1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!, Jun 29, 2010.

  1. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    Absolutely. Child pornography is its own special category of unprotected speech under the First Amendment, as opposed to other unprotected types of speech such as obscenity, fighting words, defamation, etc. Pornography, as long as it isn't obscene, is protected.

    The justification for child pornography being unprotected speech rests heavily on the notions that the underlying harm depicted -- the sex act/sexuality of a child -- is so egregious that government has an interest in preventing its proliferation and the images that were taken of the sex act serve as an ongoing reminder to the child of the harm that was done to him or her.

    When someone photoshops the image of a child's face onto other, legal sexualized images, there has been no direct harm to the child whose photo was used, they have not been sexually abused in the creation of that image and the image doesn't serve as an ongoing reminder of something horrific that happened to them. (I fully recognize that seeing your face shopped onto a bestiality photo is going to have some harmful effect on a child. I'm simply explaining the legal argument why this is doesn't fit with our notions of child pornography.)

    So while what this person is accused of doing is horribly wrong, charging her with sexual exploitation of a minor or possession of child pornography, or creation of child pornography doesn't quite fit what she is accused of doing. In fact, I don't think any state has a law that would adequately deal with the situation. Because the photo is described as bestiality, there should be an obscenity charged tacked on somewhere.
     
  2. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    I would think, if nothing else, that she should be charged with trespassing on school grounds, and I would also think that showing a pornographic image on school property would also be considered some sort of crime.
     
  3. Shoeless Joe

    Shoeless Joe Active Member

    She should be required to pay the girl's college tuition up through a double doctorate at MIT and stand at a busy intersection every Saturday for the next 10 years with a sign that says "I'm an idiot. Ask me why."
     
  4. bumpy mcgee

    bumpy mcgee Well-Known Member

    At least she didn't superimpose a goat on a roller coaster
     
  5. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

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

    Assuming there isn't more than one Danette Stark in Salt Lake City, I've asked her to be my facebook friend. *fingers crossed*

    Edit: Checking the photo against the news photo, yeah, it's totally her.

    Among her public information is that she's a member of the group " I'm going to sit back and laugh when karma punches you in the face."
     
  6. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Doesn't this thread fall into the same category as the whole thing about the illegal alien killing his 2-year old over a world cup game?

    I mean, really, this is a sick fuck what more needs to be said.

    Well other than....

    "You only write about us when we superimpose our rivals on porno photos and make copies of them......."
     
  7. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Me too, but I'm sure FOX NEWS will listen rapturously.
     
  8. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

  9. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Didn't the Supreme Court handle a case involving some twisted company that sold simulated kiddie porn? Either they used video game technology or they had software that "de-aged" legal pornsters?
     
  10. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    Yes. The virtual child pornography case is Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft. It wasn't a specific company challenging the law, though. Free Speech Coalition is a porn industry trade association that preemptively sued to block enforcement of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
     
  11. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Captain_Kirk

    Captain_Kirk Well-Known Member

    What's Bert doing back there?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page