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

*Starts pasting Various members of OT's Faces on Porn Pics*.......Omni-Slash

****in sick a** dad needs to get the **** away from his daughter, damn I feel sorry for her, she doesn't deserve that

That is just disturbing...

Pretty lame.

Isn't this type of action constitutional?

*Starts pasting Various members of OT's Faces on Porn Pics*.......Omni-Slash

Rather sickening....yay First Amendment, huh.

Rather sickening....yay First Amendment, huh.

Lotus-Edge

Hey it may make some of us look better (of course depending on what actor/actress you use).EasyStreet

It sounds like he has some issues, but ultimately what he did was harmless. As long as he doesn't act on his twisted urges (like making a pass at his daughter), I don't really think that he should have to suffer any consequences. I'd prefer it if he sought help or something, but I'm not going to tell him what to do as long as he doesn't negatively affect anyone else. t3hrubikscube

Um, what he did was NOT Harmless.

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"]It sounds like he has some issues, but ultimately what he did was harmless. As long as he doesn't act on his twisted urges (like making a pass at his daughter), I don't really think that he should have to suffer any consequences. I'd prefer it if he sought help or something, but I'm not going to tell him what to do as long as he doesn't negatively affect anyone else. spacedog1973

Um, what he did was NOT Harmless.

The act in and of itself, yeah, it's fairly benign.

[QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"]It sounds like he has some issues, but ultimately what he did was harmless. As long as he doesn't act on his twisted urges (like making a pass at his daughter), I don't really think that he should have to suffer any consequences. I'd prefer it if he sought help or something, but I'm not going to tell him what to do as long as he doesn't negatively affect anyone else. worlock77

Um, what he did was NOT Harmless.

The act in and of itself, yeah, it's fairly benign.

No its not. If you are referring simply to the putting of the head on top of the porno model, then that in the UK is considered a crime. Simply becasue it sexualises someone not of 'age'. It is not considered benign, but a disturbing expression of further intent. This is evidenced by his later actions, so all are connected. When it comes to children, there are no laws that are too strict.

Well then...

Shouldn't have been convicted.

Still f***ing weird though.

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"]It sounds like he has some issues, but ultimately what he did was harmless. As long as he doesn't act on his twisted urges (like making a pass at his daughter), I don't really think that he should have to suffer any consequences. I'd prefer it if he sought help or something, but I'm not going to tell him what to do as long as he doesn't negatively affect anyone else. spacedog1973

Um, what he did was NOT Harmless.

[QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

Um, what he did was NOT Harmless.

t3hrubikscube

It offends me, therefore it's harmful. :)

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"][QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

Um, what he did was NOT Harmless.

Palantas

It offends me, therefore it's harmful. :)

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

Um, what he did was NOT Harmless.

spacedog1973

The act in and of itself, yeah, it's fairly benign.

No its not. If you are referring simply to the putting of the head on top of the porno model, then that in the UK is considered a crime. Simply becasue it sexualises someone not of 'age'. It is not considered benign, but a disturbing expression of further intent. This is evidenced by his later actions, so all are connected. When it comes to children, there are no laws that are too strict.

Ah, the good ole' UK. Home of the thought police. Remind me never to move there.

[QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The act in and of itself, yeah, it's fairly benign.

worlock77

No its not. If you are referring simply to the putting of the head on top of the porno model, then that in the UK is considered a crime. Simply becasue it sexualises someone not of 'age'. It is not considered benign, but a disturbing expression of further intent. This is evidenced by his later actions, so all are connected. When it comes to children, there are no laws that are too strict.

Ah, the good ole' UK. Home of the thought police. Remind me never to move there.

Nobody (as far as i know and correct me if i am wrong) is asking you to

[QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"]It sounds like he has some issues, but ultimately what he did was harmless. As long as he doesn't act on his twisted urges (like making a pass at his daughter), I don't really think that he should have to suffer any consequences. I'd prefer it if he sought help or something, but I'm not going to tell him what to do as long as he doesn't negatively affect anyone else. t3hrubikscube

Um, what he did was NOT Harmless.

I dont think you are udnerstanding why it is agvainst the law in some countries. Photoshopping, cutting our with scissors and sticking with glue or whatever - is a crimonal offence in this context and the reason is that its not to do with the actual act, it to do with the possesion of such a picture. Any picture which depicts a child under age in a lewd and explicit act is a criminal offence for ther person who has possesion of it.

Now some might feel that the actual picture does not create or has orignated from harm, but the thinking behind it is that it is the beginning of a catergory of explicit and illegal material that is considered to be so serious that even the slightest involvement in any aspect is a crime. 'freedom' does not include the right to potentially put an innocent child at risk of harm in my opinion and if someone's rights to pin a child's head on a porn model's body is affected, the you know what?? Tough.

Say what?

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"][QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

Um, what he did was NOT Harmless.

spacedog1973

I dont think you are udnerstanding why it is agvainst the law in some countries. Photoshopping, cutting our with scissors and sticking with glue or whatever - is a crimonal offence in this context and the reason is that its not to do with the actual act, it to do with the possesion of such a picture. Any picture which depicts a child under age in a lewd and explicit act is a criminal offence for ther person who has possesion of it.

Now some might feel that the actual picture does not create or has orignated from harm, but the thinking behind it is that it is the beginning of a catergory of explicit and illegal material that is considered to be so serious that even the slightest involvement in any aspect is a crime. 'freedom' does not include the right to potentially put an innocent child at risk of harm in my opinion and if someone's rights to pin a child's head on a porn model's body is affected, the you know what?? Tough.

What may be law in other countries is irrelevant here. What is relevant is the law in California and the United States.

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"][QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

Um, what he did was NOT Harmless.

spacedog1973

I dont think you are udnerstanding why it is agvainst the law in some countries. Photoshopping, cutting our with scissors and sticking with glue or whatever - is a crimonal offence in this context and the reason is that its not to do with the actual act, it to do with the possesion of such a picture. Any picture which depicts a child under age in a lewd and explicit act is a criminal offence for ther person who has possesion of it.

Now some might feel that the actual picture does not create or has orignated from harm, but the thinking behind it is that it is the beginning of a catergory of explicit and illegal material that is considered to be so serious that even the slightest involvement in any aspect is a crime. 'freedom' does not include the right to potentially put an innocent child at risk of harm in my opinion and if someone's rights to pin a child's head on a porn model's body is affected, the you know what?? Tough.

[QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"] The actual act of photoshopping a picture in a lewd manner is harmless. It hurts no one. Perhaps if the daughter saw it, she would be psychologically affected by it, yes. I think you're overreacting to my words a little bit. I'm in no way defending the man's fantasies. His behavior (drugs, etc.) toward his daughter after photoshopping the picture was indeed inappropriate.worlock77

I dont think you are udnerstanding why it is agvainst the law in some countries. Photoshopping, cutting our with scissors and sticking with glue or whatever - is a crimonal offence in this context and the reason is that its not to do with the actual act, it to do with the possesion of such a picture. Any picture which depicts a child under age in a lewd and explicit act is a criminal offence for ther person who has possesion of it.

Now some might feel that the actual picture does not create or has orignated from harm, but the thinking behind it is that it is the beginning of a catergory of explicit and illegal material that is considered to be so serious that even the slightest involvement in any aspect is a crime. 'freedom' does not include the right to potentially put an innocent child at risk of harm in my opinion and if someone's rights to pin a child's head on a porn model's body is affected, the you know what?? Tough.

What may be law in other countries is irrelevant here. What is relevant is the law in California and the United States.

Its a discussion. Of course the laws in other countries is relevant. This should be pretty obvious

'freedom' does not include the right to potentially put an innocent child at risk

spacedog1973

[QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"] The actual act of photoshopping a picture in a lewd manner is harmless. It hurts no one. Perhaps if the daughter saw it, she would be psychologically affected by it, yes. I think you're overreacting to my words a little bit. I'm in no way defending the man's fantasies. His behavior (drugs, etc.) toward his daughter after photoshopping the picture was indeed inappropriate.gameguy6700

I dont think you are udnerstanding why it is agvainst the law in some countries. Photoshopping, cutting our with scissors and sticking with glue or whatever - is a crimonal offence in this context and the reason is that its not to do with the actual act, it to do with the possesion of such a picture. Any picture which depicts a child under age in a lewd and explicit act is a criminal offence for ther person who has possesion of it.

Now some might feel that the actual picture does not create or has orignated from harm, but the thinking behind it is that it is the beginning of a catergory of explicit and illegal material that is considered to be so serious that even the slightest involvement in any aspect is a crime. 'freedom' does not include the right to potentially put an innocent child at risk of harm in my opinion and if someone's rights to pin a child's head on a porn model's body is affected, the you know what?? Tough.

No not thought crime, actual crime. And your point that this argument is 'rarely valid', I know for a fact in this particular area, unfortunatley its not. What might seem logical faced with evidence is not fact; indeed, in this instance, with sex crime of this nature, there is ample evidence that there is a link from these types of crimes to more serious crimes, whereby the need for more explicit images fuels child porn, which is the result of child abuse. Usually, at least in the UK, the possesion of what in this case would be 'pseudo images' usually results in rehabilitative treatment, although many get off with a fine or less. Its not a matter of saying 'think about it' , its really a matter of 'investigate it'.

[QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"] The actual act of photoshopping a picture in a lewd manner is harmless. It hurts no one. Perhaps if the daughter saw it, she would be psychologically affected by it, yes. I think you're overreacting to my words a little bit. I'm in no way defending the man's fantasies. His behavior (drugs, etc.) toward his daughter after photoshopping the picture was indeed inappropriate.gameguy6700

I dont think you are udnerstanding why it is agvainst the law in some countries. Photoshopping, cutting our with scissors and sticking with glue or whatever - is a crimonal offence in this context and the reason is that its not to do with the actual act, it to do with the possesion of such a picture. Any picture which depicts a child under age in a lewd and explicit act is a criminal offence for ther person who has possesion of it.

Now some might feel that the actual picture does not create or has orignated from harm, but the thinking behind it is that it is the beginning of a catergory of explicit and illegal material that is considered to be so serious that even the slightest involvement in any aspect is a crime. 'freedom' does not include the right to potentially put an innocent child at risk of harm in my opinion and if someone's rights to pin a child's head on a porn model's body is affected, the you know what?? Tough.

No not thought crime, actual crime. And your point that this argument is 'rarely valid', I know for a fact in this particular area, unfortunatley its not. What might seem logical faced with evidence is not fact; indeed, in this instance, with sex crime of this nature, there is ample evidence that there is a link from these types of crimes to more serious crimes, whereby the need for more explicit images fuels child porn, which is the result of child abuse. Usually, at least in the UK, the possesion of what in this case would be 'pseudo images' usually results in rehabilitative treatment, although many get off with a fine or less. Its not a matter of saying 'think about it' , its really a matter of 'investigate it'

Its a discussion. Of course the laws in other countries is relevant. This should be pretty obvious

spacedog1973

there is ample evidence that there is a link from these types of crimes to more serious crimes

spacedog1973

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

I dont think you are udnerstanding why it is agvainst the law in some countries. Photoshopping, cutting our with scissors and sticking with glue or whatever - is a crimonal offence in this context and the reason is that its not to do with the actual act, it to do with the possesion of such a picture. Any picture which depicts a child under age in a lewd and explicit act is a criminal offence for ther person who has possesion of it.

Now some might feel that the actual picture does not create or has orignated from harm, but the thinking behind it is that it is the beginning of a catergory of explicit and illegal material that is considered to be so serious that even the slightest involvement in any aspect is a crime. 'freedom' does not include the right to potentially put an innocent child at risk of harm in my opinion and if someone's rights to pin a child's head on a porn model's body is affected, the you know what?? Tough.

spacedog1973

What may be law in other countries is irrelevant here. What is relevant is the law in California and the United States.

Its a discussion. Of course the laws in other countries is relevant. This should be pretty obvious

What makes the United Kingdom's law relevant to a discussion about a man in California?

:|

:shock:

:lol:

:twisted:

;)

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

I dont think you are udnerstanding why it is agvainst the law in some countries. Photoshopping, cutting our with scissors and sticking with glue or whatever - is a crimonal offence in this context and the reason is that its not to do with the actual act, it to do with the possesion of such a picture. Any picture which depicts a child under age in a lewd and explicit act is a criminal offence for ther person who has possesion of it.

Now some might feel that the actual picture does not create or has orignated from harm, but the thinking behind it is that it is the beginning of a catergory of explicit and illegal material that is considered to be so serious that even the slightest involvement in any aspect is a crime. 'freedom' does not include the right to potentially put an innocent child at risk of harm in my opinion and if someone's rights to pin a child's head on a porn model's body is affected, the you know what?? Tough.

spacedog1973

No not thought crime, actual crime. And your point that this argument is 'rarely valid', I know for a fact in this particular area, unfortunatley its not. What might seem logical faced with evidence is not fact; indeed, in this instance, with sex crime of this nature, there is ample evidence that there is a link from these types of crimes to more serious crimes, whereby the need for more explicit images fuels child porn, which is the result of child abuse. Usually, at least in the UK, the possesion of what in this case would be 'pseudo images' usually results in rehabilitative treatment, although many get off with a fine or less. Its not a matter of saying 'think about it' , its really a matter of 'investigate it'.

Now that is just creepy and sick.HexedPelican

Your avatar is awesome. Maybe my favorite.

Well that's a wrong un, but to be fair it's better than going out and physically acting upon it (nor does fantasy neccesarily precede it either). A second point is the daughter's face was superimposed upon the bodies of adults, so it could be argued that it's not neccesarily sexualising a minor, more sexualising the daughter as an adult.

Pics or it didn't happen.