snopes.com  


Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Fauxtography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05 May 2010, 09:06 PM
Jenn's Avatar
Jenn Jenn is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: Alberta
Posts: 19,477
Default Obama touching daughter inappropriately

Comment: Someone has this photo published on Facebook and implies it
shows Obama molesting his daughter and that Snopes.com has verified
that it is authentic and not a photoshop.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05 May 2010, 09:10 PM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,383
Default

Here's one without his hand in her pants.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05 May 2010, 09:15 PM
franjava's Avatar
franjava franjava is offline
 
Join Date: 23 August 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,130
Default

Edit: retracting my statement since it was proved to be photoshopped while I was typing my reply.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05 May 2010, 09:20 PM
franjava's Avatar
franjava franjava is offline
 
Join Date: 23 August 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,130
No

snopes, how much it must piss you off that someone would say that you verified something as "not photoshopped" when you had done no such thing! Fortunately, you can publicly denounce this lie. This is why I stay in my house.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05 May 2010, 09:21 PM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,625
Default

$5 says that pic will still be an issue in his 2012 reelection campaign. Like the John Kerry/Jane Fonda pics in 2004. Who cares if it's true? There's a portion of the electorate that is sure that snopes is nothing more than part of the liberal conspiracy (TM).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05 May 2010, 09:41 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

But, gawrsh, even in the real pic, his hand touches her -- um -- frontal chest! So it's a grope, no way how you look at it! Perv! Pediatrician! Impeachment now!

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05 May 2010, 09:41 PM
marrya's Avatar
marrya marrya is offline
 
Join Date: 11 January 2003
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fitz1980 View Post
$5 says that pic will still be an issue in his 2012 reelection campaign. Like the John Kerry/Jane Fonda pics in 2004. Who cares if it's true? There's a portion of the electorate that is sure that snopes is nothing more than part of the liberal conspiracy (TM).
The really dumb part about it is, even IF it WASN'T photoshopped, ../he's standing out on the street, in plain sight. Surely there aren't that many places in the USA where a man can just stand around outside a store, fondling one of his children while another looks on and smiles...
[ETA and is that Michelle I see in the background?]
[ETETA - I wish I could come up with a funny one liner about the fishing tackle part of the sign behind them. But it's just not even funny.]

Oh wait, i'ts not the THINKING part of the electorate you're talking about
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05 May 2010, 09:43 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

I like that we have a president who can multitask. Carrying groceries with one hand, publicly molesting his daughter with the other. No wonder he gets so much done in a day!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05 May 2010, 09:45 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

a) Yes, I'm sure he molests his daughter in public in front of a photographer. All molesters do this.

b) This picture is obviously a few years old (I'm pretty sure it's a campaign stop in 2008 -- Malia is about a foot taller now); why would it never have come to light before now? I mean, seriously, the nutballs out there have found at least 5 Kenyan birth certificates; how hard would it be to dig this up?

c) Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth by Our Lady of the Perpetually Aggrieved if this was done to a picture of her and her kids?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05 May 2010, 09:59 PM
franjava's Avatar
franjava franjava is offline
 
Join Date: 23 August 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marrya View Post
The really dumb part about it is, even IF it WASN'T photoshopped, ../he's standing out on the street, in plain sight. Surely there aren't that many places in the USA where a man can just stand around outside a store, fondling one of his children while another looks on and smiles...
That was part of my edited out comment. They're in broad freakin' daylight!!! I don't think anybody with a high functioning mentality would EVER try something like that.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06 May 2010, 12:20 AM
firefighter_raven's Avatar
firefighter_raven firefighter_raven is offline
 
Join Date: 27 September 2008
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 2,994
Default

Wonder if the creation of this photo would actually be considered child porn?
missing and exploited kids definition

Quote:
What is Child Pornography?

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. 2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

* the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

* the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

* the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Federal law (18 U.S.C. 1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that

* depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or

* depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. 2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06 May 2010, 01:07 AM
Natalie Natalie is offline
 
Join Date: 15 January 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,171
Default

So communist and terrorist aren't evil enough, and we're moving right on to pedophile?

Does anyone else occasionally wonder if they haven't stumbled into a parody universe, like the universe where the Onion is printed?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06 May 2010, 02:11 AM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

That would sure explain a lot, wouldn't it?

Sigh... Why couldn't it have been somewhere more cool, like the Marvel Comics universe, or that nifty 1950's future where we all have flying cars? Even the James Bond universe would be better! (Scary, but better!)

No, we get the "Truthers, Birthers, and Fred Phelps" universe. Phooey!

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06 May 2010, 03:02 AM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post
c) Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth by Our Lady of the Perpetually Aggrieved if this was done to a picture of her and her kids?
Hey now. Even discussing that fact that her daughter is a failed example of abstinence only education is off limits; despite the fact that she's getting paid to promote it on TV.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06 May 2010, 03:49 AM
TripleAAA TripleAAA is offline
 
Join Date: 12 June 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,202
Default

Aperson would have to be a real nut to not see that's photoshopped. Heck, I would question the morality and sanity of whoever made this edit. The unedited one looks like a cute picture of father and daughter.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06 May 2010, 12:07 PM
zerocool zerocool is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2002
Location: Qaraton Kazakhstan
Posts: 925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franjava View Post
That was part of my edited out comment. They're in broad freakin' daylight!!! I don't think anybody with a high functioning mentality would EVER try something like that.
I think even the photoshopped picture isn't necessarily molestation - there are several reasons why a parent might do that. I remember my mom tucking in my shirt like that when I was younger (maybe younger than the girl in the picture). Of course, doing that in front of the camera's might still be a bad judgement call, but doesn't necessarily mean it's molestation.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06 May 2010, 12:18 PM
frogpond's Avatar
frogpond frogpond is offline
 
Join Date: 10 November 2005
Location: McDonough, GA
Posts: 4,248
Default

Shouldn't manipulating a photo to make an innocent person appear to be a child molester be worthy of criminal charges?

Even though most people are going to know this is photoshopped the potential to damage someone's life by doing something like this is not to be taken lightly.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06 May 2010, 07:00 PM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frogpond View Post
Shouldn't manipulating a photo to make an innocent person appear to be a child molester be worthy of criminal charges?
Per the "Media Regulation and the Law" class I took in college (film major, journalism minor) public figures have very little recourse for slander or liable. The idea being that it's more important to be able parody or criticize our elected officials regardless of the facts of the individual case.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06 May 2010, 07:14 PM
Hapax Legomena's Avatar
Hapax Legomena Hapax Legomena is offline
 
Join Date: 03 March 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,074
Default

Interesting how the bottom of the original pic was cropped out, in order to make it less obvious that the focus of the actual picture was really the cute beagle puppy on a leash. By eliminating that, it appears that Sasha is grinning wildly at her father's hand down her pants, and for some reason, the edit appears to have distorted Michelle's face in some fashion as well. This picture is offensive on so many levels, I can't even begin to list them all.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06 May 2010, 07:24 PM
geminilee's Avatar
geminilee geminilee is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 11,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zerocool View Post
I think even the photoshopped picture isn't necessarily molestation - there are several reasons why a parent might do that. I remember my mom tucking in my shirt like that when I was younger (maybe younger than the girl in the picture).
Tucking in a shirt, adjusting the waistband of pants or panties that are bugging the kid, there are quite a few things that he could have been doing in the photoshopped version that are completely innocent.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Disney glurge or touching true story? B Hamilton Glurge Gallery 10 03 August 2007 01:32 AM
Playboy re-touching to the extreme (SFW) Hypno Toad Fauxtography 27 25 June 2007 02:31 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.