Feds crack down on teen, preteen ‘model’ sites

[Secret Squirrel]

The operators of dozens of teen and preteen “modeling sites” that critics say are nothing more than eye candy for pedophiles have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Alabama for allegedly trafficking in “visual depictions of minors engaging in ******ly explicit conduct.”

The indictment, unsealed this week in Birmingham, Ala., charges Webe Web Corp. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and its principals, Marc Evan Greenberg and Jeffrey Robert Libman, with 80 counts of conspiracy and interstate trafficking of the images of teen and preteen girls on dozens of Web sites operated by the company. Both men were arrested Tuesday in Fort Lauderdale and are due to be arraigned on Friday.

Photographer Jeff Pierson of Brookwood, Ala., also was charged with two counts of using a computer to “transport child ****ography in interstate commerce” from January 2003 through 2004. Authorities said Pierson is cooperating with prosecutors.

“The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine,” U.S. Attorney Alice H. Martin said in a statement announcing the indictments and the closure of all the Webe Web sites. “Here lewd has met lucrative, and exploitation of a child’s innocence equals profits.”

In an e-mail interview, Martin told MSNBC.com that prosecutors will press charges against the defendants for photos showing the young girls scantily clothed but not **** under a federal statute that deems images that “show lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” to be child ****ography.

No nudity, but ‘******ly suggestive poses’
“There are no semi-**** or **** images,” she said. “The children are dressed in underwear, adult lingerie, high heels, etc., and placed in ******ly suggestive poses which focus the viewer's attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in ****** activity.”

If convicted of all charges, Greenberg and Libman could be sent to prison for up to 20 years and fined up to $250,000 for each count. They also face forfeiture of all proceeds from the Web sites.

Phone calls to the company offices and the homes of Libman and Greenberg were not answered.

MSNBC.com interviewed the woman whose complaint triggered the investigation of Pierson and Webe Web, who agreed to talk on the condition that neither she nor her daughter be identified.

She said she naively answered an online advertisement for preteen models several years ago so that her then-10-year-old daughter could begin to build a portfolio.

She and her daughter drove to Pierson’s home studio, where they met the photographer, his wife and the couple’s 12-year-old daughter.

“They seemed like perfect people,” she recalled. “They said she would have a Web site so that people looking for models would offer her jobs.”

Mother recounts her horror
The woman said that everything seemed on the up and up during the initial visit, which included some test shots of the girl wearing different outfits, so she signed a contract.

But on the second visit, she said, Pierson kept her out of the studio, asking her to remain in an adjacent room where she could see him but not her daughter.

“He said it makes the models nervous,” she said.

The woman said she sat chatting with the photographer and his wife during the daylong shoot and had no inkling what was going on until she walked into the studio when Pierson had left the room for a moment and saw her daughter wearing only a thong and a halter top.

“That feeling is a feeling I don’t wish on anybody,” she said.

The woman said that she and her daughter were frightened to leave because Pierson had earlier displayed a handgun he kept in the house, so they endured several more hours in the studio.

“I said ‘We can’t do this,’ but my daughter said she was scared to leave and let’s get through this and then we won’t come back,” she said. “It was really hard.”

Once they left, the woman said she “went straight to the FBI” in Birmingham and told them what Pierson had done.

Authorities seek other photographers
It is not known how many children Pierson photographed for Webe Web, but Martin said he was responsible for about 30 percent of the photos on the 60 or so sites that the company hosted from the Netherlands and has told prosecutors that the company paid him $270,000 for his work. Martin said investigators were continuing to try to identify other photographers who worked for the company.

Webe Web first drew scrutiny in 2001, when local media outlets reported that the company was operating a handful of Web sites featuring young girls wearing bathing suits and other skimpy outfits and charging “members” to view additional photos.

Webe Web representatives defended the business model, denying the sites were aimed at pedophiles, but the controversy snowballed, and soon the company was featured in unflattering spots on national news programs like “Dateline NBC” and “Oprah.”

The sites also attracted the attention of Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who in 2002 introduced a bill called the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act to attempt to tighten restrictions on the sale of photographs of minors. The bill died in committee amid objections from civil libertarians and commercial interests.

Foley resigned from Congress in September after it was reported that he exchanged inappropriate e-mails with a teenage page.

The filing of criminal charges against Webe Web is at least the second federal criminal case brought against operators of Web sites featuring minors in provocative poses. Two Utah men, Matthew Duhamel and Charles Granere, are facing federal child ****ography charges for a child modeling site that featured minors in lingerie.

Will juries buy ‘child ****’ argument?
But Frederick Lane, a lawyer who specializes in Internet issues and author of "Obscene Profits: The Entrepreneurs of ****ography in the Cyber Age," said it is an open question whether the hardball legal tactic will prove effective.

“It quickly gets into a legal gray area, like parents taking photos of their kids, so prosecutors have been reluctant to use it as a tool,” he said. “… From what I’ve seen, there’s too much gray area there in terms of persuading a jury that the photographs actually constitute child ****ography.”

But he said that the “financial piece” — the fact that Webe Web charged customers $20 a month to subscribe to each girl’s Web site — may help the prosecution overcome that obstacle.

“That’s one of the things that is more persuasive to juries, a sense of exploitation of these girls,” he said.

For the defense, he said, the argument likely will hearken back to the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s oft-repeated comment about "hard-core" ****ography: “I know it when I see it.”

“For the defense point of view, the argument is, ‘Here is real child ****ography, and that is not what this child is doing,’” he said.

No matter the outcome of the criminal case, it will do little to discourage other operators unless it leads to new legislation with clearer strictures against risqué photos of minors, said Don Austen, who has been active in pressuring ISPs to drop clients running preteen and teen modeling sites.

New laws needed, advocate says
“Just winning a case is not going to affect anything unless this brings to light what’s going on,” said Austen, who also runs the Thursday’s Child hot line for teenage runaways.

He also said that while some defend the “modeling” sites as harmless, they desensitize the young girls to ***. He said he knows of two girls who started out as teen “models” on such Web sites that graduated into adult ****ography after they turned 18.

“It’s not just that she’s feeling embarrassment and feeling used. … It changes lives,” he said.

The damage isn’t exclusive to the children, said the woman who told authorities about Pierson.

She said she remains wracked with guilt because she didn’t sense that she was putting her daughter at risk until it was too late. Now, she said, the girl is fearful of being alone with men and recently broke down when a male doctor sought to examine her.

“I blame myself so much, but I never dreamed that could happen,” she said. “I thought love would protect her, but I guess I was just stupid.”

link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15977010/)
...............

[Hunterhr]

I thought love would protect her

How stupid can you be? Love? Give me a break.

Try common sense combined with decent parenting.

[Herrmannek]

And good. Feds should take care of that long time ago... Right after that feeds should close orgishes and payed animal cruelty sites... I would be fully happy then

[SOG]

the internet is still the wild west. a few other countries (like japan) closely monitor thier digital backyard. the US should get it together and start making inroads at going after cyber crime/opportunists. of course i dont know how that would happen or or be set up but some geek genius out there does.

[Secret Squirrel]

the internet is still the wild west. a few other countries (like japan) closely monitor thier digital backyard. the US should get it together and start making inroads at going after cyber crime/opportunists. of course i dont know how that would happen or or be set up but some geek genius out there does.

the thing about this story though is the websites were out in the open and marketed themselves as "modeling" sites. It's been going on way too long and its nice to see that they're finally cracking down on these kinds of websites.

[Jobu]

I wish they'd shut down all those JonBenet-type pageants too.

[Bia]

"Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who in 2002 introduced a bill called the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act to attempt to tighten restrictions on the sale of photographs of minors.
Foley resigned from Congress in September after it was reported that he exchanged inappropriate e-mails with a teenage page."


Dammm....

it's crazy

[MichaelF]

Damn, there goes my ca$h cow...

Have to retool for Human Trafficking, I guess.

[California Joe]

*Deleting myspace page...*


I crack me up.

Actually I think there should be serious controls on this stuff. It's a bit out of hand. For chrissakes there is way too much ******ization of minors everywhere.

[LaoSexMachine]

The parents have need to be dealt with too/blame. C'mon posting pics of your daughter in those clothes and pose will attract sickos.

[Paul in Saudi2]

Great. Just great. We are in the early part of WW3 and the Feds are focusing on girls in swimsuits. At least someone can set priorities.

[HR24]

Great. Just great. We are in the early part of WW3 and the Feds are focusing on girls in swimsuits. At least someone can set priorities.

Work a child ****ography investigation and you will see that this sh*t goes hand in hand. I think you would change your tune after seeing videos of 2 year olds getting ******ly violated by grown men.

Combatting child ****ography and child exploitation is the one thing I have seen total cooperation on when it comes to multiple federal, international, state, and local agencies. This is a fight that needs to be fought and has been going on since the late 1990's.

[Bia]

Actually I think there should be serious controls on this stuff. It's a bit out of hand. For chrissakes there is way too much ******ization of minors everywhere.
Multi billion dollar stores, (Wal-mart, Abercrombie, Target, etc) sell thongs in sizes for girls as young as 9 with horrible "sayings" on them...

Boytoy, Boymagnet, Cherry etc etc etc

I bet no one gets them to $top.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Ok.

Can someone tell me how legit sites sites such DeviantArt would fair? There is alot of questionable stuff on that site to.

There is literally thousends of things done my artists of kids. Alot of it done by kids themselves.

[Bia]

Ok.

Can someone tell me how legit sites sites such DeviantArt would fair? There is alot of questionable stuff on that site to.

There is literally thousends of things done my artists of kids. Alot of it done by kids themselves.




Exactly...

Myspace... there are thousands and thousands of girls doing this stuff themselves. Obvious 13 YO in undies prancing around.
Can the feds go after a kid exploiting themselves?

lol

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Or what about the Fashion houses that use 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 year old chicks to advertise their lates Haute Couture creation?

[LRPV]

Great. Just great. We are in the early part of WW3 and the Feds are focusing on girls in swimsuits. At least someone can set priorities.

I agree with California Joe and Ezekiel25:17. This situation is serious and does need reigning in. If you were the father of a daughter in a western country you might be more inclined to agree, having been exposed to the commercial pressures on children.

WW3 has started, but it does not involve the total commitment of national productivity as per WW1 & 2. WW3 is asymetrical and national resources, at least in my country permit participation in the global war on terror and attendance to social issues. It's not an either/or situation.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Now I'm all for child protection. However there is something about this that can't help but say that this could and maybe used to censor legitimate art.

[Paul in Saudi2]

Work a child ****ography investigation and you will see that this sh*t goes hand in hand. I think you would change your tune after seeing videos of 2 year olds getting ******ly violated by grown men.

Did these sites have such videos? Or are you simply making stuff up?

[XShipRider]

I wish they'd shut down all those JonBenet-type pageants too.

Can't. Too many parents who want their kids to succeed where they,
the parents, failed.

Take one look at kids' sports -- the parents are pushing their kids
harder than they were ever pushed by their parents. Why? Because
their parents still viewed it all as a game not a future vocation.

Also..
When parents stop viewing their kids as revenue generators things will
change. Let them enjoy their 'kid years' playing pickup games in
empty lots instead of forcing them to play timed, refereed, strict
rules, stadium style games. Hell, half the fun was making up your
own rules as you went along. At the end of the day you were grass
stained, dirty, sweaty, hungry, thirsty and tired. All in all you got more
exercise in one day than kids today get in a month.

As for the thread, I suspect the ACLU will come to the website operators
aid. First Amendment and all that rot. I don't know where to draw the line
but you can bet international law or treaty will somehow come into play.
It would have to otherwise the website can simply move offshore to a
more friendly [sic] country.

Note how the 'grand jury' was used in this case. Many of the operator's
normally guaranteed Constitutional rights do not apply in such cases.
No one will complain because the ends justify the means anymore these
days.

[martinexsquaddie]

MichaelF well at least you won't be working for the UN nice to see militaryphotos has some standards:).
feds need to come down hard on these sickos and a whole host of others

[Secret Squirrel]

Can the feds go after a kid exploiting themselves?

lol

Yes they can and they have before. I'll try to dig up a couple stories.

[Secret Squirrel]

Now I'm all for child protection. However there is something about this that can't help but say that this could and maybe used to censor legitimate art.

legitimate art such as what?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Here is 3 examples I'll use. The model in question has only just recently turned 18 however she has been doing this since she was 16.

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/38099402

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/43183728

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/41687660

Now even though she is 18 now. These images do imply that she is only a child. (In many countries even this is a felony)

Now is this art or is exploitation.

[HR24]

Did these sites have such videos? Or are you simply making stuff up?

No I am not making "stuff" up. Did these particular sites have such videos? Don't know. What I AM saying is that in the number of CP investigations I have done and been a party to, a number of the targets had been immersed in child modeling and child erotica sites, which, per their own admissions, led them to searching for the more hardcore material.

What I am simply stating is that one leads to another.

[Paul in Saudi2]

So you're saying the Sears catalogue is gateway to the harder stuff?

All would be well if only we handed over more tax money to people like you? Nope, I'm not thinking so.

[Cedan]

Here is 3 examples I'll use. The model in question has only just recently turned 18 however she has been doing this since she was 16.

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/38099402

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/43183728

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/41687660

Now even though she is 18 now. These images do imply that she is only a child. (In many countries even this is a felony)

Now is this art or is exploitation.

i would say this is art

i dont find these images ******, maybe if you are looking for them to be ****** they might appear so

but they dont to me, look at the middle pic for instance I just see a woman in a pose like a doll with doll clothes and arms and legs in "doll position"

[Hunterhr]

Here is 3 examples I'll use. The model in question has only just recently turned 18 however she has been doing this since she was 16.

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/38099402

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/43183728

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/41687660

Now even though she is 18 now. These images do imply that she is only a child. (In many countries even this is a felony)

Now is this art or is exploitation.

That's art. A 9 year old in nothing but a thong and a halter top is not art.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

but the point remains.

Once laws are passed that are being discussed. Such artistic works could become subjected to censorship. It only takes one religoius nut job to take this type of stuff to court. Or for such an artist to reside in a area that has a large population that follows religion to an extreme.

They need to make the laws very clear and to distingiush between what is overtly ****** and what is legitimate art. You will always find artists that push the boundries of what the broader communities deceny and morals are. Thats always been the case.

[gilgoul]

but the point remains.

Once laws are passed that are being discussed. Such artistic works could become subjected to censorship. It only takes one religoius nut job to take this type of stuff to court. Or for such an artist to reside in a area that has a large population that follows religion to an extreme.

They need to make the laws very clear and to distingiush between what is overtly ****** and what is legitimate art. You will always find artists that push the boundries of what the broader communities deceny and morals are. Thats always been the case.

True, and I would share your opinion, but in this case, we clearly face sites that aren't dealing with "art", but clear exploitation of the image of minor models.

[California Joe]

There is no good reason kids should be posing like that. Young girls don't need that kind of influence. It's like a textbook example of how pedophiles operate. My daughter has a myspace page. That I monitor. There are a lot of pictures her friends post that I wouldn't allow. The funny thing is, I got a page to be able to view hers....and talk to Mocking but that's another story...I put up a bunch of drawings and because they have some nudity, exposed breast or some crap they edited my page. Those are drawings for chrissakes but you can go on half of the pages out there and see everything from kids in their panties to strippers at work. It's bizarre.

[Miles.]

There is no good reason kids should be posing like that. Young girls don't need that kind of influence. It's like a textbook example of how pedophiles operate. My daughter has a myspace page. That I monitor. There are a lot of pictures her friends post that I wouldn't allow. The funny thing is, I got a page to be able to view hers....and talk to Mocking but that's another story...I put up a bunch of drawings and because they have some nudity, exposed breast or some crap they edited my page. Those are drawings for chrissakes but you can go on half of the pages out there and see everything from kids in their panties to strippers at work. It's bizarre.

*thumbs up*

[HR24]

So you're saying the Sears catalogue is gateway to the harder stuff?

All would be well if only we handed over more tax money to people like you? Nope, I'm not thinking so.

The first sentence of your post is idiotic. Last time I checked, the Sears cataloge doesn't put their child models in poses which draw attention to the child's genital region. Nor do they put prepubescent kids in thongs. Maybe you're reading a different Sears catalogue than I....

And in regards to your second sentence, if you value your tax dollars over your child's safety and the safety of other children worldwide, then that speaks volumes about you.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

True, and I would share your opinion, but in this case, we clearly face sites that aren't dealing with "art", but clear exploitation of the image of minor models.

Agree fully and such sites should be shut down and the owners locked. I'm just raising a few points how it could possibly affect the artistic community

[WKD]

Great. Just great. We are in the early part of WW3 and the Feds are focusing on girls in swimsuits. At least someone can set priorities.

I know, preventing the rape and exploitation of minors across the US, those Fed bastards, I blame the liberal media.

[Macs.]

Agree fully and such sites should be shut down and the owners locked. I'm just raising a few points how it could possibly affect the artistic community

How would you seperate "Art" from exploiting teens ?

I doubt you can make a clear definiton between "good" and "bad" Art, on the very next day you would impose such a law there would be dozens of Teen-Art sites raising the "Its just art"-Flag.

Also the definitions would need to be very sharp, (For example: A skirt has to be atleast XX inches long etc.) otherwise you would occupy hundreds of courts with the question whether something is tasteful or already exploiting the teen.

And just because its "Art" doesn't mean the creator should get special rights.

[exarmyguard]

Looks like this site will get alot more traffic if that happens.

[WKD]

How would you seperate "Art" from exploiting teens ?

I doubt you can make a clear definiton between "good" and "bad" Art, on the very next day you would impose such a law there would be dozens of Teen-Art sites raising the "Its just art"-Flag.

Also the definitions would need to be very sharp, (For example: A skirt has to be atleast XX inches long etc.) otherwise you would occupy hundreds of courts with the question whether something is tasteful or already exploiting the teen.

And just because its "Art" doesn't mean the creator should get special rights.

Community standards. There has always been friction between art and community and there always will be; that's fine. Spread shots of 9 year olds in thongs is not fine and is very difficult to pass of as 'art'.

[Paul in Saudi2]

I know, preventing the rape and exploitation of minors across the US, those Fed bastards, I blame the liberal media.

They are not preventing rape. They are ignoring difficult cases in order to fluff up statistics by closing easy cases. You are being fooled. They are wasting your money.

[WKD]

They are not preventing rape. They are ignoring difficult cases in order to fluff up statistics by closing easy cases. You are being fooled. They are wasting your money.

Huh, what?

HAY GUYZ IF A CASE IS EASY THEN IT IS WORTHLESS AND NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND GUYZ WHO LIKE TO FOTO LITTLE GIRLZ IN THERE UNDERWEAR WITH THERE LEGS SPREAD AND DON'T LET THERE PARENTS SUPERVISE DON'T MEAN ANY HARM AMIRITE?!!???

Sorry, if you had a point somewhere please explain it to me. As far as I can tell it seems to be:
1. Feds shouldn't investigate child **** cases.
2. Investigating child **** cases is a waste of taxpayers money.
3. A national LEA with country wide jusristiction and the ability, resources and mandate to co-ordinate with LEA across the country and internationally has no business proscecuting crime that might have national and international connections.
4. Protecting kids on the taxpayers dime is unacceptable.

Write me an essay, tell me what's on your mind.

[M4ko]

If preteens want to expose themselves explicitly then why stop them? Is it not what the western culture is all about: letting people express themselves in anyway they want? Like "urinating on Koran"? - old mp.net discussion, it was discussed that muslims should get over it.

Sarcsam aside; all this dehumanization is dictated by the culture itself and kids are not the ones to blame.

[Paul in Saudi2]

Huh, what?

HAY GUYZ IF A CASE IS EASY THEN IT IS WORTHLESS AND NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND GUYZ WHO LIKE TO FOTO LITTLE GIRLZ IN THERE UNDERWEAR WITH THERE LEGS SPREAD AND DON'T LET THERE PARENTS SUPERVISE DON'T MEAN ANY HARM AMIRITE?!!???

Sorry, if you had a point somewhere please explain it to me. As far as I can tell it seems to be:
1. Feds shouldn't investigate child **** cases.
2. Investigating child **** cases is a waste of taxpayers money.
3. A national LEA with country wide jusristiction and the ability, resources and mandate to co-ordinate with LEA across the country and internationally has no business proscecuting crime that might have national and international connections.
4. Protecting kids on the taxpayers dime is unacceptable.

Write me an essay, tell me what's on your mind.

The Authorities have lost all creditability. Remember the Wee Care Nursery School(1985-90), the McMartin Preschool case (1984-90), the Wenatchee *** ring (1995)? Why would we believe them now? Oh, yeah. They are The Authorities. Trust them.

As I said, it is easier to gain budget by busting a web site than it is to do the hard work of protecting the citizenry. Busting a sleeper cell would involve learning Arabic, infiltrating groups of dangerous people, hard work. Busting an underwear site does not involve getting out of your chair. Both count as a conviction.

Incidentally, and with no cite to back me up, I seem to recall that Bush-appointed prosecutor for Miami told his LE people that ****ography was his number one priority. Freaking wonderful.

Does anyone but me want to win this war? Oh yeah, the Fascists want to win it.

[HR24]

The Authorities have lost all creditability. Remember the Wee Care Nursery School(1985-90), the McMartin Preschool case (1984-90), the Wenatchee *** ring (1995)? Why would we believe them now? Oh, yeah. They are The Authorities. Trust them.

As I said, it is easier to gain budget by busting a web site than it is to do the hard work of protecting the citizenry. Busting a sleeper cell would involve learning Arabic, infiltrating groups of dangerous people, hard work. Busting an underwear site does not involve getting out of your chair. Both count as a conviction.

Incidentally, and with no cite to back me up, I seem to recall that Bush-appointed prosecutor for Miami told his LE people that ****ography was his number one priority. Freaking wonderful.

Does anyone but me want to win this war? Oh yeah, the Fascists want to win it.

Actually, using today's favorite buzzword-TERRORISM!!!!!!!!-is the easiest way to gain a budget. Just curious, have you ever worked a child **** or child exploitation case before? Any idea of what goes into it? For some reason, I think you don't.

[WKD]

The Authorities have lost all creditability. Remember the Wee Care Nursery School(1985-90), the McMartin Preschool case (1984-90), the Wenatchee *** ring (1995)? Why would we believe them now? Oh, yeah. They are The Authorities. Trust them.

As I said, it is easier to gain budget by busting a web site than it is to do the hard work of protecting the citizenry. Busting a sleeper cell would involve learning Arabic, infiltrating groups of dangerous people, hard work. Busting an underwear site does not involve getting out of your chair. Both count as a conviction.

Incidentally, and with no cite to back me up, I seem to recall that Bush-appointed prosecutor for Miami told his LE people that ****ography was his number one priority. Freaking wonderful.

Does anyone but me want to win this war? Oh yeah, the Fascists want to win it.

Obviously if we are concerned about blatant pedophiles and child exploiters, we're objectively pro-Saddam. But you raise a good point, three failed cases does mean that all pedo-proscecutions should be dropped from here on in, and some fruitbat in Florida with a hard on for anti-**** does in fact mean there are no pedophiles anywhere, ever, and that girls made to pose in thong underwear with their legs spread with their parents unable to supervise (after being shown loaded weapons) are completely over-reacting, or probably just making it up. Kids these days, such a sense of entitlement. When I was a child, we had to pay for the privilege of being molested and exploited. And we walked 10 miles in the snow, uphill both ways, just for that honour. Imagine minors thinking that they would be protected. The cheek of it.

Hey, I'm sure pedos are very nice people.

Actually, they're not. As someone who has dealt with pedophiles upclose and personal, privately and in the course of paid employ, I can assure they're the worst of deviants. The War on Terrorism dosn't mean that all other normal LEA activities stop dead.

[dave81]

Community standards. There has always been friction between art and community and there always will be; that's fine. Spread shots of 9 year olds in thongs is not fine and is very difficult to pass of as 'art'.
Of course, in Saudi Arabia, a woman not covering herself from head to toe would be considered obscene and would get her stoned to death. Imposing one's "moral standards" over another's in this country can only lead to bad things. The US is already pointed in the direction of becoming a theocracy -- "Intelligent Design", anyone?
Whose "community" would establish the standards? An outfit considered fine for LA or Miami nightclubbing probably wouldn't go over too well in Pennsylvania Amish community. Everything's relative; the JonBenet Ramsey pageant videos made me sick the first time I saw them, but her parents and the parents of thousands of other kids like this across the country apparently see nothing wrong with it.
I don't think there's a fine line between art and obscenity. I think it's a murky gray swamp.

[WKD]

Of course, in Saudi Arabia, a woman not covering herself from head to toe would be considered obscene and would get her stoned to death. Imposing one's "moral standards" over another's in this country can only lead to bad things. The US is already pointed in the direction of becoming a theocracy -- "Intelligent Design", anyone?
Whose "community" would establish the standards? An outfit considered fine for LA or Miami nightclubbing probably wouldn't go over too well in Pennsylvania Amish community. Everything's relative; the JonBenet Ramsey pageant videos made me sick the first time I saw them, but her parents and the parents of thousands of other kids like this across the country apparently see nothing wrong with it.
I don't think there's a fine line between art and obscenity. I think it's a murky gray swamp.

I'm not sure what people wearing to night clubs has to do with art and child ****ography.

[dave81]

I'm not sure what people wearing to night clubs has to do with art and child ****ography.The same reason I brought up the Saudi Arabia thing: I was pointing out the fact that "decency" is relative.
::Night club dress is to Amish bonnet & hat:: as ::Art is to ****o::
Decency is in the eye of the beholder.

"Teen modeling" sites may be considered child **** to some, but when it's the parents putting their kids on these sites or in these beauty pageants and thinking it's great for their kid, then who are we to tell them their values are screwed up? What you find unacceptable might be just fine for other folks, and vice versa.

I don't support the existence of these crap sites, but the "obscenity" argument is something I feel strongly about, and is also the reason why I have to pay to listen to Howard Stern now.

[Paul in Saudi2]

I for one would feel a little, awkward, being on the same side of child-protection issue as Mark Foley.

[HR24]

I for one would feel a little, awkward, being on the same side of child-protection issue as Mark Foley.

Are you kidding? Is this your line of logic when it comes to this issue?

[Superking]

Didn´t the Brooke Shields pictures end up on display as art?

They where no more "artsy" then 70´s playboy. It just added further precedent to so called "art" sites just as these modeling site probably mimic fashion catalogues to make thier case.

If they where serious modelling sites they would not be offering membership to everyone imo.

[Fiber]

Great. Just great. We are in the early part of WW3 and the Feds are focusing on girls in swimsuits. At least someone can set priorities.

What's wrong with focusing on that?

[Paul in Saudi2]

Good point, when The West falls into chaos and then Islamic control we will have a cadre of ****-sniffers already deployed to serve our Arab masters.

Don't blame me; i voted for Kronos.

[zulu261]

the internet is still the wild west. a few other countries (like japan) closely monitor thier digital backyard.


The most sick videos have their origin in Japan...so what?

The sites are sick **** att all.

[WKD]

Good point, when The West falls into chaos and then Islamic control we will have a cadre of ****-sniffers already deployed to serve our Arab masters.

Don't blame me; i voted for Kronos.

Yup, protecting children is the Death of America.

I think you need to seriously re-think your value system, and your intellectual honesty.

[WKD]

The same reason I brought up the Saudi Arabia thing: I was pointing out the fact that "decency" is relative.
::Night club dress is to Amish bonnet & hat:: as ::Art is to ****o::
Decency is in the eye of the beholder.

"Teen modeling" sites may be considered child **** to some, but when it's the parents putting their kids on these sites or in these beauty pageants and thinking it's great for their kid, then who are we to tell them their values are screwed up? What you find unacceptable might be just fine for other folks, and vice versa.

I don't support the existence of these crap sites, but the "obscenity" argument is something I feel strongly about, and is also the reason why I have to pay to listen to Howard Stern now.

In the US I understand that obscenity laws are determined by the state in line with the Constitution due to the federal system. So they vary from state to state, and even community to community. So, community standards. If you don't like it, change it or move to the Valley. And that's the Art vs. **** debate.

If you'd read the original article, parents were not allowed to supervise the photo shoot (and were apparently shown loaded weapons before hand), and when one found out what was happening she went to the FBI. I can't recall any child beauty pagents involving glamour (used in the adult modelling sense of the word) sections. So yeah, I'm still not entirely sure what your point is. Pederism is not a free speech issue.

If I remember issues that were dealt with when I admined a satire website a while back, intent is a big deal as well, which is why a photo of your kid running around naked by the pool can be perceived differently to a photo of a child in a g-string on her back with her legs spread and sticking out her pelvis. You don't get those poses in anything other than adult-orientated magazines where they are absolutely intended to be ******, which is why the intent is considered differently. So it's going to court and the jury will decide. And frankly, those bastards are as guilty as hell. I don't see how you can prove that that sort of modelling is anything other than child ****.

You're concerned about free speech and censorship. That's good. But leave the generalised idealism aside for the moment, grab some intellectual rigour and start looking at things in context, on a case by case basis. Howard Stern was not prosecuted for child ****.

[kaspur_eh]

I despise it when art is used as an excuse for anything. Similar to wrapping ones self in the 1st amendment.

[Paul in Saudi2]

If the children were mistreated, that is a crime. In addition, a really nasty civil suit might get their attention.