Don't get mad have mom superimpose image of 13 y-o rival having sex with a dog

Yeah, I got nothing ...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/28/utah-mom-allegedly-distributed-pornographic-images-girl/?test=latestnews

 

The mother's legal team is going to challenge whether the images equal child porn. Here's a link to the article. Can anyone think of any way that argument actually makes sense?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/49843362-78/stark-fliers-child-lake.html.csp

 

You could, I suppose, argue that there was no child sex, and therefore that there could be no child porn. You could probably even argue that the picture is so unbelievable as to fail to constitute something to be treated literally, particularly if, as I'm sure it is, the Photoshopping is amateurish.

But you'd be paddling upstream with any of those arguments, to say the least.

 

Perez Hilton agrees, I'm sure.

 

Some parents ...
Damn!

 

The first argument holds more legal weight. But ultimately this will get settled out of court on some defamation/privacy tort cocktail.

 

From the article:

"Attorney Gregory Smith, who also represents Stark, issued a statement later Monday saying that although there is “a lot” Stark would like to say, he has advised her to remain silent for now “so that everybody can be protected.” "

I'm finding it hard to believe that this woman wants to say something that justifies what she did.

 

Seriously. What kind of sick bitch does this?

 

This is unreal. To quote Jerry Seinfeld about people in general: "They're the worst."

 

After the criminal court is finished.

The girl's family needs to take the mom to civil court, scorch her earth and salt her soil.

 

Imagine how the dog feels