• Lawyer defends child pornography criminal cases by creating child pornography, now owes $300,000
    39 replies, posted
[quote]An Ohio lawyer who created sexually explicit images of children as part of a legal defense in child pornography trials must pay the children's parents $300,000, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday. Dean Boland, the lawyer at the center of the case, did not respond to requests for comment. In 2004, Boland was hired as an expert witness by criminal defense lawyers to testify at three separate criminal proceedings for defendants on trial for possessing child pornography. In an effort to argue that pornography laws were too broad because defendants had no way of knowing whether photos were real or fake, Boland downloaded images of two children from a stock photo website and digitally manipulated them so the minors appeared to be engaged in sexual acts, according to court documents. In one, a child was eating a doughnut, which Boland replaced with a penis. In another, he transposed a child's face onto the body of a nude woman performing sexual acts with two men. He then used the before-and-after pictures at trial to demonstrate the difficulty of telling the difference between real and digitally morphed images. Federal child pornography law bans the possession of images "created, adapted or modified" to show an identifiable minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. However, it does not ban entirely computer-generated child pornography. After the Federal Bureau of Investigation learned about Boland's testimony, federal agents searched Boland's home and seized his files. To avoid being criminally prosecuted, Boland entered a diversion agreement in which he admitted to creating and possessing child pornography in violation of federal law. He also published an apology in the Cleveland Bar Journal. Despite his admission, he defended his right to use the images in court, even filing a lawsuit against the federal government, which was ultimately dismissed. In 2007, the parents of the two children in the original stock photos sued Boland under federal child pornography laws that allow the minor victims of child pornography to recover damages. A federal judge initially dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the law shielded expert witnesses from liability. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati last year disagreed, sending the case back to the district judge, who awarded $150,000 to each child. On appeal for the second time, Boland argued that the children did not suffer any injury because he never displayed the images outside a courtroom and never transmitted them electronically. He also said the law violated his First Amendment rights to create and use the images to defend clients in court. A unanimous, three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit rejected those arguments on Friday, affirming the damages award. "When he created morphed images, he intended to help criminal defendants, not harm innocent children," Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote. "Yet his actions did harm children, and Congress has shown that it means business in addressing this problem by creating sizeable damages awards for victims of this conduct." The existence of the images hurt the children's reputation and emotional wellbeing, the court found. The court also noted that Boland could have made his point another way, by manipulating the photos of real adults or by using pictures of children generated entirely by computer. Instead, he chose the option Congress prohibited: He displayed images of real children modified to look like they were engaged in sexual activity. A lawyer for the parents, Jonathan Rosenbaum, did not respond to a request for comment.[/quote] [url=http://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-owes-300-000-showing-child-pornography-trial-020640305--sector.html]Source[/url]
[QUOTE=Flicky;38392016]Federal child pornography law bans the possession of images "created, adapted or modified" to show an identifiable minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. However, it does not ban entirely computer-generated child pornography.[/QUOTE] Even if ignorance of the law was an excuse, he'd probably have a hard time claiming it.
How could you possibly think this is a good idea? It's like staging a murder in the courtroom in defense of a murder trial.
[QUOTE=calzoneman;38392356]How could you possibly think this is a good idea? It's like staging a murder in the courtroom in defense of a murder trial.[/QUOTE] [quote]Boland downloaded images of two children from a stock photo website and digitally manipulated them so the minors appeared to be engaged in sexual acts, according to court documents. In one, a child was eating a doughnut, which Boland replaced with a penis. In another, he transposed a child's face onto the body of a nude woman performing sexual acts with two men.[/quote] Quite a bit different, actually.
Chris Morris did something very similar on the paedophile episode of brass eye, then asked if they were obscene or not obscene
[quote] The existence of the images hurt the children's reputation and emotional wellbeing, the court found. ...sending the case back to the district judge, who awarded $150,000 to each child.[/quote] I wish someone had done that with my childhood photos. I could use the cash.
Oh please photoshop 9 year old me in to a gangbang. I could use some money right about now.
[QUOTE] Boland downloaded images of two children from a stock photo website and digitally manipulated them so the minors appeared to be engaged in sexual acts, according to court documents. In one, a child was eating a doughnut, which Boland replaced with a penis. In another, he transposed a child's face onto the body of a nude woman performing sexual acts with two men.[/QUOTE] Lawyer of the year all years
clever defence badly executed
This is unbelievably unfair on the lawyer
This is retarded
Is it illegal if I photoshop a picture myself when I was 9 into porn?
[QUOTE=Samoht;38394183]Is it illegal if I photoshop a picture myself when I was 9 into porn?[/QUOTE] Are you naked? If so, probably.
It makes sense, I think many people would be devastated and humiliated if they found a picture of them as a kid Photoshopped to look sexual
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38394227]It makes sense, I think many people would be devastated and humiliated if they found a picture of them as a kid Photoshopped to look sexual[/QUOTE] Yeah, but according to the article, the pictures never left the courtroom and the guy's computer. The lawyer said that he never distributed them. I'm a little confused about how the kids or their parents ever learned that the pictures exist, unless the court notified them.
I have the sudden urge to photoshop my younger self on a body.
[QUOTE=RaptorBlackz;38394779]I have the sudden urge to photoshop my younger self on a body.[/QUOTE] I have a sudden urge to Photoshop a grown woman and make her look young to show what the lawyer could have done.
weird question, but would it be illegal if i wanked off to a photo of myself naked in the bath as a toddler?
[QUOTE=Samoht;38394183]Is it illegal if I photoshop a picture myself when I was 9 into porn?[/QUOTE] You will have to pay compensation to yourself.
[QUOTE=obdob;38395206]weird question, but would it be illegal if i wanked off to a photo of myself naked in the bath as a toddler?[/QUOTE] I believe so, you are liable when you have any pictures of any child naked, although I don't see the guy who created that 'klara and edda bellydancing' picture getting any shit, I think that is enough to count as pr0n. Search it up, I dare you. [editline]10th November 2012[/editline] Even on moderate. [editline]10th November 2012[/editline] EVEN ON STRICT WTF GOOGLE.
[QUOTE=obdob;38395206]weird question, but would it be illegal if i wanked off to a photo of myself naked in the bath as a toddler?[/QUOTE] I don't think baby-bath pictures constitute pornography, and even if they did, you'd get arrested for the possession, not for masturbating to them.
[QUOTE=andololol;38395469]I believe so, you are liable when you have any pictures of any child naked[/QUOTE] but who would be the victim of this 'crime' apart from myself?
It's called possession.
a crime by definition has to have a victim though (who isn't the perpetrator obviously)
[QUOTE=obdob;38395206]weird question, but would it be illegal if i wanked off to a photo of myself naked in the bath as a toddler?[/QUOTE] no
[QUOTE=obdob;38396200]a crime by definition has to have a victim though (who isn't the perpetrator obviously)[/QUOTE] It doesn't. See drug possession laws
[QUOTE=obdob;38396200]a crime by definition has to have a victim though (who isn't the perpetrator obviously)[/QUOTE] Definitions you've invented don't count.
well, a potential victim somewhere down the line at least is what i meant
[QUOTE=obdob;38398544]well, a potential victim somewhere down the line at least is what i meant[/QUOTE] With that, you can outlaw anything. [I]"Oh, it's bound to cause someone somewhere to cause some kind of harm potentially somewhere down the line."[/I] Illegal stuff [I]should[/I] have victims, but that doesn't mean it is always so. I don't think there's a victim or even a 'potential victim somewhere down the line' when it comes to fake child porn. It might tempt a lunatic to start raping children but then again GTA might tempt a lunatic to shoot up a school. In those cases it isn't the fault of the game/fake cp, it's because they're batshit crazy and would have done something like it at some point regardless. At the OP; That law is dumb, but deliberately breaking it isn't exactly smart either.
So its illegal to have pictures of yourself as a baby taking a bath? Oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.