• Florida Court Rules Pasting Kids' Faces on Naked Adult Bodies is Not Child Porn
    58 replies, posted
[img]http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/parkerporn.jpg[/img] [quote]Danny Parker, a Sunday school teacher from Lakeland, Florida, was arrested and eventually convicted on child porn charges in 2009 after he was found to have cut out the faces of children from photos he'd taken and then pasted them on the bodies of explicit photos of adults. Now, a Florida appeals court has overturned the conviction and says that under Florida law he was not technically in possession of child porn. Parker, 41, had volunteered at the Lakeland Acres Baptist Church and at a youth camp at Lake Wales Care Center. He took pictures of young girls at the church and camp and then went home and cut out their faces and placed them on pornographic images. He was sentenced to five years, but according to The Lakeland Ledger, his conviction has now been overturned by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that while Parker's behavior was reprehensible, his actions don't add up to trafficking in child porn. "The crudely constructed depictions, fortunately, leave no doubt that no child engaged in the sexual conduct," reads the court's opinion. "Accordingly, we cannot conclude that Mr. Parker possessed child pornography. The legislature's words constrain us." Parker will now likely walk free. He said he was inspired by news that a Lakeland-area elementary school principal was arrested for similar actions. He too was convicted on child porn charges, but that conviction was overturned in December.[/quote] [url]http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/09/florida_court_rules_pasting_ki.php[/url]
Oh man Wasn't this a South Park episode?
The court's right, it isn't child porn. It's pretty obscene, but certainly not illegal if done privately.
I'd keep him locked up for being such a creepy bastard.
Well he may be free, but I don't think he's getting his job back.
Even though it was overturned, can this guy still stay on the sex offenders list? Sure, what he did was legal, but it doesn't mean he might not try something else in the future if he can still be around children.
[QUOTE=Priori;32568892]Even though it was overturned, can this guy still stay on the sex offenders list? Sure, what he did was legal, but it doesn't mean he might not try something else in the future if he can still be around children.[/QUOTE] And he's creepy as fuck, too.
Fair enough
[QUOTE=Priori;32568892]Even though it was overturned, can this guy still stay on the sex offenders list? Sure, what he did was legal, but it doesn't mean he might not try something else in the future if he can still be around children.[/QUOTE] Yeah let's ruin someone's life for photoshopping photos.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;32569211]Yeah let's ruin someone's life for photoshopping photos.[/QUOTE] Photoshoping photos of kids onto porn. Totally okay, no problems there!
Should still be illegal because it's sick.
[QUOTE=Red scout?;32569231]Should still be illegal because it's sick.[/QUOTE] Appropriate avatar.
[QUOTE=Red scout?;32569231]Should still be illegal because it's sick.[/QUOTE] It doesn't hurt anyone so it's fine, you can't ban things because they're sick, that's not how it works.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;32569270]It doesn't hurt anyone so it's fine, you can't ban things because they're sick, that's not how it works.[/QUOTE] Marijuana is banned even though it doesn't hurt anyone. It's still a despicable act and it should be illegal.
[QUOTE=Red scout?;32569280]Marijuana is banned even though it doesn't hurt anyone. It's still a despicable act and it should be illegal.[/QUOTE] Technically the production and getting it into the country using slaves and what not does hurt people, and corruption trumps laws.
[QUOTE=Red scout?;32569280]Marijuana is banned even though it doesn't hurt anyone. It's still a despicable act and it should be illegal.[/QUOTE] Well it shouldn't be banned, so that's not a valid argument.
[QUOTE=Red scout?;32569280]Marijuana is banned even though it doesn't hurt anyone.[/QUOTE] Well here we go. [quote=Adverse effects of cannabis on health: an update of the literature since 1996]A causal role of acute cannabis intoxication in motor vehicle and other accidents has now been shown by the presence of measurable levels of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the blood of injured drivers in the absence of alcohol or other drugs, by surveys of driving under the influence of cannabis, and by significantly higher accident culpability risk of drivers using cannabis. Chronic inflammatory and precancerous changes in the airways have been demonstrated in cannabis smokers, and the most recent case-control study shows an increased risk of airways cancer that is proportional to the amount of cannabis use. Several different studies indicate that the epidemiological link between cannabis use and schizophrenia probably represents a causal role of cannabis in precipitating the onset or relapse of schizophrenia. Aweaker but significant link between cannabis and depression has been found in various cohort studies, but the nature of the link is not yet clear. A large body of evidence now demonstrates that cannabis dependence, both behavioral and physical, does occur in about 7–10% of regular users, and that early onset of use, and especially of weekly or daily use, is a strong predictor of future dependence. Cognitive impairments of various types are readily demonstrable during acute cannabis intoxication, but there is no suitable evidence yet available to permit a decision as to whether long-lasting or permanent functional losses can result from chronic heavy use in adults. However, a small but growing body of evidence indicates subtle but apparently permanent effects on memory, information processing, and executive functions, in the offspring of women who used cannabis during pregnancy. In total, the evidence indicates that regular heavy use of cannabis carries significant risks for the individual user and for the health care system.[/quote] [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15363608]Source.[/url]
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;32569288]Well it shouldn't be banned, so that's not a valid argument.[/QUOTE] Why are you even supporting this mans acts? Are you thinking that what he is doing is right?
[QUOTE=Red scout?;32569417]Why are you even supporting this mans acts? Are you thinking that what he is doing is right?[/QUOTE] No, he's a sick fuck, but he doesn't hurt anyone, so I don't give a shit about what he faps to.
[QUOTE=Red scout?;32569417]Why are you even supporting this mans acts? Are you thinking that what he is doing is right?[/QUOTE] Since it's not actual child porn and thus no actual children are being hurt you can't really charge him. He's still a sick fuck though.
[QUOTE=Red scout?;32569417]Why are you even supporting this mans acts? Are you thinking that what he is doing is right?[/QUOTE] I think picking one's nose is pretty disgusting; it should be illegal.
[QUOTE=Red scout?;32569417]Why are you even supporting this mans acts? Are you thinking that what he is doing is right?[/QUOTE] your avatar offends me garry ban this sick fuck
I love how people are going "it should be illegal! I know it doesn't hurt anyone but it should be illegal because that's my opinion and you can't have one!"
[QUOTE=Priori;32568892]Even though it was overturned, can this guy still stay on the sex offenders list? Sure, what he did was legal, but it doesn't mean he might not try something else in the future if he can still be around children.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cone;32568906]And he's creepy as fuck, too.[/QUOTE] Putting him on a sex offender list and/or arresting him just because he's creepy isn't any way to run a legal system. [editline]1st October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Cone;32569222]Photoshoping photos of kids onto porn. Totally okay, no problems there![/QUOTE] You may not know this, but a while ago, on youtube, there was a was pretty bad issue with young kids doing videos for older people of them waving their feet around, unbeknown to them of why. Feet fetish paedophiles ate this stuff up. This is undoubtedly pretty disturbing. But it was legal. And should they be arrested for looking at a child's foot?
A pedophile with fake child porn is better than a pedophile with real child porn, or worse, an actual child. If he can get off to this fake stuff instead of the real thing, that's better. There's nothing wrong with what he did, although it is creepy.
[QUOTE=CommieTurtle;32570068]A pedophile with fake child porn is better than a pedophile with real child porn, or worse, an actual child. If he can get off to this fake stuff instead of the real thing, that's better. There's nothing wrong with what he did, although it is creepy.[/QUOTE] Morally wrong? Yes, probably. Legally wrong? No.
I predict a large amount of immigration to florida by pedos in coming years.
[QUOTE=Red scout?;32569417]Why are you even supporting this mans acts? Are you thinking that what he is doing is right?[/QUOTE] "ban this sick filth"
I think this ruling is a good thing. The law doesn't exist to punish people for having interests the rest of us find to be weird. Having an attraction to children is not illegal, and so long as no harm of any kind comes to any REAL children, this guy can do whatever the fuck he wants.
[QUOTE=Red scout?;32569280]Marijuana is banned even though it doesn't hurt anyone. It's still a despicable act and it should be illegal.[/QUOTE] By that logic, freedom of speech should be illegal because people can say sexist and racist things which, to some people, can be considered despicable.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.