What's with the Nazi fetish angle, I wonder.

There isn’t enough information to determine if the girls were abused, or if their father committed a politically incorrect thought crime.  Was he charged with a sex crime because he replaced the traditional bonnets and bearskin rug with little helmets and a Nazi flag?

Dmtdust wrote:

fnord wrote:

There isn’t enough information to determine if the girls were abused, or if their father committed a politically incorrect thought crime.  Was he charged with a sex crime because he replaced the traditional bonnets and bearskin rug with little helmets and a Nazi flag?

You didn't read the article?

Six sentences, not enough detail to reach an informed conclusion.

That's what's great about child pornography allegations. The police and media can't even show you the pictures, you just have to take their word for how "abusive" they are. They don't have to define or defend "sexual" or "abusive", you are just expected to use your imagination. In certain cases, the courts won't even present the evidence to the jury due to it's "perverse" nature.

Unless the girls are sitting on the spiked helmets, 96 months is a long time...

Dmtdust wrote:

He was posing them in sexual suggestive positions?

The definitions of child pornography and sexual abuse have become very broad in the past few years.  Many years ago in a dentist’s office, I saw an issue of “Modern Maturity” with a cover picture of a naked toddler holding his penis and taking a piss.  The caption read “How to Take Pictures of Your Grandchildren.”  Today, this would be considered pornography and would result in legal problems for the magazine and the photographer.  Parents have been reported for taking pictures of their children while they are being bathed.  I’m very suspicious of child pornography prosecutions initiated on the basis of complaints by Photo-Hut employees.