll away from that freak
oh, and if he happened to get bludgeoned with a bat while walking down the street... i’ll be the first one to start looking into who could have done it... yup.. i’ll be right on it... dont you worry...
There’s definitely grounds to remove that child from this home, and quickly.
But that said, I have to agree that the court was right. It isn’t child porn if no actual child was involved. It’s certainly disturbing, though.
As much as I hate pedophiles I see nothing wrong with computer generated images. It is sick but not criminal, in fact if pedophiles can get their jollies with 3D graphics instead of pictures of real children it might just save some poor kids from being abused.
You think people should be charged with a crime when no harm to any real person was done?
As far as I am concerned they can hang real pedophiles, the ones who use real children to make porn movies and the ones who actually view them(people who view real child porn are as guilty as the ones who make the films, because without the market there would be no child porn) and kidnap and rape real kids. It should carry the death penalty.
Viewing computer generated images should carry no penalty what so ever.
Oh really? What if the reason the father did this was to dissuade his kid from acting like a slut? You know, like they teach them to act in PUBLIC school. So, your solution? Public parenting? Foster care is almost guaranteed child abuse.
I suggest you read this piece and start thinking about how quickly you jumped that gun.
It’s sick, but it’s legal. A computer generated pic is protected by the first amendment.
However, IMHO that does not mean child services should not come after him.
Highly doubtful.
From article: convicted in 2009 of possessing child pornography and furnishing drugs to his daughter
this behaviour only escalates......
what your mind focuses on becomes your passion and you act on it....
NO....NO....NO!
Nope. Not in the long run.
For people who go down that road, it's like a progression, and watching 3D graphics won't keep 'em happy for very long.
Pedophilia is not an armchair sport.
What do you think drives sex tourism?
What do you think is the number one driver of human trafficking and human slavery in the present day?
Why do you think there are brothels being broken up on almost a monthly basis where the girls are as young as eight years old??
Yeah, most people run across a few Playboy mags growing up and get over the woo-hoo. Others never graduate mentally; they remain unable to overcome the need for more, and some get consumed with the a need for truly vile physical involvement.
That is the beast you feed with those CG images you say you see nothing wrong with.
CG porn today; child rape tomorrow.
I have to ask why isn't this bastard in prison and why in the hell wasn't his daughter taken away then?
Even Hollywood hasn't perfected CG animation of real people. They depend on laser scanning and motion capture to do as well as they do. I believe you're not going to find that sophistication in this class of criminal. People skilled in the art will be able to tell much as they can while watching blockbusters.
I remember the Clinton-era "Communication Decency Act" tried to make computer generated fakes as criminal as real photos. That didn't pass constitutional muster so, in that light, this ruling isn't unexpected.
Exactly the man and quote that came to mind when I saw the story!
That same argument has been made about mainstream pornography for decades. With the internet's explosion of pornographic media availability and unknowable variety available, far beyond your decades out-of-date "Playboy mags" example, sex crimes should be out of control. That doesn't seem to be the case. One anti-sexual violence group, RAINN, claims a 60% decrease in occurrences since 1993.
I don't know how it is with pedophiles, I'm just pointing out that your arguments have been used before about a larger population and the fearful claims haven't born fruit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.