I'm having trouble understanding hy this is illegal

[zzyzzx]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5327826.stm

Man made 'pseudo' child sex pics

A computer expert who altered pictures of naked women to make them look like children has been jailed indefinitely.

At an earlier hearing Stafford Sven Tudor-Miles, 38, from Middlesbrough, admitted five counts of making indecent pseudo-photographs of children.

Judge Tony Briggs was told of the defendant's previous convictions for sex crimes, over almost 20 years.

At Teesside Crown Court, he imposed an indefinite sentence, recommending that Tudor-Miles serves at least 15 months.

At the earlier hearing, the defendant also admitted one count of possessing the images and breaching a Sex Offender's Order.

House raided

Tudor-Miles, of Bankfields Road, Eston, Middlesbrough, scanned photographs of adult porn stars into his computer and manipulated the pictures using digital equipment.

He digitally reduced the breast sizes and altered the genitals to make them look like young girls. He added school uniforms to some images.

At an earlier hearing, his barrister argued the pictures were of adults and therefore no offence had been committed. But after failing to have the charges thrown out, he admitted the offences.

They were committed in January and February and came to light after Tudor-Miles' house was raided by police on a separate matter.

The court was told he had asked his GP for help to reduce his urges and sought psychiatric help.

'Public protection'

The court was told of previous convictions including in 1997 he was jailed for six years at Birmingham Crown Court after grabbing an 11-year-old girl at knifepoint, tying her up, putting tape over her eyes and then forcing her to commit a degrading sex act on him.

David Lamb, defending, said: "There is no exploitation of a child in this case. There is no evidence of distribution or trading.

"The end result was a rather crude and amateurish portrait."

The judge said: "It is clear to me that fantasising about children in a violent way is still part of your make up.

"In that situation I regret that this is a case where imprisonment for public protection is necessary in unusual circumstances."

[ViRaL1]

It's still considered 'child pornography' if you have of-age people and represent them as underage in a sexual manner.

[SquirrelDip]

Soooo....

Husband and wife getting nasty... Wife wears diaper and sucking on a pacifier... Husband jailed for child pornography?!?!

[ViRaL1]

Two (or more) people acting something out in the privacy of their own home doesn't really count as pornography (at least not until the cameras come on). Also in this instance, it's not reasonable to assume that a grown woman would be diaper aged (at least not on the low end of the age spectrum). Now if it were a 'little person' who reasonably resembled a child and we're basically made to believe this is a child having sex, then it would be considered child porn. Likewise if we take a normal 18 year old and represent them as under 18 (state laws vary), then it's considered child pornography. Hopefully, no one looks at a grown woman in a diaper and has yearnings for toddlers, but then again, you never know.

[Conquest10]

How so if there is no child involved in it whatsoever?

[ViRaL1]

I'll have to search for the actual laws / statutes.

[SquirrelDip]

The judge said: "It is clear to me that fantasising about children in a violent way is still part of your make up.

Sooo.... If that husband is fantasising that his wife is underage then he could be off to jail?!? I realize the judge said violent but if it's a child involved then even sexual would imply violent.

There's a lot of grey area on this whole subject - problem with grey area is someone somewhere will interpret the wrong direction.

[Conquest10]

Also, this guy is also being locked up for this thoughts?

[ViRaL1]

from http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/593/4/96

CPPA: Child Pornography Prevention Act
There is also another set of legal activity regarding the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). This law, in part, made the possession or posting of digital/electronic visual representations of minors engaged in sexual activity illegal (even if the persons in the image were not minors). The constitutionality of the law was challenged in federal appeals court, but upheld in three California U.S. District Courts. The law is now under consideration by the Supreme Court.

Searching for direct link / info to the Act.

[SquirrelDip]

I understand the necessity for these laws - it is so important to get the perv's into custody. My issues have to do with errors and how easy in some situations it is to make an error.

I agree with the first post - the intent was to make the photos appear to be real children. But... The fact that there were no real children involved should the perv be sent to jail?? How about someone creating a video or pictures depicting innocent animals being tortured or killed? Should they be charged also?

[gadgetguy]

I suspect a lot was left out of this report, and he was locked up for more than this, but that this was just part of a pattern of behavior and when included with whatever else they had on him led to the conclusion and sentence.

[ViRaL1]

I can see where you're coming from, and I believe in all cases except child pornography, if it's not the genuine article or the genuine act, it's not breaking the law. But I will say I feel better having the law in place and I don't even have children. Although no actual children were used, the depiction is generally for the purpose of arousing sexual feelings toward children.

[sacajaweeda]

Sounds like someone with a dubious past was caught being naughty again. Happens all the time.

[Epicurus8a]

Legal or not, it's just down right sick. I say the pervert should be castrated.

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

It's still considered 'child pornography' if you have of-age people and represent them as underage in a sexual manner.

Is "Debbie does Dallas" child pornography?

[JohnnyMalaria]

from http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/593/4/96

CPPA: Child Pornography Prevention Act
There is also another set of legal activity regarding the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). This law, in part, made the possession or posting of digital/electronic visual representations of minors engaged in sexual activity illegal (even if the persons in the image were not minors). The constitutionality of the law was challenged in federal appeals court, but upheld in three California U.S. District Courts. The law is now under consideration by the Supreme Court.

Searching for direct link / info to the Act.

That doesn't really answer the legality question since the offence occurred in England and, therefore, the laws of England and Wales apply, not those of member states of the United States.

Also, the key is the last sentence in the opening message - i.e., the judge decided that this person was still a threat to society.

Perhaps he'll share a cell with someone who has fantasies about knife-wielding computer experts.

[rallynavvie]

Also, this guy is also being locked up for this thoughts?

That's what I thought was going on too

[yoda313]

Anyway - to the original issue - how does age morphing work in photo software??? (techincal inquire not psyco inquire )

[Conquest10]

It can be done with Photoshop. I have done it with older women to make them look younger (removed wrinkles and blemishes and such). But making a woman look like a girl is a little more work and I'm sure will look fake in the end.

[yoda313]

Really??

Whats the process???

[Conquest10]

Depends on the image but involves painting in new information.

[BJ_M]

It's still considered 'child pornography' if you have of-age people and represent them as underage in a sexual manner.

Is "Debbie does Dallas" child pornography?

technically - yes

but so is a whole bunch of other movies - mainstream even i suppose



btw = several people have been arrested for having Hentai in the USA

[adam]

I can't speak for English law, but in the US the reason child pornography includes images like this (ex: altered images of adults, 100% cg images, hand drawn images, etc..) is because it is believed to promote child pornography generally. Child porn is actually a very big business and even faked images like this can contribute to that industry. This issue went before the US Supreme Court only a few years ago.

[Lucifers_Ghost]

I understand the necessity for these laws - it is so important to get the perv's into custody. My issues have to do with errors and how easy in some situations it is to make an error.

I agree with the first post - the intent was to make the photos appear to be real children. But... The fact that there were no real children involved should the perv be sent to jail?? How about someone creating a video or pictures depicting innocent animals being tortured or killed? Should they be charged also?

It is still false representation I would think

Im pretty sure that if you "setup" a murder and "kill" one of your friends on tape and send it to the cops with your address on it ... they WILL come and arrest you. Just because they find out AFTER that it wasnt real, I dont think would get you off the hook. Having said that, the penalty this person would receive would not be the same as if you actually DID kill someone. But, you will still be liable in some way. Dont know what you would be charged with exactly, but definately charged with something.

In this case (back on topic), even though there were no children in the pics, the INTENT to portray kids was still there. While he shouldnt be charged with actual child pornography as it is really not, perhaps .. er, obstruction of justice .. or something along those lines.

[zzyzzx]

This law encourages kiddie porn lovers to get the real thing instead of fabricating alterations. Since they are going to get in trouble for it anyway, may as well get the real thing, right?

[Supreme2k]

I see it as a simple release. If it encourages others to make fake kiddie porn, I see no harm. Actually, it would be beneficial if could be done legally, since there is less hassle. Going even further than that, there's probably a big market for people to get fantasy vids of them "doin' it" with someone they'd never be able to get. The Natalie Portman sect alone could be a Fort Knox proportion gold mine.

[SquirrelDip]

@Lucifers_Ghost : I was intending my statement as a leading question as there are countless films that portray children in unfavorable ways. Example that comes to mind is "Taxi Driver" where Jodi Foster played a child prostitute and was only 14 at the time. Also "The Blue Lagoon" when Brooke Shields was 15 and showed nudity.

So point is if you make the film with a Hollywood budget then all is good?

[Lucifers_Ghost]

@Lucifers_Ghost : I was intending my statement as a leading question as there are countless films that portray children in unfavorable ways. Example that comes to mind is "Taxi Driver" where Jodi Foster played a child prostitute and was only 14 at the time. Also "The Blue Lagoon" when Brooke Shields was 15 and showed nudity.

So point is if you make the film with a Hollywood budget then all is good?

Oh its definately a double standard. Thats considered (or I would assume) "artistic entertainment for public use" or some closely lame ass definition.

I definately dont agree with it. When I am watching a movie, as attractive as I think Brooke Shields is, I dont want to see her nude at 15 years old.

[adam]

In the US, and probably most other places, child pornography requires the depiction of explicit sexual acts. Just showing a nude child or even showing simulated sexual activity of minors is not considered child pornography. (I believe there is a sex scene in Blue Lagoon with Brooke Shields.)

Also, the definition of pornography generally is closely alligned with the definition of legal obscenity and the key factor is that it only appeals to one's "prurient nature." That means that it is overtly sexual with no valid artistic, social, policital, etc.. message. So that's why legitimate films are granted such latitude.

Basically, to be child pornography the scene/movie would have to be so overty explicit that even with an adult actor/actress it would still garner an X rating. We're talking real porn here. In the US, the motion picture association rating guidelines are going to stop you long before the law does.

[SquirrelDip]

So if in the first post the individual were to only modify the photos to look like nude minors not engaged in sexual activity then he would not have been jailed (in the US)?

The problem I have with all this (and I suppose my issues would be with the law in general) is how open it all is to interpretation. In the right state with the right argument a person could find himself going to jail and throwing away the key - where in another state he could invite his buddies over for a look-see.

I also guess it would be similar in other countries but maybe not to the extreme as one state to another (i.e. interpretation would be more consistent across the country)