[Ramius]

I’ll stipulate that this guy is plenty creepy.

But doesn’t it bother anybody else that they’re calling this “child porn” when in fact there was no child involved in creating pornography? Disturbing, yes, and worthy of dismissing him from being a school administrator. But criminal? Seems to me that to rise to criminality there should be a victim.

Can a painting be illegal, then?

[csvset]

From what I understand he used the student's face and grafted it onto a porn image. What did he do with the image? Post it on line? Trade with other perverts? Describe his exploits to other perverts to enjoy?

Yes, that would and should be illegal. He certainly can't claim they gave consent, (being minors).

I supposed a jury will see the images and decide if it's an " art form ".

If it were a consenting adult, I could care less, unless of course he's doing on the school's dime and property.

[Bluebird Singing]

Gee, Ramius - it is “child porn” with photographs of children’s faces (from his own school) imposed.

Your take on this really bothers me more.

[Publius6961]

Can a painting be illegal, then?

Actually, yes.
The new laws, pushed by overzealous neurotics, don't make a distinction between a real victim and an imaginary one. That's just the way it is.