CONVICTION OVERTURNED FL - John Stelmack for child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬, Lakeland, 2007

[Missizzy]

That's because you have firm ethics, Nova, and respect the issue of authority/balance of power. You will probably, forever more, see your students in their original role in your life. You don't cross the line. You understand and honor boundaries. Sadly, many don't.

JMO

 

[mysteriew]

Missi, 18 Section 2256 was struck down by the Supreme Court:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html


HOWEVER, Congress responded with a new law:

http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/



It basically says simulated child is illegal if it is "obscene" (has no redeeming artistic merit). I'm not sure how courts have interpreted that and/or whether this case will be a test of the newer statute.

Hooray for that!

In the past the courts have refused to hear or convictions have been overturned if the image was created. I think that some may even have made it to the Supreme courts and the courts have overturned convictions. Something about the created image being "art" vs child being exploitative of a minor. I certainly believe it is exploitative esp in this case where a pic of a living minor child was attached to a nude photo.

Wish it had been done in time to convict this guy.

 

[Nova]

Hooray for that!

In the past the courts have refused to hear or convictions have been overturned if the image was created. I think that some may even have made it to the Supreme courts and the courts have overturned convictions. Something about the created image being "art" vs child being exploitative of a minor. I certainly believe it is exploitative esp in this case where a pic of a living minor child was attached to a nude photo.

Wish it had been done in time to convict this guy.

Yes, the Supreme court did overturn a case on such grounds in the early 2000s. (See link above.)

I can't find when the images in this case were created. Congress wrote a new law in 2003, so timing may not be the issue.

One has to admit this is a strange one, since the bodies engaging in sex were adult, and only the faces were of minors. (No less disgusting, in my view, but it may make a difference in terms of legal status.)

Certainly using anyone's picture in any sort of "collage" is "exploitative" in the English sense of the word (whether or not it is harmful). But whether it qualifies for the legal meaning of the word, I don't know. I don't have a legal dictionary handy, but I would expect the legal definition to include some finding of harm.