Is this "legal" in your eyes? ( sexually oriented , and heated opinions)

[iHaveQuestions]

I was having a discussion in work about a news story he had seen a while ago. It was about a man who had "child pornography" on his computer and was arrested. The man is now out on bail, awaiting trial.

His defense is that it isn't child pornography at all. Huh? Well, it seems that it was all computer generated, and virtually indistinguishable from the "real" stuff. No children were ever a part of his "pornography".

What do you think? While I think it is nearly as reprehensible as the "real stuff", I wonder if he has a valid legal point.

 

[hucifer]

Hmm...virtual pornography. Wouldn't that make it a virtual crime? He was arrested for ALMOST doing something illegal...makes sense to me.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

You cannot have pornographic images of children period. Whether they are photographed or drawn. Whose to say the images were not based on real children--or "modeled" for.

 

[Snow_White]

I believe in 2003 Bush signed a law improving the virtual child pornography laws in America, one part of the law being that computer-generated CP images are now prohibited. I'm not totally up to date on 2256 at the moment, but this is to the best of my recollection. It's really not a gray area though, it's either legal or it's not. As long as 2256 is intact as I remember it to be, this would be an open and shut case.

 

[Snow_White]

Whose to say the images were not based on real children--or "modeled" for.

No, that's not the issue--that would be a different crime entirely.

 

[Buckalew11]

When it comes to children, I really don't care if it is real or virtually real. Children aren't for sex, mister. Dang, we're a screwed up world!

 

[tekmom]

Hmmm...I personally believe he's a perv... real kiddie porn or not. It was his intent to view kids in porn as opposed to just watching adult porn. For me the kid aspect is what gets him off.... he's a perv. Unfortunately, his defense could be based on exploitation, so to speak. What makes kiddie porn so vile is the fact that children are being abused or exploited, as opposed to adult porn where there is adult consent. If there are no real children, only simulated ones...no exploitation. Understand? Unfortunately, possible defense. Pervy... regardless.

 

[WDWFAN9]

Wasn't there a Law and Order show about this a while back? Very young looking, but legally of age, women modeled for pictures that were then digitally enhanced to make them appear even younger. Just sick, sick, sick!

 

[Shutterbug]

Wasn't there a Law and Order show about this a while back? Very young looking, but legally of age, women modeled for pictures that were then digitally enhanced to make them appear even younger. Just sick, sick, sick!

Yep I remember that one too and as I remember they couldnt charge him but that show was a few years back so laws could have changed since.

 

[KarenAylwood]

Real children or drawn children... it's still perpetuating the child pornography business/obsession and should be considered illegal.

Yech.

 

[MagicKingdom05]

It seems to me that they are spliting hairs with this one. Like others have said, I don't care what it was, it involved child porn and that isn't exceptable.

 

[lulugirl]

I find it repulsive, legal or not.

 

[Stacerita]

It seems to me that they are spliting hairs with this one. Like others have said, I don't care what it was, it involved child porn and that isn't exceptable.

I agree with this. In my eyes, its illegal.

 

[summerrluvv]

I came back from vacation to hear that a DJ from a local radio station was arrested for having child pornography on his computer. Pretty disturbing.

 

[Claire L]

Non 'real' pictures would come under the definition of pseudo images and are illegal in most countries. Hence big Operations like Cathedral, which was a multi agency worldwide Police Operation not so long ago.

Claire

 

[Planogirl]

This is grotesque but it's a victimless crime isn't it? Yuck, I hate gray areas!

 

[Alicnwondrln]

When it comes to children, I really don't care if it is real or virtually real. Children aren't for sex, mister. Dang, we're a screwed up world!

i agree with this
children need to be treasured and protected
anyone who has anything to do with even looks at it should be in jail forever

 

[TDC Nala]

In April 2002 the Supreme Court by a 6-3 ruling struck down provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that made such images (those of children engaging in sexual acts that did not utilize actual children) illegal, holding that these provisions were overly broad and infringed on the First Amendment and could criminalize legitimate artistic expression (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). The way this law was written, it could have applied, for example, to even mainstream films that used actors of legal age portraying teenagers engaged in sexual conduct.

Congress then passed, and President Bush signed in April 2003, the PROTECT Act of 2003 which outlawed any trafficking in or possession of child pornography, real or computer-generated. They seem to have used a more specific definition of child pornography and digital images. It also allows the assertion of a defense that no actual children were used in producing the images, where the Supreme Court objected to the first law because it allowed no such defense. As far as the guy in the OP's story, the court that is trying him will probably have to decide based on the nature of the images whether or not the law has been violated.

 

[POB14]

Well, here I was all set to give a detailed answer to this, and TDC Nala beat me to it. Everything in TDC Nala's post is 100% correct. Good job.

 

[Taylor]

When it comes to children, I really don't care if it is real or virtually real. Children aren't for sex, mister. Dang, we're a screwed up world!

ITA

How can you have any other opinion?