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

[Liberal_in_LA]

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

MILPITAS -- 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.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/08/BA251JRESO.DTL#ixzz1Op9XhtMf

[LiberalAndProud]

1. sick.

I hope she doesn't live in the same house with him. ughh.

[Liberal_in_LA]

9. More

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.

She later told her mother, who called police. Officers who searched Gerber's home did not find photos of his daughter in her underwear, but saw pictures of her head superimposed on seven pornographic photos of women's bodies on a computer drive, the court said.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/08/BA251JRESO.DTL#ixzz1OpF10tKP

[Ohio Joe]

2. I hope that at least he is never allowed to see her again

What a sick fuck.

[seabeyond]

3. just a sexual fantasy and thank god... so now he wont feel the need to rape her. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

25. And HEY - they're just pictures, right? Why the puritanical reaction? It's not like he penetrated

anyone. It's not really incestuous behavior if they're just pictures. Sarcasm OFF.

[seabeyond]

40. i cannot believe there are so many puritanical schoolmarms buttin into someones PRIVATE business

are they really calling themselves progressives, judging anothers sexual fantasy.

geeez, give me france.

bunch of pearl clutchers

[GKirk]

4. Just curious, if a minor

takes nude pictures of themself and publishes them after turning legal age is that illegal?

[demmiblue]

5. Ummm...

:wtf:

What a strange question.

[GKirk]

14. Yeah that was

a little creepy.

[cleanhippie]

6. Interesting. Self-produced child porn?

[Xithras]

11. Yes, completely illegal.

A minor can be prosecuted for creating his/her own porn, and there have been a LOT of prosecutions of this sort of thing over the past few years (mostly due to sexting and phone cams). There was a pretty infamous case 5+ years ago where 3 teens filmed themselves having sex, and all three were prosecuted for creating child porn.

If you take a nude photo of yourself at 17, and that photo is found on your camera by the police when you're 20, you can be charged with a federal felony and could potentially be forced to register as a sex offender.

The laws go a bit too far, but most predate the easy availability of digital cameras, and NO legislator wants to go down in history as the guy who championed REDUCING child porn penalties.

[jberryhill]

38. "Nude" and "porn" are not the same thing

While I think we know what the question was driving at, the distinction is worth noting.

That which is commonly called "child porn" typically has some kind of qualifier about "lewd and lascivious" display, as distinct from figure photography, bathtime photos, etc.

There can, in fact, be child pornography which qualifies under the law and which does not involve nudity at all.

[seabeyond]

42. as soon as hot outside, kids were nude. the freedom. no hot diaper.

i took so many pictures of kids. after a period my MIL asked me if i could raise the camera. what? didnt know what she was talking about. i had so many little penisssss in the shots and didnt even notice. i think now the way people are, how much trouble i could have gotten into.

wasnt even a thought in our house. so ya, it matters.

[jberryhill]

43. I don't know what you mean by that last line

But pictures of the kids in the tub and so on are not child porn under the federal standard and no state of which I'm aware.

[seabeyond]

44. that there is a difference between nude and porn. that is all. nt

[GKirk]

46. I thought I had heard of people

bringing in bathtub photos of their kids for developing and got in trouble for that.

[jberryhill]

49. Define "get into trouble"

Yes, sometimes frivolous claims are made and, yes, they are usually sorted out.

There are nitwits who think "nude kids = child porn" and will contact police or child protective services. On balance, these things get elevated to the attention of more intelligent people at some point.

The "edge cases" tend to be people who take particularly artistic non-porn but nonetheless unusual looking photographs.

[laconicsax]

13. IIRC, sexting minors can be prosecuted for producing/distributing child porn.

[krispos42]

17. I doubt it. The minor still created kiddie porn n/t

[SmileyRose]

19. In Georgia - Yes.

I personally know a kid in that kind of shit storm right now.

[xmas74]

22. Yep.

Think Traci Lords.

I believe she was over the age of 18 when she admitted to filming porn underage.

[jberryhill]

37. What do you mean by "nude pictures"?

Nude pictures of minors are not per se illegal.

It is better to re-frame your question as:

"If a minor takes pornographic pictures of themself and publishes them after turning legal age"

THAT is illegal, and the "after turning legal age" part doesn't matter.

[Cid_B]

45. Seeing as how...

... they have been charged while still underage I can't imagine why it would change after they turn 18.

[LanternWaste]

7. Stories like this make feel feel

Stories like this make feel feel rather happy to be an old-fashioned prude... and kinda creeped out by more and more people.

[seabeyond]

8. +1. no moral judging here, nope. it is all good.

sigh

the freedom

to do as one pleases with no responsibility or boudaries.

her rights? fuck her.

ya

really doesnt belong on your post. sorry.

[dorkulon]

24. Please. There are a lot of increments between 'prude' and this.

I'm generally in the "whatever floats you boat" camp, but this is certainly not OK. I don't think anyone would think this is OK.

[seabeyond]

26. who are you to judge. oh wait... it is your line. this is your line. just a created line. nt

[dorkulon]

35. I stand corrected. Someone thinks this is OK.

But I doubt it's this man's daughter.

[Scout]

34. on DU, there are NO increments silly ... you are either everything goes or a pearl-clutcher,

puritan, prude.

dontcha' know?

;-)

[laconicsax]

10. Sick!

[mysuzuki2]

12. He's one sick son of a bitch

but the court was right.

[hifiguy]

31. That is assuredly the correct answer

The ruling is correct. Just because something is skeevy - to say the least - doesn't mean it isn't protected speech.

[iris27]

15. That's fine, but get her the fuck out of his house.

I don't really care, uphold the letter of the law, but keep her far away from that man.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. ^ ^ ^ THIS.

Abstain from arresting him if you must, but keep him away from his daughter.

[whatchamacallit]

16. Another day, another wtf...

crazy, sad, shit.

[cbdo2007]

18. This is similar to the Priest child porn case here in KC.....

in that the reason the church is giving for not turning him in for having naked photos of little girls, is that they check with their attorney who informed them it wasn't technically child porn unless the kids were performing sex acts.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. is he allowed to be in contact with the child?

[jberryhill]

27. No, and he hasn't been for some time

The article and thread on this story from yesterday mention that fact in passing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. poor kid but i respect the judges for prioritizing the first amendment

even though they must have known the public backlash they would face

[jberryhill]

36. It's not really the first amendment...

...so much as the plain statutory language of the CA child porn law that involves a depiction of a minor "engaged" in a lewd and lascivious display or whatever.

The point is that the material in question had to involve the actual minor actually doing what is visually depicted.

Another problem with "crime appeal judgment" stories in general is that the appeal may be of one of ten things for which someone was convicted, and the reaction to the story, since it is just about the count which was appealed. So, people, get the impression that the person in question just wandered off free, and it feeds into "crazy court decision" perceptions.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

21. While it's a sick thing to do, I see no reason it should be illegal nt

[dorkulon]

23. Holy shit

that poor girl.

[guitar man]

28. Oh yeah?

I wonder what they'd say about me pasting my FOOT into his ASS?!!

:grr: :mad: :grr:

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

32. lol, well played....

[KamaAina]

41. But what if someone pissed on him to put him out?

Naw. Never happen. :grr:

[NashVegas]

33. I Think the Judge Made the Right Decision

In concurrence with the law.

But I can't see where there's any law that says you can't take a person like this and by them a one-way Amtrak pass out of town.

[MadBadger]

47. Not sure how this ruling fits in with the whole "To Catch a Predator" Scheme.

[Forkboy]

48. Right decision, creepy ass dude.

Glad the daughter isn't with him, and hope any neighbors with kids are aware of the guy's proclivities.