Should a High School male be convicted of the same crime if he sends out pictures of a girl (without her consent) where he's "Photoshopped" her head onto a naked body as he could if he sends out pictures of the girl (without her consent) actually naked ?

Yes. The crime is distribution of pornography. Sending the picture is the problem, not how it was acquired. That’s criminal side. On the civil side, the girl would be able to sue for personal damages.

Well, what if the body part of the pic is an adult’s body?

I don’t think nudity is the same as pornography (except when it’s the nude picture of a minor; then it’s considered to be). The reason the guy gets in trouble with the real pic is that it’s interpreted as distributing child pornography (frankly, because that’s all they got on the books right now). But what if the body is that of an adult?

I don’t know the legal side of it, but morally speaking, I think the quality of the picture should have a lot to do with it.

I mean, if it’s pretty obvious that the photo is fake (as in the Osama/Bush collage that has been circulating via spam mail the last few years) then ok, it might be illegal, but let’s loosen up guys, it’s just a joke.

But if the picture is so well made that people really think it’s genuine, and form opinions based on it, then we have something different altogether. That girl’s life could even be destroyed by it (thinking of some pretty good photoshop pics of Sandra Bullock and Goldie Hawn for example).

But quality is subjective. Certainly an “expert” can spot fake photos a lot better then most. I doubt the girl’s nearsighted grandmother could tell it’s a fake.

I would think it is libel if it is a fake. Defamation. I would think it would be an allegation or imputation “injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession” (wording from Wikipedia’s article on defamation). But I’m so not a lawyer and really have no idea.

And of course in more forward states who are getting laws on the books about it, it would probably constitute cyber-bullying.

Since you have “sexting” as a topic, I would also say that if it is being distributed via cell phone and his phone has ever been at school with him, he should at LEAST be suspended.

The biggest part of this to me is the “without consent” bit. It would constitute libel, harassment or stalking.

The pornography part would depend on what the body is doing.

@empress, “Since you have “sexting” as a topic, I would also say that if it is being distributed via cell phone and his phone has ever been at school with him, he should at LEAST be suspended.”

What do you mean?

As I understand it, “sexting” is the practice of text messaging sexual images. Thus for him to properly be sexting, he would have to be using cellphone. That kind of business has no place anywhere ever, but especially not at school. Most schools have rules against cellphones and rules against porn. Not to mention rules against being an asshole. So if he’s bringing that cellphone to school, he is probably breaking several rules and doing something grossly immoral. Schools, unlike the legal system, have way more ability to act swiftly and punish. This kid should at least be suspended for breaking so many rules.

If he’s Photoshopping the picture he might be doing everything from his house.

Everyone has an inherent right to their image, (nude or not) if he sent any portion of her image without her consent, he has broken the law.

Altering someones image without consent is also violation of law.

As he has broken two laws, he should be punished more severely than someone who has broken one.

I thought you COULD distribute someone’s photo so long as you don’t profit from it?

Is it against a law to Photoshop as a joke even? I never knew that.

It’s not inherently against the law to Photoshop. We have special laws for the case of, say, parody. Parody is protected legally.

Ethically, it’s a form of bullying. It is a very mean joke, and a sign of a lot of enmity between the two. I suppose that legally it is libel, since you are smearing her reputation, although a legal expert would have to answer that. Practically, I don’t see how you can stop it, since people can upload these things anonymously.

Either way the young fellow should be prosecuted. Either way the young woman will have been traumatized and the boy is out of line.

But is it the SAME crime as the distribution of the real thing?

Excuse me if I get very descriptive here.
If a guy photoshops a picture with the head of an underage girl, onto the body of a naked woman, covered in sperm and surrounded by naked men, I don’t think the guy can claim it’s parody. It is hurtful, harmful, & injurous. It is cruel and mean. It is meant to embarass and demean the girl, even if it is done badly.
The guy should go to jail.

For the purposes of this discussion, why don’t we stick to a nude picture? Nothing else.

I had a boss, years ago, who probably qualifies as the worst boss in the world. He raped a co-worker, took pictures of it,then showed the pictures to his crew.
The crew did not see these pictures as porn. It was shocking and embarassing. No one who saw the pictures could ever look at the woman (who we dealt with every day) in the same way.
My boss’ intent was to demean the woman. He should have gone to jail for it. He didn’t. My company covered it up.

@Mr_M It’s all about extremes. If what I described is bad, what the boy in your example did was bad.

He was representing it as real. Same crime, same time.

@filmfann Do you know what happened with the woman? She stayed or moved?

@filmfann, you can NOT say he represented it as real. He can say he didn’t. His email might read “A picture for you”.

@oratio When she found out, she remained quiet about the rape, till she found out about his showing the pictures. At that point, she got a restraining order, and sued my company. I don’t know what came of the lawsuit (I suspect it was dropped), but the woman has since been promoted as a second level manager.

@Mr_M He is either representing the picture as real, or he is representing it as an obvious photoshopped picture, in either case he is trying to embarass or demean the girl,

He would say he thought she would laugh. It was a joke. The body is the body of Playboy’s Miss January.

“Surely anyone can see it’s not her breasts” he could say. “That’s part of the joke.”

He thought she would be amused? He’s stupid. Chuck is butt in jail. Let him be Miss April there for a while.

So you clearly think the 2 crimes are the same. What if he used a man’s body? Or Porky Pig? The same crime as her nude fake picture?

mans nude body? same crime. Porky pig? Hurtful, but not the same.

His problem is not the crime, it is the civil consequences. If the girl has access to legal counsel, Mr. HS may find himself on the wrong end of a lawsuit. That might not seem too important to a 16 yo idiot but a lawsuit against him as an adult (statute of limitations) and the huge cash judgment that will follow him for years and will be carried on his credit record for everyone to see.

Cash judgements go on the credit report? But only if it’s not settled out of court, right?

As long as it hasn’t been paid, a judgement can appear.

To clarify my earlier statement, photoshopping is not illegal, it is the distribution that makes it a crime

circulating a photoshopped person without their consent is cyberbullying. Photos of people that are taken out in public can be circulated. Any other type of photo of a person must have their written consent to be published. The internet and social media is a form of “publishing.”

Interesting. Thanks.