Federal case may redefine child porn

[mongo]

Federal case may redefine child porn
By Declan McCullagh

Jeff Pierson is a photographer whose action shots of hopped-up American autos laying waste to the asphalt at Alabama dragways have appeared in racing magazines and commercial advertisements.

Pierson's Web site boasted he has the "most wonderful wife in the world and two fantastic daughters." And until recently, he ran a business called Beautiful Super Models that charged $175 for portraits of aspiring models under 18.

In a federal indictment announced this week, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Pierson, 43, of being a child pornographer--even though even prosecutors acknowledge there's no evidence he has ever taken a single photograph of an unclothed minor.

Rather, they argue, his models struck poses that were illegally provocative. "The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine," Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama, said in a statement.

more --> http://news.com.com/Federal+case+may+redefine+child+porn/2100-1030_3-6139524.html

:mad: :wtf: :banghead:

[LeftCoast]

1. Wow! Straight from the Ministry of ThoughtCrime!

That's ridiculous!

[tridim]

3. It's beginning to look a lot like 1985

I'm just waiting for the first parents to get arrested for taking snapshots of their kids playing in the bathtub. The same pictures that millions of parents have taken since the 1900's.

[Rosemary2205]

2. I have to say

the pics shown on the Google cache are way over the top IMHO and I can see why the feds are going after him. This is not a case of them going after parents with a pic of little suzy in her first 2 piece swimsuit. These pics are OBVIOUSLY intended to provoke sexual thoughts in the viewer of the pic - IMHO. Even if the guy wins his case on a legal basis on the definition of child porn - there's no doubt in my mind it's intended to be kiddie porn.

[melm00se]

5. agree

while they contain no nudity, they are pretty damn close to the line.

[FedUpWithIt All]

6. Agreed

I also took a look at the google cache. Those are inappropriate images of children IMO.

[mongo]

12. Better go check your local video stores

For copies of "The Blue Lagoon"

Under these rules, that big-budget Hollywood movie is now child porn.

[FedUpWithIt All]

17. I have seen the film.

First let me say...I have NO issue with porn where consenting adults are involved. I have NO issue with nudity. I do not want to see a world were parents can be convicted for taking images of their children in the bathtub playing.

What i DO have a problem with is exploitation. These kids are being "documented" in a way that is exploitive.

I addition to this I think Hollywood often exploits children, so that is a pointless straw man to use here.

I showed my 14 yr old the google cache page. I did not say a word. The first words out of her mouth were, "That's inappropriate".

Edited to add...Blue Lagoon (it has been a great many years since i have seen it..not that impressed) showed the story of two young people in love. Not a child attempting to attract the viewer. There IS a difference. One has "nudity" in the context of a story, the other has scantily posed child in an effort to entice the viewer.

I have LESS problem with nudity, in these cases than i do with exploitive dressed poses.

[mongo]

27. In other words

you "know it when you see it" -- a dangerous position to be in.

Just exactly how does someone know when and where the line is?

It's the same position I am in selling adult videos. The way state law is written, I can be arrested for selling a copy of Playboy, but I know that it wouldn't be found obscene by a jury.

But I am supposed to know the contents of 1500+ ever changing videos in my back room, and guess whether or not their content is within "community standards". If I guess wrong, I go to jail. And even if I don't guess wrong, I still get to shell out thousands of dollars to defend myself in court if the local police want to come after me.

How can anyone stand for such vauge laws as this, where now a Target or Walmart circular could possibly be illegal?

[Rosemary2205]

28. The standards are and SHOULD be different for children

I appreciate your predicament when it comes to adult porn and agree the laws can be more than a little arbitrary. However, IMHO it has NOTHING to do with exploitation of children. Call me a fascist if you want but I have no problem with the feds backing up the bar a bit when it comes to CHILD porn.

[mongo]

30. So, if it's on the website of a "modeling agency"

It's child porn, but if the same picture is in a Walmart circular it's advertising.

Sounds perfectly fair and reasonable to me :sarcasm:

[Rosemary2205]

32. I'd be interested in seeing that walmart ad.

I've never seen a Walmart ad with 8 yr olds licking their lips just so and in lacy lingerie posed with their crotches wide open for the camera. Guess I just happened to miss that one. However, if they did that then Walmart (or anyone else) should be in court.

[mongo]

37. What picture of an 8yo licking their lips?

It's hard to see those thumbnails, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

And yeah, next spring when the swimwear circular comes out, there will be pictures of 13yo's in two peice swimsuits with their hand on their hips.

[FedUpWithIt All]

56. Mongo, i understand what you are saying...

and agree with you about the adult industry.

i need to clarify tho, the images i saw were not WalMart type of images. There is a picture of a very young girl in a thong (it is difficult to tell if she is even wearing any type of top) bent away from the camera, exposing her minimally clothed backside. This is exploitation of a child who is not old enough to make an informed or mature decision. She is not old enough to decide that she wants suggestive pictures of her on the INTERNET for all to see. She is barely if at all at an age of sexual maturity.

If, some unethical people are passing off child exploitive images as "modeling", they are a large part of the problems you are facing in the adult industry IMO. The less clear the lines are drawn, the more we as a society will be forced to cross lines to protect the innocent victims of this type of thing.

I support your career. Your an adult selling to adults something that is marketable. But we have to be careful that we do not sacrifice some, in the defense of others. In particular those who cannot defend themselves.

It is a fine line and i realize it is a sticky situation. But i also know that manipulated children deserve as much defense and outrage as we would provide any group that is mistreated, exploited or harmed.

[mongo]

7. Those pictures are no more racy

than the summer Walmart swimwear circular.

This is BS.

[blogslut]

93. Ahem

I have to disagree with you about these "Non Nude" modeling sites.

Whereas, there is no nudity in the photography, I do believe the kind of sites described by Declan MCullagh are designed to titillate and make money from pedophiles.

You know what I do for a living. I work for the Internet porn industry. A good many people in my business feel that these sites are nothing but pedo magnets. The are laid out like porn paysites. They charge for membership like porn paysites.

What is so infuriating about these places is that they push the edges of what is legal. No. The images on their pages are not CP. They are not porn. They are not obscene. They do not violate the definitions described in TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256. They don't need to. These webpages make plenty of money dancing on the boundaries of the law. What is doubly infuriating is the fact that while I find these sites to be heinous, I am completely against the attempt by the DOJ to have the content on them, legally constituted as CP. To do so would be a grievous misapplication of law and would have a chilling effect on free speech.

What I would rather have happen is the implementation of a new, improved Federal law in the spirit of 1938's Coogan's Law. My reasoning is this:

I believe this is a child entertainment labor issue. Coogan's law is California legislation, passed after child actor Jackie Coogan sued his mother for commandeering the earnings he made before he reached adulthood. Basically, the law demands that %15 of the child performer's earnings is put aside for a trust. Coogan's law also designated that the child's earnings were his/her own. Of course, the Coogan laws of yesterday need a major overhaul. And if my new Fed law were to be written, it would also cover standard hours and working conditions for minors in the fashion of child entertainer laws.

My new law would also implement nationwide enforcement and inspection of businesses that make money from child performers. Are the children being paid? Is a certain amount of money being put side for the child in a trust? Will the child have an advocate? Will there be inspectors to make sure the working conditions are safe and that the child's best interests are being served?

Some states already have child entertainer laws, similar to Coogan's law. But because of the Internet and the evolution of child entertainment since 1938, much of the protections for minor talent are outdated and/or ineffective.

As I said, I disagree that these child modeling sites are innocent or harmless. I think a lot of children are being exploited by the photographers/site operators, the paying members and frankly, their parents. The people that run these sites advertise them as talent catalogs. They tell parents that their child will be seen by millions. Some individual models have their own featured sites - often at the request of paying members. What they don't tell the children is that the majority of surfers downloading their images are not talent agents.

Who knows how hard these kids are being worked to put out the content? Who knows if they are being paid or insured? Who is making sure the child is protected? A parent's permission is not enough. My hope is that Congress creates a new, federal law for child entertainers and that it covers cyberspace. Then, I believe that the operators of these child modeling sites will lose a major incentive - the ability to make money exploiting kids.

[951-Riverside]

8. Re: These pics are OBVIOUSLY intended to provoke sexual thoughts in the viewer of the pic

SO FUCKING WHAT?

What someone might be thinking is none of your damn business. :mad: If he wants to take these pics with the consent of children and their parents more power to him.

[Rosemary2205]

16. I totally disagree

the welfare of children is EVERYONE'S business. Children CANNOT consent and parents have been known to abuse and exploit their children.

And yes, I'm one of those damn busybodies that HAS called the cops on parents. I'm glad I did. I won't repeat what horrific awfulness was being done to her but suffice it to say the child "consented". IMHO it's ASSININE to even suggest a child has the mental ability to consent.

[mongo]

29. Can a child of 17 "consent" to having their (clothed) picture taken?

Is it abuse to take a provocative (clothed)picture of a 17yo if they are trying to get into modeling?

[Rosemary2205]

35. Have you looked at the pics?

Those girls are nowhere near 17.

[mongo]

39. There is one photo

where the girl looks under 12. A few in the 13-14yo range, and most in the 15-17 yo range.

But you didn't answer my question.

[madmusic]

43. Are you confessing?

Five to twenty years is a long time. The authorities say they are child porn and you went and looked, so you intentionally downloaded child porn even though the authorities warned you ahead of time that it was child porn, enough to arrest someone for it. The pictures are in your cache. You're so busted.

Five to twenty years is a long time.

Maybe you can say you only looked to justify your outrage, but why you have them in your computer doesn't legally matter.

You criminal, you.

If Homeland Security doesn't bust down your door, consider yourself lucky, but know from here on out you owe the government five to twenty years in prison.

Five to twenty years is a long time.

Sweet dreams.

[The Doctor.]

58. That's an excellent point.

If curiosity can kill a cat, it's certainly worth five to twenty.

[madmusic]

60. Frankly, I was curious but found that interview...

And while reading it, realized, I'm not THAT curious and it wouldn't be worth verifying anything for a debate. Which means they can call just about anything child porn and we'll never know what it is.

[Rosemary2205]

66. Huh?

So questioning authority is now a BAD thing? Using my own brain and making up my own mind is a BAD thing? Blindly following authority is now a GOOD thing?

:shrug:

[The Doctor.]

68. His point was 'TiC'.

"Tongue in Cheek"

He was being sardonic. But his point was very valid.

If the government gets to determine someone is guilty of 'child endangerment' by such arbitrary criteria as people are using here, then you can be hauled away for merely investigating claims on the internet.

"Those poses are SEXUAL!" Is, as you are obviously aware, an arbitrary and subjective assesment.

"Those children are depicted committing sexual acts!" Can be ascertained much more objectively.

Think, to most fundies, any female lying prone, stiff as a board, emotionless, and in full Sunday dress can be viewed to be in the 'ready' missionary position.

"That pose is SEXUAL!"

[The Doctor.]

54. "Sexy Poses"???

They're like, twelve.

I see little girls practicing 'grown up' poses.
They aren't sexually mature, there's nothing 'sexy' about it.

They aren't nude, they aren't engaging in or emulating sex acts, and they don't turn me on.
Little girls acting 'sexy' has the same impact on me as little girls acting like accomplished Cabinet Secretaries... it's cute at best.

So someone thinks that because they pretended to be sexy in pictures they're going to become prostitutes?

I'd honestly like to know how these girls are being harmed. Maybe they will have bigger egos when they mature? Maybe they will have a better understanding of sexuality and it's various devices?

Just because I wouldn't take pictures like this of my daughter doesn't mean that anyone who does is a child-raping scumbag. I have to wonder just what internal triggers are being flipped in the people that are offended by these photos.

[Morgana LaFey]

76. I don't know where to start

I see little girls practicing 'grown up' poses.
They aren't sexually mature, there's nothing 'sexy' about it.

If you're a pedophile there most CERTAINLY is something sexy about it. Wake up! This isn't about you, altho one could read your defenses of what's going on here as something otherwise.

So someone thinks that because they pretended to be sexy in pictures they're going to become prostitutes?

I'd honestly like to know how these girls are being harmed. Maybe they will have bigger egos when they mature? Maybe they will have a better understanding of sexuality and it's various devices?

You would do well to study the subject of child sexual abuse, and its effects on the children. The effects are massive and permanent. The girls are being harmed by being sexually exploited, and there is no upside in the equation. None.

Typically, sexual abuse (and yes, this is sexual abuse) condemns them to an entire lifetime of DYSfunctionality, to living lives well under their capacity due to the usually quite permanent wounding this represents. This is a betrayal of trust (devastating), it's degradation and humiliation (devastating), it's being robbed of the sanctity of and sovereignty over their own bodies (devastating), it's realizing they mean nothing more to their parents or whoever "consents" than cheesecake and sexual objects, or perhaps a meal ticket when what their parents are supposed to be doing is PROTECTING them so how can they ever mean much to anyone else including themselves? How can they be worth any more than that, a piece of meat? How can there ever be anyone who won't exploit or use them? They'll repeat these betrayals and humiliations over and over and over again, as psychologists point out that we do.

As a result, their futures hold an inability to form intimate relationships; addictions of all kinds; possible trouble with school and learning; trouble with the law; possible prostitution since they've already been trained that their sexuality is a commodity and that's easy enough, especially for those without good educations or who leave home early; almost always early sexual promiscuity and often teen pregnancy. And so forth and so on.

ALL girls are being harmed by the exploitation of these girls and all children are being harmed because pedophiles are getting their supply. Your ignorance about the dangers, longterm effects and incredibly high cost of child sexual abuse to the individual as well as to the entirety of society aren't helpful. Don't defend the indefensible.

"Those poses are SEXUAL!" Is, as you are obviously aware, an arbitrary and subjective assesment.

That's either denial or incredibly naive. There may be some uncertainty at the very tame end of the spectrum, but it doesn't take any special genius -- or experience -- to see sexual poses for what they are, whether you're turned on by them or not.

[The Doctor.]

86. I'm impressed...

You have made the perfect subjective argument.

Funny you don't see it.

I'm sure all your predictions regarding the futures of these girls will come true. No doubt you have talked to them and their parents in depth, and with your intimate understanding of them and your degree in psychology, you are undoubtedly qualified to make that assesment.

Right?

None of us know where these girls will end up. Your assumption that their little 'project', however 'inappropriate' it may seem to you, will result in the pre-emptive destruction of these girls lives is unqualified.

Plenty of girls brought up in 'wholesome' environments self-destruct. Plenty of girls brought up in 'depraved' conditions do just fine later on.

What you want is for society to define 'depraved' to include 'anything that a bunch of people think is inappropriate'.

Who is that 'bunch of people' supposed to be? Who will form the committee to review material and determine if it is 'decent'?

Well, the Fundamentalists are thrilled to have folks agree with them on these things. With the help of a 'consensus' they can begin witch hunts.

Suggesting that I am a pedophile because I do not believe these images are inappropriate enough to warrant government censorship and criminal penalties is disgusting and you should be ashamed.

Your inability to remove emotion from your already highly subjective argument is the hallmark of Religious Fundamentalist.
I assume you are not one, but you seem not to be able to grasp that your M/O is identical to theirs.

What you see as 'Sexual', I do not.

Who becomes the arbiter, the judge of what is 'sexual'?

It is a very small step from saying these are 'alluring' photos to saying that the sultry poses offered by girls in catalogues are as bad. The photographers for catalogues intentionally encourage their subjects to be 'sassy'. Such photos can easily be construed as 'sensual' or even 'sexy'.

I'm not saying, nor have I said that these images are entirely appropriate,but neither are they so inappropriate as to warrant government involvement. Sexually immature girls can engage in activities that aren't sex. Period. The line cannot be more stark.

Those photos may be 'sexy' to you, but they aren't sex.

This does not warrant censorship.

You are welcome to your opinion that the father is a jerk, that's fine.
But when people go on decency crusades, invariably the momentum carries things too far.
Too many parent will wind up in jail because their little girl looked too 'sultry' in her ballet leotard.

Don't think it'll go there?

It will. Some overly self-righteous maid or teacher or social worker will cite this case as precedent to throw a parent in jail because they took a picture of their kid in a bathing suit.

If you think otherwise, it is you who are naive.

[madmusic]

87. You're very dangerous...

After sleeping on it, it struck me how dangerous your post is.

You could be an expert who is 100% correct. It is possible the taking of these pictures really is sexual abuse as traumatizing as child rape with the ruined life you predict, or there could be http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/00-017_politics_of_csa.htm">another view, which was also vehemently silenced. It is the dogmatic censorship that is dangerous.

But what makes you so dangerous is that anyone who questions you is the dangerous person, and so you write, "one could read your defenses of what's going on here as something otherwise."

"One" of course, equals you and "otherwise" equals "pedophile."

So the government can charge someone for something we cannot legally see. And we can't question it. If we do question it, we are the worst of the worst. You also imply that whoever took these pictures did the same damage as if they raped these girls. The government argues the same thing, and we can't question it. If we do, we are the worst of the worst.

What's more, we are so silenced and introverted by this we shouldn't even question the charges and should find them guilty with a trial by media. For example, the woman who filed the charges says, “They seemed like perfect people” even though before "Pierson had earlier displayed a handgun he kept in the house" and "so they endured several more hours in the studio."

How many times has a perfect photographer brandished a gun? That is the implication, that it was brandished and put them in fear. Did they even find a gun at the house? We don't know.

And how did this happen? "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." They were chatting all along so she could hear anything he said and "she could see him but not her daughter."

How did her daughter change without the mother knowing what was going on?

You can argue that it doesn't matter because however the pictures came about, it was child abuse. That may be true, but to make snide accusations because someone questions your authoritarian view is very dangerous. In fact, there is some http://www.fcn.ca/children_2.htm">support for Dr_eldritch's view and a quick Google found it. By your standards, we have no right to even Google it.

We have read heartbreaking personal accounts here of childhood trauma, and there is good reason for concern and outrage, but that doesn't mean we have to surrender our ability to think and question. To imply we can't question is as dangerous as the photographer albeit in an entirely different sphere of danger.

If Foley taught us anything, it is that we should be skeptical:

[The Doctor.]

90. Spot on.

I think those photos are 'cute' at best, 'tacky' at worst.

I know that a great deal of aversion stems from fear of one's own impulses. Like homophobes who fear their own internal desires, the most rabid 'decency crusaders' are often at war within themselves as without.

I'm certainly not saying that Morgana LaFey is such an individual, but by that poster's standards, it's possible to put the photographer of this piece in jail;



It's a 'slippery slope' argument for sure... and for good reasons.

[madmusic]

91. It's the censorship...

Morgana LaFey may be right, or mostly right, or wrong. If we can't even discuss it, we'll never know.

In the meantime, the government is permitted what amounts to secret convictions. Granted, there will be a jury who will see the pictures if it goes that far, but how are the rest of us to understand the law? As you say, it will make parents very paranoid about any pictures they take, and they should be afraid.

Plus there is the added confusion of anyone who viewed those pictures is technically a criminal now. It might have been better if the government used this site as probable cause for a search warrant to search members' computers for indisputable child porn. Couldn't they get one?

[Nikia]

95. Are you saying that because every child is not damaged

that there shouldn't be laws to protect children?
The study from your link still shows that most childhood abuse victims were harmed at the time. As far as long term effects, it doesn't necessarily just slowly wane from the time of abuse. The survey was given to college students. In reality, some people are actually more affected later: as they enter into serious relationships, as they have children of their own, as they aquire full adult responsibilities, if they experience rape or abuse in their relationships. It is also telling how many pedophiles (and those who prey on adolescents for those who make the distinction) turn out to have been sexual abuse victims, some of which may deny that the experience was harmful to them until they are arrested.

[The Doctor.]

97. There is legitimate concern that these photos

Do not amount to 'child abuse'.

I would have to know more to make such a determination. Even then it would still be an opinion as no clear lines have been crossed.

[madmusic]

98. No, blogslut's Coogan's Law idea might work..

And the study does not argue against the protection of children. The study itself finds that:

ABSTRACT

Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.

the study itself: http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm

All I'm saying is that the censorship of the subject and the absolutist arguments of some, though with the best of intentions, can too often sway the discussion from other equally important factors, like family environment. That's dangerous. This is why other types of equally harmful abuses are relatively ignored while all the time and money is spent on CSA, even though family environment may play a more important role in adjustment. To put it another way, the money spent on prosecuting this case, and on prison if convicted, could be money spent on children suffering from broken bones and other types of abuse - neglect, emotional abuse, near starvation and such - that are equally if not more damaging. But these other more common kinds abuse may be too close to home, though in less extreme forms, for some who are really radical about CSA.

There is a lot of political grandstanding in a case like this one, and children who need help, more help, are neglected in the process. In all the ranting about the study, how many asked what family environment factors play such an important role? Even that baby, though common sense to a degree, was thrown out with the bath water. At bottom, I think, the study argues that even even if we stamp out CSA it could not lead to the utopia we hope for, because that would still leave the family environment issues at the root of the problem. Blaming it all on CSA will not solve it. Censoring studies like this one will not solve it either.

[Nikia]

99. I think that it is because pedophiles like to think that they aren't hurting children

Some pedophiles might really want to hurt children and wreck their lives, but most pedophiles try to justify their actions and think that they didn't really hurt anyone. It is sort of like how some men think women like to be raped or that it really isn't damaging. It is also telling that most pedophiles were sexually abused as children.
There is a stigma with sexual abuse that often prevents people from reporting it or even telling anyone. Not all young adults are ready to believe that they weren't fully in control of their lives when they were in their late childhood early teens and may blame themselves for "having sex" with older people, especially if they clearly inappropriate people like relatives or clergy, who were married or celibate. Young adults (the college students) who managed to not let the abuse affect their lives too much might want to pretend that it never happened. The most damaged from the sexual abuse probably didn't even make it to college to be surveyed either. As I said, sometimes those who have seemingly not let it affect their lives get triggered later.

[madmusic]

100. Huh?

The study didn't ask pedophiles anything and so what they think isn't included. You may be right and the average college student is lying or is self-deluded or hasn't suffered the full consequences yet. (EDIT: is there a study that proves that?) There may be a study on making it to college or not, I don't know, but if so it would have to control for race, class and poverty among other things.

Again, the family environment gets ignored.

Peachy, but it proves the point of the study.

[mongo]

92. When you start your argument

by insinuating that the person you are adressing is a pedophile for having a different opinion than you -- it's obvious that you are not worth the time argueing against.

But to counter your assertion that by mearly being in these pictures, these girls lives are somehow devastated, I offer the following quote form Dr. Marty Klien:

Adult-child erotic interactions have been going on since the beginning of time. While some are obviously coercive and traumatic, others are just as obviously simple developmental events from which children emerge as "normal." By pretending there's no ambiguity, no cultural context or psychological differences between people or situations, America's rigid position--always abuse, always damaging--reduces an important subject to caricature.

As with many sex-related social issues, American society is loathe to actually learn anything that challenges conventional wisdom. When Judith Levine wrote about it in her award-winning book Harmful to Minors, she was vilified in the Minnesota legislature. When scientists Philip Tromovitch & Bruce Rind showed mountains of evidence that did so, they were personally attacked in Congress.

[WinkyDink]

20. Exactly. These parents know full well what they are doing---and it ain't

"modelling" photos.

[Porcupine]

46. You looked? You're a pervert that belongs in jail too!!!

Everbody knows that just looking at images like that turns you into a pedophile that can't resist rushing out and sexually abusing minors. It's A FACT

:sarcasm:

[mom cat]

4. You mean like what you see on MTV every day?

Oh pleeeeeeeeeze!

[ComerPerro]

88. Hell, even the Disney Channel could be said to be sexualizing their child stars

its okay if you're a large corporation with millions of dollars

[Wonk]

9. Could this mean the end of "JonBenet" type pageants too?

I don't know what else to call them, but if this guy's website is "kiddie porn" then I think those would qualify as well.



Kiddie porn, as shown on CNN?

[951-Riverside]

11. and don't forget high school cheerleaders

Oh nooo's! Child Porn.

:eyes:

[The Doctor.]

89. OMG! Throw the photographer in jail!

[Nikia]

96. There are differences in attire and routine

When I was in high school, my first two years the flag corp wore very short skirts. The flag corp adviser had them doing very suggestive routines. Some students referred to them as "the whore corp). The only girls that tried out were thin girls who were open to the uniforms and routines.
When a new flag corp adviser was hired, they bought new uniforms with pants and long sleeves and the routines were not suggestive at all and a bigger variety of girls tried out and their reputation changed completely.
The cheer leaders were between the two extremes although their uniform skirts generally were too short to wear to school by the school dress code. I have noticed though looking at the cheer leader photos that they have gone to longer skirts that would be considered acceptable to wear to school.
As for routines, I don't think that dancing like they are strippers (minus removing clothing) belongs at school sponsored activities.

[MountainLaurel]

14. Christ, we can hope so

:shrug:

[gollygee]

10. The pictures look pretty tacky

but that doesn't make them porn.

[mongo]

13. gollygee - the voice of reason!

Something that is sorely lacking on DU most days

:toast:

[AnnieBW]

15. No Nekkid Baby Pics!

Nobody had better take any pictures of their nekkid babies getting a bath, or on a bear rug, or whatever. Someone may think that it's kiddie pr0n! :argh:

[Zhade]

18. Was the Carl's Jr (Hardee's for East Coasters) Paris Hilton ad porn?

Let's take this to its natural conclusion: if 'sexually provocative" pictures of kids are child porn, wouldn't that mean every sexually provocative ad involving adult men and women is ALSO porn?

Are they saying that the mere POSING is porn itself?

Advertising in the United States is BASED on sexually provocative poses luring us to buy all the crap they want to shove down our throats. So following the logic in this case, that's now porn.

Fucking ridiculous.

[WinkyDink]

21. The laws are different for the exploitation of MINORS.

[Zhade]

23. How does that at all address my question?

If the idea here is that the provocative poses themselves are porn, because they lead to sexual thoughts, then clearly the same holds true for adults - the posing somehow equals porn.

That's flat-out nonsense.

[Morgana LaFey]

77. Here's how

Of COURSE it was porn. The difference is, it was "soft porn," aimed at adult audiences and obviously featuring an adult.

We have different standards where children are concerned because we as a society recognize children can't protect themselves.

[Trillo]

19. It's probably unrelated to this, but seems to me quite related

but an old friend had a myspace blog, and the only way I could comment on it was to join their system (there was no way for an outsider to comment). One day the RSS feed showed something I wanted to comment on. So I signed up with myspace so I could comment on her post. Well, no big deal. But while there I noted these pictures of young girls, clothed of course, but in sexually provative and both revealing and suggestive poses designed to make them, "look hot" and "sultry" and "willing".

I don't remember the text, but it backed those three characterizations of mine, in a typical advertisers' "creation of desire" way. The girls in the advertisements looked like they were no more than 16-years old, maybe less.

I wondered why, since myspace claims to have a problem with child predators, do they have such pictures as advertising on their site?

The more I looked around, the more ads I saw, but the most offensive one was placed where it couldn't be missed on the default home page assigned "to me", it is the photo that sticks in my mind to this day. I judged it child pornography.

It took me only a little time to figure out how to delete my account. I emailed my friend and told her what I did and that maybe I was a prude because I found the images offensive and hypocritical with respect towards child pornography and sexual predators.

I suppose it's possible that this guy "Jeff Pierson" took the photo I saw, though I wouldn't bet on it. But even if it was, why isn't myspace at fault for creating a system where I had no choice but to see the offensive image when I logged on so I could comment on my friend's blog there?

So much hypocrisy between "big business" and "little people". I'm so sad it's the latter that gets punished, while the former seems to get all the rewards.

[mongo]

24. Maybe because the 16-22yo's the ads were targeted to

also way to look "hot" and "sultry".

16yo's have a sexual drive, and most are sexually active to some degree.

But it is always better to keep our heads in the sand about that! Abstinence education for everyone under 30.

[Trillo]

33. Or deliberate entrapment. What I wrote back to my friend

that I didn't put in the prior post, was that I wondered if myspace had set up their system to entrap child predators. That would explain putting the word out in the corporate media that child predators had been discovered and tracked there.

Apparently you missed my characterization of myself as a possible "prude", yet that didn't stop you from the personal dig at my comment and creating an association between me and fundamentalists.

I got that way in the 10th grade at a private military academy where I was expelled for breaking a sexual rule that wasn't explicit, and which was such an emotional thing for me that 35 years later I haven't yet recovered from it, nor will I have children to subject them to educators tyranny.

You're probably correct that it is a fundamentalist type of thing in my relating to a created inhibition that I now exhibit in my own life. There is nothing that I can do to change it, I simply look forward to being dead, thought the process of dying I'm not looking forward to.

Perhaps you missed my recording of my support for the so-called adult pornography biz.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2585016#2585739

However, since it is apparently me that is the fundamentalist, instead of you, perhaps I should reconsider.

[madmusic]

40. I feel for ya, SimpleTrend...

Really do, and I think there is something you can do to change it, though all the laws are set up against you. How? Up to you, but there is a way for you to learn to safely "break the rules" in you head. Hope you make it and not give up.

[Trillo]

44. My original point was the hypocrisy between

big business and the little guy the OP is delineating. Truly, I fail to see how that is a problem in my head or all the laws being set up against me or mongo insulting me. Please explain.

[madmusic]

50. You said...

"where I was expelled for breaking a sexual rule that wasn't explicit" and you still have trouble letting go, which I took to mean you have trouble understanding the rule confusion in your head. About the laws, I meant a lot of what is natural and healthy is illegal or taboo, or at least frowned upon. That adds to the confusion.

If I misunderstood, sorry. Pretend I didn't say anything.

[Trillo]

62. Mongo made a similar point in

in post #27, vagueness in rules.

You wrote, "you still have trouble letting go" Why would any of us seek to let go of the rules we've learned at great personal cost?

"you have trouble understanding the rule confusion in your head" Hmm...Thanks! What your words means to me:

Educators seek to kill, but do not have the guts to do so probably because it is illegal and they are fearful, so instead they deliberately hurt people in the cruelest ways they can imagine, and they do it to those who really can't legally defend themselves, but then they cry out, "it's the parents fault."

That makes it similar to the hypocrisy I mentioned between "little people" and "Big Buisness".

Is that clear enough for you?

I often use a personal anecdote
From my personal experience to explain my point of view, I don't really care if it bothers others or not, I believe it is an aid to communication.

[madmusic]

63. That same idea is easily translated into the neocon philosophy...

They can do anything they want, and if someone can't keep up (lack of health care, education, whatnot) it's their own damn fault. They can even, for example, dump all kinds of toxins nears the school so it is almost impossible to learn, but the strong would survive, so it is the individual's fault, not theirs (the oil company, the power company, fill in the blank).

All that matter's is what is best for the collective, they say, but all that really matters is the elite - them. Their concern for the collective and "social control" is a farce because it is not really "for the people." It is for the elite - them. Their real goal is this: “The tyrant grinds down his slaves and they don't turn against him; they crush those beneath them” Emily Bronte.

[mongo]

45. Didn't mean to offend personally

with the head in the sand comment, just a reflection of how our society views sexuality in general and in minors in particular.

I hope that you find someone to talk to about your past.

And that thread, I skimmed it -- kinda glad I missed it overall, but I agree with most of what you said here;

Another place of commonality with religious fundamentalists is the pornography that I've seen seems patriarchal. A male and a female. A male and two or several females. But never two or several males and one female: Perhaps it exists in the pornography world (lots of things exist for connoisseurs that aren't 'common'), but I've never seen any with just two males, though I've heard that it exists and can probably found if one searches for it. My conclusion is that the type of pornography that is commonly available is skewed to pander to the fantasies of heterosexual males. This may be a marketing issue, or where the money in it seems to be, I don't know, and I don't really care, but it seems to be a problem when one considers that the common type of it seems sexually skewed.

yeah, *MOST* porn is marketed to hetro males as they make up the largest percentage of the market. There is a lot of "couples" porn out there, but even it tends to fall short for most women's tastes.

But there is a large supply of gay male porn out there, and lesbian porn marketed to lesbian women (a little less common). M-M-F tapes are less common, but there is a large body of transsexual porn of all gender combinations, except f-to-M transexuals.

Most porn is crap. The only way it will get beter is for it to become legit.

[Trillo]

47. Thank you. n/t

[Morgana LaFey]

78. You know, just because 16 year olds have a sex drive

doesn't mean it's appropriate for adults to either exploit it or promote it. There are plenty of CHILDREN (yes, 16 year olds are children) who aren't ready for sex at that age or for quite a few years after. Frankly the hyper-sexualization of our contemporary society isn't a benefit for teens. And I think most responsible people understand that.

So it's not necessary and doeesn't make you look all that reasonable to adopt strawman arguments ("abstinence education for everyone under 30") on the matter.

[porphyrian]

22. Apparently the Inquisitors are no longer happy with all of the legitimate targets.

Maybe it's easier to make more people into criminals than it is to find the remaining ones under current standards.

[Greyhound]

25. Is it 1938 yet?

I just can't believe that this is the country we used to call the United States of America.

How sick do you have to be to see sexuality in those shots? The same people that tried to destroy the gnostic bible, and thereby the idea that women are people, are still here.

Scary :scared:

[gulfcoastliberal]

26. K&R - legislating the bible in Alabama; not surprised. nt

[omega minimo]

31. Is porn all you care about Mongo?

[Wonk]

36. He's stated that it's how he makes a living. See post #27, for example. nt

[mongo]

49. When you can't attack the message

attack the messenger.

You're in fine form tonight OM.

[madmusic]

34. Anyone who downloaded the pictures is gulity...

Of possession of child pornography, mandatory 5-20 at least, thanks to Foley.

Call your lawyer.

I didn't visit any site with the pics, but did find this:

http://www.blacktable.com/gillin031001.htm

[Rabrrrrrr]

51. Wow - the BT guy comes off as a screaming idiot in that one.

And you might want to check your law books about that definition of child porn.

Unless you are being sarcastic.

[madmusic]

55. They are claiming it is child porn...

The cops told them it was, and they downloaded it!

That's criminal.

Sarcasm, sort of, but really pointing out the hypocrisy and how easy it could be to break the law and do serious mandatory time.

[ContraBass Black]

59. And if they appear on your monitor, then they are inside your computer.

So, is Skinner going to be getting a load of calls tracking down all of the admissions in this thread?

[bullwinkle428]

38. New definition : Any form of nudity not involving Republicans!

[pitohui]

41. prison is an industry, mongo

lincoln freed the slaves but some fascist finally noticed that it's legal under the constitution to deprive people of their liberty and force them into labor (in other words, make them slaves) if they are convicted of a felony...so...everything has got to be a felony because operating prisons for profit is part of the economy now

the people prosecuting this know damn well there is no child porn, they are just trying to make more slaves

[mongo]

48. Yeah most of the child porn images confiscated

are reproductions from Danish magazines from the few years it was legal there.

Can't wait till they start throwing tobacco users into prison too....

[madmusic]

53. What about the BILLION dolloar child porn ring?

Seriously, I really thought this was a big and huge and CURRENT problem other than a rare twisted freak who films himself with a child.

It's not?

They can't hunt down and bust those child porn makers because it was legal then?

Damn, that's another one I fell for. When am I going to learn you can't believe the government about ANYTHING.

[immoderate]

42. That's not pornography.

Sorry.

--IMM

[Rabrrrrrr]

52. If that's child porn, then I'm Billy Joel's biggest fan ever.

And I'm also a freeper, republican, hate-based Christian, Ted Haggard's other blowboy, and the world's only owner of every edition of every painting ever put out by Thomas Kinkade.

[ecstatic]

57. Only suppressed pervert /pedophiles could reach such conclusions

They look at perfectly normal pictures and get aroused, because they are sick pervert/pedophile freaks! Yes, let's investigate: The judge and prosecuting attorney!!

[blogslut]

61. God, I hate those damned sites

Those shitheads deliberately tread a fine line.

No, technically,legally, it's not CP. However, many of those sites charge membership fees and I can guarandamntee you most of the paying members ain't talent agents.

That being said, if the government really wanted to fight that crap, they would enforce child labor laws. Are these models being paid? Is a majority percentage of that pay being deposited in a trust? Are the models working hours according to the Fair Standards Labor Act? Are they getting educational tutoring while on set? Has anyone tried to find out if working for these sites is a hazard to these children?

[jollyreaper2112]

64. My 2 cents

I haven't seen these pictures in particular. I have, however, seen examples on other discussion boards when this topic comes up. The entire conceit is that these "modeling" sites are there for agencies to view but you have to pay for access. How many agencies pay for access to modeling stuff? It doesn't violate the letter of the law but you have a good idea what the intentions are of the site owners. The problem is, you can't enforce laws based on subjective concepts of intent. Whackjob Muslims think that a woman is being deliberately provocative by showing their hair. Whackjob Christians think having hemlines above the ankle is equivalent to giving blowjobs for Satan.

I like nekkid wimmins but there's a big difference between wimmins and girls. Sex is one of the greatest motivating factors in the human animal and advertising agencies use it like a club to manipulate us. To that end, I think that the Paris hamburger ad is as offensive as any child pornography -- exploitation of others for personal gain -- but have no problem good ol' fashioned healthy sex. I also consider any advertising targeted at children to be the moral equivalent of child pornograpyhy. Am I being over the top? I don't think so. What's the lasting harm for a child who takes part in a sex act with an adult? It's all psychological. No MD will be able to find anything wrong with the kid but the psychologists will find a laundry list of problems, even decades after the abuse. What's the lasting harm for a child exposed to advertising? The same sort of psychological damage. It's exploitation of children for the material gain of advertisers/pornographers.

[B Calm]

65. Thinking back about the movie Blue Lagoon.....

[Jed Dilligan]

67. Just because federal prosecutors spring wood at the very thought

of an eight-year-old in her underwear, doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Then again, the rest of us don't gleefully spend our days sending as many people as possible to America's rape rooms, without regard to their innocence or guilt.

Am I saying Agent Mike is a sociopathic sex pervert? Yes, Agent Mike, I am.

[Sapere aude]

69. Why is everyone looking at the google cache if it is inappropriate?

I remember when I was a kid going to Catholic school. We had a thing called the index. It was a list of movies we should not see because they were sinful for us to see. I always wondered why a censor wasn't affected by the sinful movies.

Did all of you who looked at the cache commit the crime of child pornography or are you somehow immune to what ever you feel is inappropriate or something?

[EdwardM]

70. It appears Mark Foley wrote this law

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,52379,00.html

These websites are entirely creepy. I just don't know what to think about all this. I don't think these children are doing this by their free will. I think there is some child abuse going on here. While I don't believe child modeling itself should be illegal if it is not sexual, I believe that there is some serious abuse here that needs to be investigated.

[Sapere aude]

74. Foley went after the nudist summer camps also.

My wife grew up in a nudist family. We met at a nudist club. We were members for over 20 years. We got nudist publications which depicted family nudism. Now a family could be a couple or a single parent with kids or a couple with kids. The point is the publications had pictures with nude children alone and with adults. Foley types wanted to go after the publications for child pornography because the children were nude. For a long time after, the publications did not have children's pictures in them. Now the children are back again but most of the time the kids have clothes on.

There was no crime here until a prude made something wholesome a crime because it aroused his prurient interests.

IMHO, people see in other people the things they most fear about themselves. People claim something to be porn because it may arouse another human being. Can they truthfully claim it doesn't arouse them or are they aroused also? Why ban a picture of a nude child because it may arouse someone? Isn't that like saying it doesn't arouse the majority of people including the viewer? If so, why use the minority's inclinations to judge a thing as porn? I feel what is really going on is that the censor is affected by viewing something in the same way he feels the minority will be affected. What he feels is a bad trait in himself he projects on society as a whole. Foley is a good case of this. Thus he wants to rid society of what is bad about himself.

[SoCalDem]

79. Why the "children do it"

The do it because they see how broke Mommy & Daddy are, and how they say they cannot afford to send her to college when she's older...and


this guy just wants to take some pictures of you, honey..and you COULD become a model and make lots of money for your future education..and it'll be fun..

Kids get the message early on that if they can help the family, they will.. Just like in the past, kids might get a newspaper route to save the parents some money or they might work for free in the family business..

prepubescent(and barely pubescent) girls always want to look older.. and are easily convinced to "pose like a grown up".. They have probably wathed thousands of hours of MTV/soaps/reality shows..they know what's expected of them..

It's for the money and the possibility of fame and MORE money//

now for the people who LOOK at the pics..well that's another entirely different back of "odd" people..

My friend's daughter is a "child actor" and I can tell you that her portfolio has NO cheesecake pics (she's 12 now),and her Mom is with her 24-7 on shoots..and she has a real agent and manager.. the works.

[lectrobyte]

71. Provocative? WTF? How long until we pull a Taliban-style move and

ban all pictures depicting human beings?

[skipos]

72. Can someone provide links to photos? I can't find any.

Edit: I just realized that sounded kinda creepy. I don't get how everyone can have such strong reactions to this story without actually seeing the pictures...

[Sapere aude]

73. Yet acording to the story if you look at the pictures you are looking at child porn.

So do you leave it up to the authorities to look at the pictures and tell us what to think or do we look and commit the crime mentioned?

[skipos]

75. Exactly. I saw the "satanic" wreath in Colorado and survived that

I wondered if these pictures were going to be just as overblown.

[everythingsxen]

80. This story..

has a pic of the websites entrance...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15977010/

And honestly, when I first read this thread, I thought - hey that's a bunch of creepy federal BS...

After looking at that entrance photo for the site though, I can kind of see why people are saying it is designed for pedophiles.

[everythingsxen]

81. Also..

it mentions these 12 and younger girls are posing in lingerie and high heels.

If that's legitimate modeling, I'm the second coming of Jesus Christ.

[madmusic]

82. The poll is about 50/50

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15988203/

[everythingsxen]

83. Yeah well, polls will often say a lot of things...

[madmusic]

85. How can they say anything?

Did everyone who voted vote only on that one picture in the article? Is that child porn? If so, is msnbc.com distributing child porn? Do those who voted yes think the Jon Benet pictures and contests were really child porn? Some thought so.

[everythingsxen]

94. From the article

“There are no semi-nude or nude images,” she said. “The children are dressed in underwear, adult lingerie, high heels, etc., and placed in sexually 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 sexual activity.”

It's not thoughtcrime as I have seen people say.

It's not Christian craziness as I have seen people say.

This is fucking child porn for fucks sake.

The only people viewing these sites are pedophiles and most of you people are DEFENDING them!

[madmusic]

101. Here we go... DEFENDING them!

If the only people viewing these sites are pedophiles, and that might be true, then why isn't that probable cause to get search warrants, investigate and bust them? If it is that certain, then that's certainly probably cause.

The decision on if it is child porn or not will likely depend on jury selection. We'll see. The case going through the courts will be far more interesting than the pictures, which aren't all that interesting.

[madmusic]

84. Foley: our motives are pure.

Foley, the Florida congressman, seized on the issue last year after NBC’s Miami affiliate, WTVJ/NBC 6, reported that a company in his home state, Webe Web Inc., had created at least a half dozen sites featuring teen and preteen girls, all of whom apparently had their parents’ permission. After asking the FBI to investigate the sites, the congressman announced in March that he would introduce a bill that would ban sites that “do not promote products or services beyond the child.”

But Jeffrey J. Douglas, chairman of the board of the Free Speech Coalition, an adult-industry trade association, said such an approach is “utterly unconstitutional” as well as unnecessary.

“The problem isn’t the Web sites,” he said. “If there are Web sites that are literally promoting child porn, those laws already exist. If it’s a matter of trying to address people’s poor taste in eroticizing children … I don’t think there’s a federal solution to that problem.”

Foley responded that the bill “will meet constitutional muster.”

“We don’t make laws that we think will be shot down,” he said. “Unlike these website operators, our motives are pure.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078759/page/2/

:rofl: