Man Charged In 'Virtual Porn' Case

[DigitalShadow]

Source: Virtual Porn

A Tennessee man is facing charges of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor for what authorities say are three pictures -- none of them featuring an actual child's body.

Instead, according to testimony presented at Michael Wayne Campbell's preliminary hearing in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on Wednesday, the photos feature the faces of three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females, CNN affiliate WDEF reported.

I think it is definitely disgusting and more than a bit creepy, but charging him with "sexual exploitation of a minor" for photoshopping a child's head on an adult body seems to go down a very slippery slope. In what way was a child exploited here? One of the pictures apparently had the face of Miley Cyrus, do you really think she is being exploited (other than by Disney)?

Edited June 26, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[Dravin]

I don't think the child is being exploited any more than photoshopping onto any other random non-nude images. Or any adult celebrity that finds themselves being photoshopped into fakes.

[Heavenguard]

I'm going to buck the, er, crowd (of two) and say Yes. The reason is because the minors' heads were PS'd onto nude bodies, I'm going to assume not for artistic purposes.

He wanted to see what they would look like grown up - nude. Not how they would look like, let's photoshop them onto clothed adult bodies, but unclothed bodies. What's the real intent? I'm going to side with the state and say sexual gratification involving minors.

I think it is less deplorable than child pornography where children are physically exploited and abused, but no grown person should be "getting off" on sexual or sexualized images or ideas of children - period.

[Dravin]

The problem with child pornography (well legally) is it involves exploiting minors in a sexual way, so even if the guy who views it isn't hurting any kids he's contributing to it. Kinda like buying known stolen goods. The problem with using minors in this way is they can't give consent.

If some guy is making pornography without exploiting minors then consent isn't an issue. It is not illegal to think sexual thoughts of a minor, and unless I'm mistaken if he'd simply drawn them from scratch it wouldn't be illegal. Thinking of doing something illegal is not illegal, fantasizing about doing something illegal is not illegal, depictions of such where nothing illegal is actually going on is not illegal (if it was movies, tv and books would be in a lot of trouble, all those murders and law breaking).

I agree that grown men shouldn't be fantasizing about those under the age of consent (honestly one shouldn't be fantasizing period unless it's about your spouse regardless of age, but that's a different issue), I just disagree about if it's illegal or not.

[Just_A_Guy]

There should definitely be civil liability to the child whose image has been co-opted. But criminal penalties? I vote no.

[Gwen]

i think he should be prosecuted but not for child porn. he should be prosecuted for misrepresentation of the ppl. i think the same standard should be applied to any photo shopping that depicts ppl in situations they would never participate. now if someone draws a cartoon of someone, it may be poor taste but it's their original artwork and they could throw in the classic "this is not intended to represent an acutal person or event" lawyer phrase. lol but when they take a photo or photo like quality and represent the person there is no "oh they just happen to look like that person" deniabilty. they are intending it to look like the person they are using it as an exploitation of them.... defamation of character or something... especially if he distributed it.

[DigitalShadow]

I'm going to buck the, er, crowd (of two) and say Yes. The reason is because the minors' heads were PS'd onto nude bodies, I'm going to assume not for artistic purposes.

He wanted to see what they would look like grown up - nude. Not how they would look like, let's photoshop them onto clothed adult bodies, but unclothed bodies. What's the real intent? I'm going to side with the state and say sexual gratification involving minors.

I think it is less deplorable than child pornography where children are physically exploited and abused, but no grown person should be "getting off" on sexual or sexualized images or ideas of children - period.

Yes, it is quite probable that the intent was sexual gratification while thinking about minors, but why should that in itself be illegal? I would much rather this man get his sexual gratification from harmless images stitched together images rather than talking kids into posing naked or even sexually molesting them directly.

[Bob_Blaylock]

i think he should be prosecuted but not for child porn. he should be prosecuted for misrepresentation of the ppl. i think the same standard should be applied to any photo shopping that depicts ppl in situations they would never participate.

There's no such thing as “ppl”.

now if someone draws a cartoon of someone, it may be poor taste but it's their original artwork and they could throw in the classic "this is not intended to represent an acutal person or event" lawyer phrase. lol but when they take a photo or photo like quality and represent the person there is no "oh they just happen to look like that person" deniabilty. they are intending it to look like the person they are using it as an exploitation of them.... defamation of character or something... especially if he distributed it.

He did misuse images of actual people, without their consent. It'd be one thing if he created images of wholly fictional characters, not bearing any obvious resemblance to any actual people. But that's not what he did. He created what appears to be a nude image of Miley Cyrus, and similar images of two unfamous minor girls. Someone who sees these images, and knows the three girls involved, would recognize these images as nude images of these girls. That it was really different bodies, photoshopped to these girls' heads, really doesn't make a difference. It's the face that is recognizable, and which establishes the identity of the person in each image. Surely, none of these girls would have (nor legally could have, being minors) consented to having nude images produced of them. They have been exploited just the same as if he had somehow managed to photograph their actual nude bodies.

I think the criminal charges are entirely appropriate.

[DigitalShadow]

There should definitely be civil liability to the child whose image has been co-opted. But criminal penalties? I vote no.

i think he should be prosecuted but not for child porn. he should be prosecuted for misrepresentation of the ppl. i think the same standard should be applied to any photo shopping that depicts ppl in situations they would never participate. now if someone draws a cartoon of someone, it may be poor taste but it's their original artwork and they could throw in the classic "this is not intended to represent an acutal person or event" lawyer phrase. lol but when they take a photo or photo like quality and represent the person there is no "oh they just happen to look like that person" deniabilty. they are intending it to look like the person they are using it as an exploitation of them.... defamation of character or something... especially if he distributed it.

He did misuse images of actual people, without their consent. It'd be one thing if he created images of wholly fictional characters, not bearing any obvious resemblance to any actual people. But that's not what he did. He created what appears to be a nude image of Miley Cyrus, and similar images of two unfamous minor girls. Someone who sees these images, and knows the three girls involved, would recognize these images as nude images of these girls. That it was really different bodies, photoshopped to these girls' heads, really doesn't make a difference. It's the face that is recognizable, and which establishes the identity of the person in each image. Surely, none of these girls would have (nor legally could have, being minors) consented to having nude images produced of them. They have been exploited just the same as if he had somehow managed to photograph their actual nude bodies.

I think the criminal charges are entirely appropriate.

The underlying assumption many people seem to be making is that these pictures were distributed publicly. The article wasn't particularly clear about it, but I was under the impression that he was simply found in possession of these images. If that is the case, does anyone still think criminal charges or civil penalties should apply?

[Just_A_Guy]

The underlying assumption many people seem to be making is that these pictures were distributed publicly. The article wasn't particularly clear about it, but I was under the impression that he was simply found in possession of these images. If that is the case, does anyone still think criminal charges or civil penalties should apply?

In that case, creepy though it is, I don't see a logical way for the law to get at the guy.

Possession of child porn is, AFAIK, a strict-liability offense: if you have it, you're guilty, and the court doesn't care how you got it.

In this case, I would argue that the image is not child pornography--it's merely a child's face on an adult's body. Liability for defamation only arises when the defamatory material is published--so if the guy is only keeping the images for himself, I'd regretfully have to say no penalties.