Pixiq

Okay this guy is probably a creep, but seriously, it’s scary to think you can get put away for three years based on what some kid said he feels about you.

Who is your ISP, and what do they have to say about apparently blocking you?

Maybe you should include some links to the NAMBLA in your blog here, considering you’ve now come out in favor of exploiting children. I’ll bet your readers could use some tips on how to get little girls to do naughty things on camera, too.

Seriously Wes, is that what you think is going on here? The guy is in prison for 3 years for taking an non-sexual picture of a boy. There was no child pornography involved and they stayed in a public place. Certainly what the guy did would be considered creepy by most, but certainly not illegal. Essentially what we have is a guy in jail for 3 years because the boy testified that he felt afraid. That’s not justice. At the very worst (based on my reading of the article) the guy should have a restraining order keeping him away from places where children congregate).

I agree that this is not justice and neither was the disorderly conduct charge for photographing children in a public space playing baseball.

Personally I don’t need the aggravation so I don’t care how photogenic a situation involving children may be – I treat children as if they are all infected with swine flu – I avoid them at all cost.

It is just very disturbing that anyone can be convicted of a crime on such flimsy evidence, based solely on emotion as opposed to logic. There is a witch hunt atmosphere out there concerning pedophiles that is probably catching many innocent people in its trap.

Posing a 10-year-old child like a “catcher” in a restaurant is not about baseball. It’s about getting the child into a sexually provocative pose so that his pants are bunched around his genitals. Legitimate photographers of children don’t bring porn to their photo shoots.

It’s clear this sicko is exploiting children. Anyone who supports this pervert has seriously warped values.

As usual Carlos Miller sloppily researches his subject and leaves out critical details in his rush to bash our criminal justice system.

The evidence admitted into court included the material found in his backpack — lewd drawings of children.

When he was arrested earlier for photographing small boys playing baseball, he followed one of the little boys to a portable toilet.

Source: http://preview.tinyurl.com/neznsa

If you read the story the man is going to jail for restraining the boy, not photography. Do better research or suffer credibility loss.

Depending on the drawings and how far the restraint went, as well as the previous offense, photography seems a minor facet of this conviction. He would have possibly been convicted without the camera.

* * * * *

Man gets 3 years after holding, photographing boy
Tribune staff report
May 29, 2009

A 28-year-old man was sentenced this week to 3 years in prison after his conviction on charges that he restrained a 10-year-old boy to take photos of him at a Schaumburg video game arcade last year.

Cortez Lewis of the 900 block of Ridge Drive in DeKalb was found guilty in April of felony unlawful restraint for posing the boy and taking pictures of him in a secluded area at the arcade. Three years is the maximum sentence for the conviction.

Assistant Cook County State’s Atty. Karen Crothers said police found lewd drawings of children in Lewis’ backpack at the time of his arrest July 17. She also said Lewis was convicted of disorderly conduct in DeKalb County for taking pictures of small boys at a Little League game and following one to a portable toilet.

Part of the problem in understanding what really happened is that the Daily Herald article implies that the disorderly conduct charge was based on simply taking pictures around a ball field. It did not mention following a child to a toilet. The Tribune article that is posted later in the comments reflects this fact which does change my previous opinion of that conviction.

Also according to the Herald:

“Asking someone to pose for a photo can’t be considered detention,” Naranjo said.

Lewis never touched the boy, never forced him to pose, never menaced him by word or gesture and never indicated he had a weapon or told him he wasn’t free to leave, Naranjo said.

I am not going to say that the guy is not a creep – I am sure he is – I only question if the conviction and sentence were based on logic and fact as opposed to emotion. The question is what constitutes restraint – I am not sure that was proven.

Also, for what it’s worth lewd drawings of anything is protected by the first amendment so I find it troubling that first amendment material is used as evidence of criminality. If I ever sit on a jury I would never convict anyone based on their posession of first amendment protected material no matter how offensive it may be. For the record I am a purist when it comes to the ability to read or posess first amendment protected material (note that does not include child porn or material not protected by the constitution).

HA!,

Thanks for posting that article that shed more light on this topic.

I’ve been limited as to how I can post for the last week because of ISP issues, which is why I just used that one article that did not mention the extra details. I had not read the other article until you posted it.

But even if he is a creep, I still believe in gathering solid evidence against a suspect before sentencing him to prison.

I am not sure that by asking a kid to step aside in a public venue and pose in a catcher’s stance is committing unlawful restraint.

http://www.bloomingtoncriminalattorney.com/unlawful-restraint/

I am not defending child molesters or child pornographers but I have not seen any evidence of that in the articles that I’ve read so far.

I agree with NYCphotorights that the law, especially the First Amendment, should be interpreted with logic and not emotion.

I also agree with him about not photographing kids. It’s just not worth it, no matter how good of a photo you might have or how sincere your motives are.

Wow, how can anybody defend this guy. Do you really hate the police that much that you can try to justify what this creep was doing? Is it a hatred for the police or a love of anybody who has a camera? Do you even consider this guy a photographer in the first place?

I would love to hear what Yogi Berra would say about you using that picture to suggest it’s ok for strange men to get little boys to pose for them at arcades.

Carlos – For all we know, this guy could be a huge baseball fan.

Are you serious?

Carlos – I am not defending child molesters or child pornographers but I have not seen any evidence of that in the articles that I’ve read so far.

Well before you go defending suspected child molesters maybe you should do a little more research. I can’t think of one legitimate reason for a man to ask a 10 year old boy, that he doesn’t know, while at an arcade, to crotch down for a picture, can you?

Difster – At the very worst (based on my reading of the article) the guy should have a restraining order keeping him away from places where children congregate).

How can you say he didn’t do anything illegal and then say he should have a restraining order? Your admitting he is a danger to kids while claiming there is nothing wrong with what he did.

lewd drawings of anything is protected by the first amendment

You are 100 percent wrong. Lewd drawings of children are not protected by the First Amendment. It matters not if they’re drawn, photographed, created by computer, sculptured, or whatever. Kiddie porn is kiddie porn; it doesn’t have to be photographed.

In fact, claiming that lewd drawings of children are legal could put you in violation of 18 USC § 2252A.

I do believe this deserves a visit from the Paedofinder General:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yL_U5gSaT0&feature=related

CQC:

Where does it say that drawings are illegal? According to this an actual child must be involved:

It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (1), (2), (3)(A), (4), or (5) of subsection (a) that—
(1)
(A) the alleged child pornography was produced using an actual person or persons engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) each such person was an adult at the time the material was produced; or
(2) the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors.

How about reading the law before you misinterpret it. Even though there is an increasing number of people who seem to hate the concept – freedom of speech still exists in this country.

As far as sculptures and paintings are concerned – perhaps it is time the feds raided and shut down the Metropolitan Museum of Art if that were true –

I do not support what this guy did but I am arguing on the technical aspects of the laws involved since I believe in enforcement of only those laws as they are expressly written. If there is no law against drawings then the issue should not be raised. Perhaps it is my background as a tax preparer – we look for every loophole!!

Its apparent Carlos is looking out for us photographers, so what if he jumped the gun on this one a little..maybe the full report is just now available, and we know hes having issues with his ISP, if you read his blog just to comment against him, how are you any different then your accusation of him just wanting to bash the cops, what a terrible hypocrite…

on the other hand, unlawful restraint of a minor with a prior, along with intent which is what was in his backpack, in todays legal system with all the child abductions hes lucky hes not getting 10 years.

Is it just me or does yogi look kinda hot !

Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 71, Section 1466A(b)(1), prohibits the possession of any type of visual depiction, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct that is obscene.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001466—A0...

But it was not written in 2252A that CQC pointed me to. Nevertheless I stand corrected.

lol jones said crotch and little boy in the same sentence. YOU KNOW WHAT FREUD WOULD SAY.

i think you meant crouch.

Oh man, i can’t stop laughing.

Michaelk42 // May 29, 2009 at 7:00 AM

Who is your ISP, and what do they have to say about apparently blocking you?

I initially thought my ISP was a company called Digiport but it turns out, they sell the bandwidth to a company called Front Gate.

It’s all part of the building I live in so I don’t pay directly to the company.

However, I called them earlier today and they said they would look into it and call me back, but they never did and I still have to access my site through a proxy, so they pretty much suck as a company.

Meanwhile, the router I ordered through Bellsouth was supposed to arrive today but it never did, so they also suck as a company.

gene – Yes, I meant crotch as in he wanted to take a picture of the boys crotch. Either that or he just really likes baseball.

Ok, so we now know that he had “lewd” drawings of children (which may or may not have been illegal, since different people mean different things when they call something “lewd”). However, he was (apparently) not charged with possession of child pornography, he was charged with unlawful detention. Possession of child pornography does nothing to prove or disprove the charge of unlawful detention. I can see where it might be used as a factor in sentencing, but I’m still questioning whether the charge was proven. Since I wasn’t there, I don’t know. It may have been. It may not have been. But the info I’ve received so far from these two media reports would seem to indicate that he was convicted simply because the kid was scared of him. Well, guess what? Some kids aren’t afraid of anything and other kids are afraid of their own shadows! Did the kid try to leave? Did he ask if he could go? Or did he merely assume he couldn’t? Again, since I wasn’t there, I don’t know. But I have a right to ask.

Jones and others may say that we are “cop bashing” because we are discussing stories that point to possible corruption in our legal system, but I say it is not only our right, but our duty, to keep (or at least try to keep) our police, our prosecutors, our public defenders, our judges, and everyone else in our government honest and trustworthy. If we blindly accept all police officers’ actions as good because they are police officers, or all convictions determined by a single person as correct because that person was a judge, then we are negligent in our duty as United States citizens. Because corruption does exist, bad apples do exist, and ignoring them does not make them go away, it actually gives them more power and slowly erodes our rights as citizens.

Let’s assume he never touched the kid. Do you people honestly think it’s ok, appropriate, acceptable etc etc for a grown man to ask a 10 year old boy to “CROTCH” down for a picture. Do you honestly give a shit what happens to him. Can anybody think of a reason why he would do this that isn’t sexually related. Carlos’ claim that the man is a big baseball fan is absurd and if that was his defense I can see why the judge/jury convicted him. There hasn’t been a lot of support on this subject for Carlos so that tells me some of you have a brain. Even Gene’s only post on this topic was a shot at me, I guess he agrees with me but is too afraid to disagree with Carlos.

Jones and everyone else who is insisting that he got what he deserved because they think so,
that isn’t the point here, our justice system was established to sentence and rehabilitate offenders, not proactively incarcerate those we think are a bit weird or might do funny things with a child in the future.
If you go on the logic you guys are spouting, anyone who gets angry should be arrested before they can assault someone. Anyone who picks up a bottle containing alcohol should be charged with PI/DUI/DWI. Anyone who who questions the security in place should be arrested for terrorism.
Yeah, that does sound a bit silly.
Back OT, as with some of the other article centerpoints Carlos has provided us, the person is not a person we agree with, or ever support – its the fact that the justice systems is being perverted, is the point. Honestly, the guy is a creep; if anything, I wouldn’t mind assault charges to get a chance to backslap the fool.
Insofar as the lewd drawings were concerned, it is illegal to make a lewd depiction (drawing, sculpture, you name it) of a child, and the statue makes an explicit provision so that if the person depicted was imaginary, it is still illegal.
Carlos, to alleviate the howler trolls, you may want to change the title to “..in prison for detaining a boy while photographing” or something like that.

Jones: you asked “Can anybody think of a reason why he would do this that isn’t sexually related. ” The answer is yes. Many artists work from photos of live models. While I am not condoning his methods (anyone wanting to photograph a minor should have the parents’ or legal guardians’ permission prior) and he does sound like a weirdo, I cannot say that he necessarily was taking the photos for sexual reasons from the evidence thus far presented to us. At the same time, I cannot say that he *wasn’t* taking them for sexual reasons. There’s just not enough data for a reasoned judgment on that.

diomedesxx: I agree completely with just about everything you said, except that I feel the need to pick a couple of nits. Insofar as the lewd drawings are concerned, the law states that it is illegal to possess depictions of children (real or imaginary) engaged in sexual acts. It makes no reference at all to the term “lewd”, and I again say that word is open to interpretation. I have known people for whom that word means “engaged in sexual acts” and others for whom that word means “unclothed”. There is a wide gap between the two. Without knowing how the author of the article that used the word defines “lewd”, I still withhold judgment on whether the drawings he had were illegal. Now, from everything else I’ve read, I’d say there is a good chance that they were illegal, but the evidence presented to us thus far is not conclusive.

Kylie – Many artists work from photos of live models.

Considering the drawings he had with him maybe this is what he was doing, what better way to draw child porn then with a real child model.

Jones – yes, he could have been wanting to draw child porn, but he could also have been wanting to draw a troll, or an ogre, or a demon, or a fairy, or even a baseball player! And considering the drawings he had with him, I *still* haven’t seen proof they were child porn. I haven’t been shown the pictures, and I have only been told that they were (1) of children, and (2) “lewd” which could mean anything from “naked” to “having sex” or anything in between.

For someone who is always ranting about other people jumping to conclusions, you seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions.

Kylie when this guy gets out of prison I hope he moves into your neighborhood. You guys can make naked drawings of young boys together. If you have children maybe they can even model for him. Maybe he can make a few lewd drawings of your kids for free.

Kylie I hope your just arguing with me to argue, if your as gullible as you seem I hope you don’t have kids because they would deserve a better parent than you.

@Carlos – Ah, building-supplied stuff. I would guess incompetence before anything else in that case. They probably have something screwed up in their routing.

@jones – Ah, if someone disagrees with you they’re a pedophile too, of course. Keep it classy.

The question to ask here is, if the drawings/materials he had DID actually qualify as child porn, why wasn’t he prosecuted for that? Would a prosecutor really choose “unlawful restraint” if he could get a child porn conviction?

Michaelk42 – “if the drawings/materials he had DID actually qualify as child porn, why wasn’t he prosecuted for that? Would a prosecutor really choose “unlawful restraint” if he could get a child porn conviction?” Excellent questions, which add to why I have doubts as to whether he actually possessed anything illegal, AND what the possession of those pictures has to do with conviction of unlawful restraint. Jones may be omniscient, but I am not. I still don’t know if this guy is a pedophile, or if he is a photographer/artist with an abrasive personality and no sense of social rules. As I said earlier (and jones chose to ignore) I’d say the odds are on the former, but I cannot yet rule out the latter, and I question whether he got a fair trial or not.

jones – on the contrary, you seem to be the gullible one, since you seem to believe that everyone that agrees with you on any one point is infallibly good and anyone that disagrees with you on any one point is completely evil and/or criminal. I, on the other hand, realize that not all is as it seems, that some people are neither all-good nor all-bad, that corrupt public employees (including cops) do exist and yet not all public employees are corrupt, and that not everyone that has been convicted of a crime is actually guilty of said crime nor is everyone that’s been acquitted of a crime actually innocent of that crime.

I think it’s a pretty simple answer.

If the DA accuses the guy of having child porn he actually has to *prove* that.

But if he just leaves the cop statement “Lewis had a backpack whose contents included pornography and drawings depicting children, among other items” out there he doesn’t have to prove anything… just let the people’s minds fill in the blanks. And plenty of people (like Jones) are willing to convict the guy as a pedophile in their minds, as we’ve seen in these comments and comments on the story’s site.

All the benefits of a successful child porn prosecution for the DA with very little actual work.

Why do I get the feeling there are some registered sex offenders in here.

Michaelk42 // May 31, 2009 at 1:45 PM

@Carlos – Ah, building-supplied stuff. I would guess incompetence before anything else in that case. They probably have something screwed up in their routing.

It just seems highly coincidental that the only site I am unable to access from home is my own site.

My DSL modem is supposed to arrive Monday. Hopefully I’ll have things cleared up by then.

The only reason I am able to respond to this now is because I am using a proxy server, which limits what I can see and post.

@Carlos – Well, your site is at 97.74.144.146.

Can you access http://97.74.144.10/ or is that site blocked too?

For those of you who think you can’t be prosecuted and convicted for “lewd drawings,” you better read about this case of a man convicted last month for exactly that; he now faces 15 years in prison (and for comic books no less):

http://preview.tinyurl.com/mtums9

Some of you people here continue to miss the point. You have no experience in the law, but you read a statute and apply your own personal interpretation to it, and then you decide that’s how the law works. Our legal system doesn’t work that way. It’s not up to you to decide what a statute means. It matters not what you personally think. As well, ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Alternatively, you read something in an online news story and assume that includes all evidence presented at trial; you leap to conclusions based on a sketchy and incomplete news story. Mr. Miller’s statement is a perfect example of this: “I have not seen any evidence of that in the articles that I’ve read so far.” News articles are not evidence.

Law enforcement personnel post here and tell you how the law works yet many of you somehow think you know better. You don’t. This Illinois case is a perfect example. Law enforcement and criminal prosecution is not a democratic process.

10-8: I agree that a lot of people are missing the point that other people are making. You seem to have missed one of mine. I have not seen any statutes that discuss “lewd” depictions of any sort, only statutes that discuss depictions of “sexually explicit conduct”. Since there are different definitions of “lewd” and the newspaper articles have not published the pictures nor stated whether said pictures contained “sexually explicit conduct”, we the readers cannot logically determine whether the pictures in this case were or were not illegal. But the fact that he possessed said pictures and that his possession was apparently introduced as evidence at trial, yet he was not charged with child pornography makes me question whether or not he received a fair trial on the charge of unlawful restraint. But questioning it is not the same as jumping to conclusions, it is asking for more information.

As far as I can tell, there have been a few people jumping to the conclusion that he was wrongfully convicted, but there have been more people jumping to the conclusion that he possessed child pornography and would definitely have molested a child in the future if he weren’t locked up now.

I was utterly shocked to find that there was a statute prohibiting a drawing or sculpture. I am even further surprised that its constitutionality has not been challenged. Far from defending child porn my concern is that we are now on a slippery slope towards dismantling the first amendment. Of course there are those who don’t care because it seems to me that the American public believes in free speech only insofar as it is speech the majority agrees with.

My concern is where does it go from here. Drawings are not photographs – no real human being was involved or hurt. Will we become like the Europeans and ban cartoons that offend religions? How about 10 years in jail for having a collection of World War II memorabilia because it may contain nazi symbols? Once government has the power to ban speech of any kind does anyone think they will not continue to expand on it?

So as far as I am concerned what happens to this guy is irrelevant – he can rot in jail for all I care – I am concerned about the future of the first amendment and I do not see a happy ending.

If Kylie read the article and believes the man didn’t receive a fair trial then by golly he didn’t receive a fair trial.

Man walks around with lewd drawings of kids, then makes a ten year old squat down for a picture and Kylie’s worried about him receiving a fair trial. She wants him to actually rape or kill a child before putting him in jail.

I think Kylie thinks they only charged him because they are afraid of what he might do. That is not true. There are plenty of people walking around that the police are aware of and believe are a danger to society but they have not broken any laws and have not been arrested. This guy broke a law, was arrested, charged and convicted by a judge or jury. Did they go after him more vigorously because they feel he is a threat, maybe, and if they did I say good for them. That is their job, to put dangerous people in prison.

BTW the judge/jury heard a lot more evidence that what was presented in an article that summarized the case.

If your that concerned about this guy Kylie get a copy of the trial transcripts and if you still feel he didn’t receive a fair trial you can have a fund raiser for him.

If your waiting for the newspaper to publish lewd pictures of children your going to be waiting a long time.

NYC – I was utterly shocked to find that there was a statute prohibiting a drawing or sculpture. I am even further surprised that its constitutionality has not been challenged. Far from defending child porn my concern is that we are now on a slippery slope towards dismantling the first amendment.

It can’t be that slippery if you didn’t even know about this law.

@10-8

“Our legal system doesn’t work that way. It’s not up to you to decide what a statute means. It matters not what you personally think.”

Ah, the legal class is supposed to tell us proles what the law means. What’s the point of writing laws if only certain people are allowed to understand them?

And we can’t have the lowly public expressing any opinions on the law or its interpretation. They might get ideas that they should pay attention to how judges and DAs are using/misusing it and act on that when it comes time to vote for people to fill those offices.

“Law enforcement personnel post here and tell you how the law works yet many of you somehow think you know better. You don’t.”

Well, some trolls show up and tell us how they want us to think how the law should work, anyway.

“This Illinois case is a perfect example.”

A perfect example of prosecutorial misconduct, censorship, and pleading guilty out of fear of getting a worse sentence because an individual can’t afford adequate representation.

Neil Gaiman says it better, however: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech....

“Law enforcement and criminal prosecution is not a democratic process.”

Because we live in a monarchy of some sort and the commoners have no right to question their betters? I think not.

jones – are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you really have trouble understanding the english language? Where did I ever say I believe the man didn’t receive a fair trial? I have said all along that I don’t know if he did or not, and that the article merely raises the question.

You also say “I think Kylie thinks they only charged him because they are afraid of what he might do.” On the contrary, I think that it is POSSIBLE that he was charged because “they” are afraid of what he might do. I can’t help it if you can’t see the difference in those two statements. I am, however, almost certain that the length of his sentence was influenced by what the judge thought he might do.

I also think that *you*, jones, would have locked him up for what you *think* he *might* do, if it had been up to you. In an earlier comment, you said “before you go defending suspected child molesters maybe you should do a little more research”; well, who is he suspected of molesting, and who has suspected him of it? He wasn’t charged or convicted of child molestation, he was convicted of unlawful restraint.

And further, I would suggest you read the article that Carlos sourced (have you read it at all?), for you’ve obviously missed at least one pertinent piece of data from it. You seem to not know whether it was a judge or jury that convicted him, yet the article clearly states that it was a bench trial and that the public defender asked the judge to reconsider her verdict. Which, since you seem to need things spelled out very carefully for you, means that he was convicted by a judge, there was no jury involved.

Yes, if I was a judge I would take into consideration the totality of the circumstances when sentencing him. If the totality of the circumstances told me this guy was a danger I would give him more time.

jones – nice dodge.

It’s sickening to see pure ignorance is still rampant in our society.

Thanks for making me want to throw up, jones.

While i’m all for photographers rights, a child cannot give permission or consent.
To the kid the guy is a very intimidating GIANT.
He should have never approached the kid.

I find it odd that in all your other articles you defend yourself/actions, Carlos, and yet in this one, you don’t comment on the purpose of advertising this conviction.
A shame, actually.
You only comment on this guy’s isp problems, when people ask you questions that you normally don’t have any trouble answering.
This guy with the kid is no photographer. Coercion to satisfy a sick thrill doesn’t equal a violation of first ammendment rights.

sdavis,

What the hell are you talking about?

That I, and apparently others who’ve read this on your site, just fail to understand the reason for posting it.
I’ve actually been impressed with alot of your reporting on this site, but in this instance, I’m at a loss.
What does it have to do with journalism? Or how does it affect a true photographers professional/personal rights as to the first ammendment?
I’m not attacking, just simply trying to understand.
A guy using intimidation, as the boy seemed to feel, to take a photograph, doesn’t belong in the category of ‘photographer’, and in my personal opinion, shouldn’t have a place on a site that you seem to have worked hard on to make a point.