Court: Dad can paste daughter's face on porn photo

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Thursday, June 9, 2011 | Bob Egelko

[TN4Liberty]

I had the same thought. The goal of those laws is to protect children. If no children are harmed, the goal has been met. Barring people from their fantasies is another matter entirely.

If someone drew a pencil sketch that looked like a 13 year old engaging in sex, would that be a felony? Kind of hard to make that case, but the only difference is what they used to draw with. It is reminiscent of kids being expelled from school for drawing a picture of a gun, an attempt to legislate against certain thoughts rather than harmful acts.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks nickcarraway.

"Although we may find such altered images morally repugnant, we conclude that mere possession of them remains protected by the First Amendment"

I guess these photos I have of various victims of third world dictators, with judges' and other politicians' faces pasted in, are still okay.

[DemforBush]

“During their visits over the next few months, the girl said, Gerber gave her marijuana, which she had used before, and cocaine, which she wanted to try. During one of the drug sessions, she said, Gerber asked her to pose for pictures and she agreed, but she burst into tears when he told her to strip to her underwear.”

What a dirtbag.

[afraidfortherepublic]

What sick SOBs, including the mother!

[Venturer]

Social Services needs to find a new home for this daughter.

Before he commits the final act he is dreaming about.

[afraidfortherepublic]

You think people should be charged with a crime when no harm to any real person was done?

What about the viewer? Who may go on to imitate what was suggested in the videos, or pictures? Life imitates art.

[afraidfortherepublic]

the fearful claims haven't born fruit.

Didn't Ted Bundy claim that his serial killings started with porn?

[StonyBurk]

IMO neither of the girls so called parents have made manifest the qualities necessary to claim the title “parent” the mom seemed to exercise better judgment when she separated from the evil reprobate sicko.The so called fathers actions are so repugnant they seem to give credibility to the Islamic practice of honor killing—if any scum deserves being erased it is this beast.

[Eaker]

there is no way to prove a computer image is NOT the real thing

Yeah there is.

[RobRoy]

>>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.<<

I agree. The problem is that it satiates the need as Heroine satiates the need for heroine. Problem is that porn is like heroine. You have to keep upping the dosage. And when the need -no, REQUIREMENT - for the real thing becomes uncontrollable, bad things could happen.

>>You think people should be charged with a crime when no harm to any real person was done?<<

No. That said, see my point above. The challenge here is that you cannot legally stop it but it will only continue to coarsen our already mindbogglingly inhumane popular culture. Why do you think so many female teachers are having sex with their male underage students. Do you think it is because God decided all the “bad ones” would be born in this generation, or because they are an outward expression of our culture which creates and nurtures such appetites and, in a way, victims themselves of the world we have created for ourselves as a civilization.

Now I know why the Bible discusses Babylon in end times prophesy. It is the “spirit” of Babylon, and we see it all around us in our everyday lives. And I’ll end with one example that is of a personal nature to me: I switched from Hotmail to Gmail several years ago for ONE reason: Gmail has no graphic ads. I don’t have to look at scantily clad women every time I open my mail account.

[Tribune7]

That's what I was thinking. Maybe it's not grounds for a child porn conviction but the daughter should be removed from the home.

I'm pretty sure that once this sort of thing would have been an indication of insanity and an involuntary commitment to the state loony bin would have been in this perv's future. That was a pretty good solution.

[I Buried My Guns]

"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"

Let me play devil's advocate:

Wouldn't it be better for society and all potential victims if the pedos satisfied their urges using wholly computer-generated images? Would that not take children out of the loop and reduce victimization?

Crazy, odd and sick people will always be present in our society; we lack the will to kill, cast out or castrate them. I say let people do whatever they want as long as it causes no harm to others. If pervs want to play on their computers all day rather than haunting the playgrounds, I say that is a "WIN" for society overall.

I get these ideas from having first hand contact and experience with pervs. Thoughts? Am I way off base?

[RobRoy]

>>Wouldn’t it be better for society and all potential victims if the pedos satisfied their urges using wholly computer-generated images? Would that not take children out of the loop and reduce victimization?<<

Yes, if it stopped there. And frankly, in a free society, we sort of have to live with that.

>>Crazy, odd and sick people will always be present in our society; <<

True, but why do you think it is so much worse than it was ten, 20, 50 years ago? And it is not because it is getting reported more. It is because it is HAPPENING more. Why is that?

>>I say let people do whatever they want as long as it causes no harm to others.<<

I agree with that. My only caveat would be that it means we will have to be prepared to deal with the fallout of the increase in people who go “off the reservation

[calex59]

You may have a point that computer generated porn might make them want to move to the real thing. However, you still, in the name of freedom and common sense, cannot jail someone or even fine them, for watching a computer generated image. No one is hurt in the making of the image, no little child was brutalized or terrified in making a computer image, therefore no law was broken. That was my point. Once, or if, they move to the real deal then come down on them like a ton of bricks.

This would be a very slippery slope and soon we might be facing jail time for watching computer generated images of crimes, or even simulated crimes on videos with real actors.

Jailing someone for make believe is just wrong.

[RobRoy]

We are in agreement. That said, I do compare this to illegal drug use. The same arguments can be made for the legalization of much harder drugs than just Marijuana.

[Carry_Okie]

Highly doubtful.

If he was convicted of both, why did they not institute proceedings, get a judgment, and then remove the kid? My point is that there is no statistical rationale for an agency to have the power to remove a child from a home without a judgment from a court. None.

[jmacusa]

The computer-generated thing you speak of is already a reality.

[jmacusa]

And after that he needs his perverted, incestous minded butt kicked from one end of the planet to the other.

[Pan_Yan]

[jmacusa]

Yup, like that- for a start.