Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse
That's right. I guess he did have some in possession (not that I ever doubted it, under the circumstances). I still hold that unless it's proven or admitted that an individual originated or distributed illicit images, that person cannot legitimately be termed a 'child pornographer' any more than some man who views or possesses photographs of nude adults can legitimately be termed a 'pornographer'. It may seem subtle, but it is a huge distinction. Blurring this sort of line is a tried & true method of abrogating the rights of the innocent and uninvolved by setting new legal precedents.
But yes, there is something very, very wrong here, to say the least.
|
Quote:
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
|
I would say that his producing a home made pornography pic comes under no. 2. He took photos of two young girls known to him and transplanted their heads onto some sort of lesbian action shot.
Anyway, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree or we're going to get moaned at for disrupting the thread with semantics.
Shall we just leave it at "he's a nonce"?