Comments on: Federal case may redefine child porn

Justice Department indicts a photographer over a site that posted photos of clothed minors--a case that has raised First Amendment issues.

[usrhlp]

the made the burka

because have you seen some of the muslim women? i think id want them enforcing too!

[DeusExMachina]

the are the us

Thanks for interjecting that pointless bit of hate speech. It sure elevated the conversation.

BTW, have YOU ever seen a Muslim woman?
I have certainly seen any number of very attractive Arab and Persian women (not to mention all the other ethnicities with Muslim adherents) and my fair share of hideously unattractive evangelical Christians.

Also, as a brief historical note, the burka is hardly unique to Muslim culture. For instance, contrary to silly mass media portrayals, women in ancient Roman society NEVER wore togas. Togas were male-only couture (and then only for certain specific occasions, like attending the Senate.) On the few times a woman past puberty was permitted outside the home, she was required by both custom and law to wear a garment that covered her body from head to toe, with a small cut out for vision, i.e. a burka. A woman outside wearing a toga would have been stoned on the spot.
Likewise in many early Christian cultures, similar customs prevailed. In some they still do.
In medieval Europe in many areas women were required to stay indoors after puberty and prior to marriage. After her marriage a great deal of significance was put into her transfer from the home of her father to the home of her new husband (with etymological roots as in the words "animal husbandry.") She was again not permitted outside of either residence without a garment that rendered it impossible to discern her body shape and which covered her face and hair. Again, a burka.

[SpiritMatter]

Human Body is Shameful..............NOT !!!!!

This is an issue because there are humans who believe that the human body is shameful, and for some, even evil. If one believes in the Hebrew bible's account of human origins, Adam and Eve with the help of Satan, made their first moral decision when they decided that the nude lifestyle God had let them live in, was shameful. This put the guilt trip ball in God's court instead of their court. They thought they could justify their stealing and eating the knowledge of good and evil fruit by pointing out their enlightened discovery of God's sin. God, who designed the human body and the five senses for our enjoyment of His creation, said His creation, including the human body with all of its parts, was all good. It is the Gnostic minded humans from Adam and Eve to today who think human bodies are shameful and should be hidden. God respects the human conscience of each individual and in the land of liberty, we should do the same. If we believe something, that does not cause physical harm to our neighbor, is a sin, it IS a sin for us, but NOT our neighbor who does not believe the same.

NKJ Romans 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; FOR WHATEVER IS NOT FROM FAITH IS SIN.

Except for the right to defend ourselves and our families from physical harm, God does not give any human or organization the right to force their beliefs and behavior on another human or organization.

NKJ Romans 14:4 WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANOTHER'S SERVANT? To HIS OWN MASTER he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

[bw94382]

Wrong. That is not the issue here.

The issue here is the use of children as sex objects. Period. Don't try to turn this into something else.

[baswwe]

if your freaking OBESE it is shameful

lose the fat!

[bw94382]

That is not the same thing

I have pictures of my kids in the tub when they were babies too. But they are not sexual in any way, and I don't post them on the Internet for profit. Get real -- we all know the difference between innocent family photos and child exploitation.

[btljooz]

People like you need an education....

Get it here:

Sexual Predator Hysteria
It?s NOT only kids who need education on the dangers in this world ? ALL of them! Yes, they do need education about proper behaviors on the net, also. However, PARENTS/Educators need more accurate comprehension of the TRUE nature of ?sexual predators?.

Test your Sexual Offender Intelligence Quotient here:

http://www.soab.state.pa.us/soab/cwp/browse.asp?a=3&bc=0&c=39615&soabNav=

As an educator and/or parent Start YOUR education here:

http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/?20064

Move along to these quotes from:

http://portlandme.wpadmin.about.com/?comments_popup=257612:

>According to data compiled by the U.S. Justice Department (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex ), the high recidivism rate of sex offenders is a myth. Sex offenders have an overall recidivism rate of less than 6 percent over three years, and 40 percent of those who do re-offend do so in the first year after their release. More detailed analysis confirms that a sex offender?s likelihood of committing a new crime decreases the longer he or she remains free; in other words, if they?re going to commit another crime, it will probably happen in the first few years after their release.

Of course, this sort of data doesn?t make for good sound bytes for politicians seeking to foster a ?get tough? image to bolster their chances for election or re-election; but it?s the truth, as much as they may deny it.

Nonetheless, the supposedly high sex offender recidivism rates that politicians seem to pull out of thin air (when was the last time you heard one cite an actual study to validate the numbers they quote?) have created an environment where the mere presence of an individual who committed a sex crime five, ten, or twenty years ago is enough to cast a community into a state of panic. Given the misinformation and lies of the politicians (and the media?s dutiful reporting of same), it?s no wonder that some, at least, feel that vigilante justice is an appropriate response.

In the end, it all comes down to a simple question: Should our government be in the business of facilitating vigilantism? Certainly the legislators who wrote these laws will argue that that was not their intention, but the effect is the same.

These laws remind me of the ?attractive nuisance? concept in liability law. People who work with potentially dangerous equipment (circular saws, pesticides, chemicals, and so forth) are required to safeguard those items to prevent curious children (and others) from hurting themselves. If a carpenter leaves his circular saw unattended and a child picks it up and cuts himself, the carpenter is liable for costs and damages related to the child?s injuries. The argument that it wasn?t the carpenter?s intent that a child pick up and play with his circular saw is irrelevant. By leaving it unattended, he created an attractive nuisance; and he is therefore liable.

Creating a public hysteria about sex offenders, and then publishing their names and addresses on the Web, where anyone can access that information without so much as providing identification, is akin to leaving a power saw unattended. Anyone ? stable or unstable, honorable or malicious ? can access that information and use it in any way they like. This opens the door not only to vigilantism, but also to innocent people being killed because of mistaken identity.

If this information is to be made public at all (personally, I think it should only be available to law enforcement professionals), then the only safe balance between the public?s ?right to know? and the concept of the rule of law is to release the information only to adults who physically walk into a police station, present identification, and make an inquiry about a particular individual. This creates accountability and helps safeguard against random vigilantism.

In other words, if the neighbor down the street seems to be a bit too friendly towards your children and you want to check him out, that seems to me a legitimate use of sex offender registration information. But to simply publish all of this data on the Web, with no safeguards to prevent it from being used irresponsibly or criminally, is unconscionable in a society whose conduct supposedly is based upon the rule of law.

Comment by Bugsy ? May 4, 2006 @ 10:01 am

Anyone who values their liberties and who has studied history should be afraid - very afraid ? of these laws.

Long before Hitler killed the first Jew in Nazi Germany, he paved the way for the wholesale disenfranchisement of human beings by ? you guessed it ? attacking the rights of sex offenders. From 1933 through 1936, a series of amendments were passed to Paragraphs 173 through 188 of the German Penal Law specifically targeting homosexuals and others determined to be ?sexual deviants.?

The sex offender laws created under the Nazi Third Reich may as well have been the model for ?Megan?s Law.? They established the first sex offender registry, required sex offenders to register their whereabouts and to wear pink triangles, and established draconian punishments for sex crimes that included long prison terms, loss of voting rights, confinement in concentration camps, and (sometimes) the death penalty. All of these laws were justified by the Nazi?s in the same way that our present-day politicians justify Megan?s Law: to protect the children from sexual predators.

Of course, Hitler had other things in mind, as history shows us; and targeting sex offenders was just a way to establish the precedent of wholesale deprivation of human rights in preparation for his later attacks against the people he truly hated.

It?s doubtful that the German people would have acquiesced to Hitler?s rounding up Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Socialists, trade unionists, and so forth, and sending them off to death camps in 1933 when he first ascended to power. Hitler had to first establish a precedent that some people were subhuman and unworthy of human rights ? and he started with the most universally despised group he could find.

Anyone who thinks that this couldn?t happen again is delusional. The simple fact is that history shows that you can?t single out one group for deprivation of civil rights without weakening those rights for everyone else.

Comment by Liberty Lover ? May 7, 2006 @ 8:54 am<

And while you're at it take a long hard look at these and THINK about the consequences of the afore mentioned Hysteria created by online 'S-exual O-ffender L-ists':

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1855771&page=1

After you have read that one just think; If some vigilante found their next victim and instead found someone else at home, what would happen then???

And THINK about this one while you're at it:

http://saltlakecity.about.com/b/a/257300.htm

Take this Poll on SOLs:

http://saltlakecity.about.com/library/blsub/blpoll/blpollsexoffender2.htm

Or just view the Results:

http://saltlakecity.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?linkback=http%3A%2F%2Fsaltlakecity.about.com%2Flibrary%2Fblsub%2Fblpoll%2Fblpollsexoffender2.htm&poll_id=5911059616&poll=3&submit1=Submit+Vote

At the time I took this poll a whopping 60% of us felt these lists did more harm than good!!!

Now for FBI info:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry.htm

First it was ?Deadbeat Dad?s?, Then ?Sexual Offenders? Now this ?list making? is on the increase:

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=2532

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=2723

AND it?s going to get to be an even BIGGER PROBLEM! I watched a Council Meeting in Washington, D.C. on CNBC yesterday about ISPs tracking in REAL time every single move you make on-line and keeping those records for an indefinite period of time. They were discussing existing laws and possible future laws pertaining to this subject.

All of this flies directly in the face of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution/Bill of Rights they forged for our country to begin with.

http://findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Giving up your rights that millions have fought for just so you can 'feel safe' is the very definition of cowardice.

If the ?gov? continues to make lists of people, we ALL will find ourselves on at least ONE of them!!! Which list will YOU be on???

BTW: A No Brainer: Predators Prefer Dimwitted Prey

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060802_brain_prey.html

[JustDaTruth]

did you know?

that a lot of the "sexy models" in vogue and other similar magazines are many times 14 or 15 years old?

they are more "explicit" than a lot of the web modeling sites

from the little I have seen, webe web seems to always have stayed between the boundaries of the law, and never went even remotly close to way sites are in Europe or the way it is in trueteenbabes

prosecuting them is basically like someone prosecuting a hardware store, because they sell manure, Bottles, wires, Rubbing alcohol and pieces of cloths, all of which, if bought can potentially be used to make a simple bomb

if convicted, it would mean that all runway models would have to be at least 18, and no more Miss teen(14 to 18 years old)contest unless they don't do swimsuit portion of the contest

it would mean that a lot of the Teen girl groups would have to be prosecuted(like TLC when they started)as they were wearing "sexy clothes"

[mgreere]

Gays, Pedophiles, and Terrorists

A surprising number of people are scared sh*tless of all three.

Our perceptions are way overblown or even baseless when you
look at any of the objective data on all three.

It shows an extreme failure to educate our people to find,
evaluate, understand, and reason from evidence.

Or perhaps we can understand data, but we'd rather live in
hysteria.

Got me.

Either way, it's sad; it's like we don't have time to think anymore.

[Privacy Nut]

Mother of 6 & 11 year old: Surprised at hysteria

I have often wondered why it creates such fear and concern in our government's eyes that a man might fantasize about your child, clothed or naked? Let's face it. It is the viewers' thoughts that are on trial here -becuase it is unlilkely that there are exploited children among the models at Webe Web's sites.

Our 11 year is attractive in BOTH simple and sensuous ways. I don't wish for her to dress provocatively, because being a "tease" puts her at risk and puts early emphasis on physical charm. But allowing a child to model (yes, even in sensuous poses) is certainly not abuse or exploitation.

I have no interest in my 6 year old becoming overtly aware of sexual matters before puberty. But it certainly wouldn't bother me to learn that an adult friend sees her in a sexual light - or even masturbates while holding her picture. In fact, I would rather he confide this to me, so that he could help me to watch for the difference between attraction (or fantasy) and actual danger.

I've learned that some guys (and a few girls) are attracted to kids. That's a simple fact. Is it deviant? Perhaps - if it "deviates from the norm". But so is having blue eyes. Is it perverted? Obviously, the Alabama government thinks so. Is it dangerous? I seriously doubt it.

There is no more reason to believe that a man attracted to kids will rape a child than a man attracted to 40 year old housewives will rape your wife.

I am a mother who is not afraid of pedophiles. I know the difference between a pedophile and a molester. I'm not concerned about the former - and I believe that intolerance breeds paranoia.

[jen953982]

Yes, you can pretend to be anybody

In the anonymity of an online post, you can pretend to be anybody to push your twisted views. If you're a mother, I'm Kofi Annan.

[mtnbiker65]

Reply to comments of Mother of 6 & 11

I agree with "Privacy Nut". I equate the sites like Webe to Playboy. I realize they are different one portrays women of legal age 18 and up naked while Webe has girls age of say 10 and up clothed but in suggestive poses. But does every person that reads Playboy rape women, of course not. Nor would all who view a site such as Webe. I like everyone else want no child harmed or touched in an inappropriate way. But a fantasy of an 18yo woman naked in Playboy or a 12yo in a bikini is not illegal. Acting on those behaviours can be. Please do not take this to say I advocate exploitation I am just saying that what Mother of 6 & 11 old says is reasonable and brave to say in this very media frenzied time.

[Transaction7]

I May Not Be Able to Define it, but I know it when I see it.

Speaking of pornography generally, the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward wisely said "I may not be able to define it, but I now it when I see it." Since neither your story, nor anything else I have yet found, even quote the key language of the indictment, much less show the pictures, I have no way to determine whether the child photographs complained of are pornographhic on their face or not, nor whether or not they are made and marketed for the prohibited purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual lust of any person, either of which hteories would support a child pornography conviction. To have 70 comments nad trackbacks, most of whom clearly already have formed opinions concerning whether the indicted photorapher and Web poster defendant is or is not guilty of either of these ways of committing child pornography in violation of the law, or anything, reminds me of the Internet poll on the gult or innocence of Kobe Bryant before formal rape charges were even filed.

How were these images marketed and used? Who wants them? For what purposes? The First Amendment guarantee of free speech does not even arguably include luring a child into a dangerous place or the well-known desensitization and grooming phases leading to child sexual abuse. Marketing and buying amonium nitrate as fertilizer is radically legally different from marketing, buying, and using it to blow up buildings, too. Pose, emphasis, etc., could well be significant.

This is, first, essentially a child labor issue Children's work is barred or restricted in a number of respects on the broadest conception of danger of disadvantage to them If either the making or use of these pictures presents a risk of current or long term physical or psychological harm to the child subject, it can and should be prohibited, notwithistanding any manner of First Amendment claim. Of course, use of children in obscene, indecent, laschivious, etc., ways, and child pornography, were certainly not intended by the framers and adopters of the First Amdndment to be covered and protected thereby, nor have the courts held that child pornograhers are protected by the First Amendment. Pose and emphasis could well be relevant to such issues. Of course you can't be convicted of child pornography without proof of a culpable mental state beyond reasonble doubt.

According to this article, this is undisputedly a business conducted for profit. Businesses and professsions have long been held subject to regulatio for the protection of the public, and particularly children. The wisdom of a particular law is an issue for the legislative branch and not the courts. You are free to push just about any ideological or political agenda as long as you identify yourself, and sometimes without doing so, but advertising of legal services, while held to involve First Amendment rights, can be and is regulated as to conten, time, place, and manner, including requirements of prior approval for which the bar may charge substantial fees. Some of those regulations which have been upheld are arguably assinine, while some potentially deceptive ads get by. "The Texs Hammer" is apparently permissible because one lawyer is named, but, at least in Florida, you can't use an alligator or pit bull in your ad, and a firm name consisting of the names of two dead former members and no current members of teh firm is OK, but "The Ticket Clinic" is no. If you say you are available to handle bankruptcy or any other kind of maters, you have to say "not certified as to specialty by the Texas Stqte Board of Legal Specialization" unless you are, even in specialities for which no certification is offered, but don't have to specify which side you normally represent. Describing your office in a phone book for a particular town or county as "across from the west door of the courthouse" is not good enough, the State Bar says each individual ad has to include the name of the town as well, though all the (903)455-numbers in the world are in one town and all the (903)886 numbers in another as noted on the front cover.

No majority, indeed, few justices, of the Supreme Court have ever held that the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech or press is absolute, much less that commercial exploitation of children is a First Amendment right.

[hugh23920]

Why don't you come clean

The real reasons that people are opposed to laws like this are (a) they profit from pornography industry, or (b) they want to be able to view child pornography. These "slippery slope" arguments are a load of BS. These laws weren't written into our constitution because our founding fathers could not in their most paranoid imaginings have conceived that there would come a time that they would become necessary. The fact that anybody would call upon the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution to protect the "right" of some twisted freak to sexualize children is offensive beyond belief. Have you even read the First Amendment?

By the way, I find it amusing that someone who does not know the difference between 'principals' and 'principles' would question my 'mental faculties'.

[jre3651]

why don't you come clean

I really wish folks would stop leaning on the right wing crutch, "founding fathers". I teach American History at a local university, and most of you who use this cliche have absolutely no idea about which you speak. Believe me, our "founding fathers" were anything but saints.
They did not "conceive in their wildest imaginings" that the issues would arise mainly because the average age for a girl to marry in those days was 12 years and 2 months.

[whytter_bugs]

Don't be stupid

Not all people that are obese are that way because they eat to much unhealthy food or just plain eat too much! Many people have diseases that cause them to gain wieght even when they are on a diet such as hypothyroidism wich can be deadly if not treated. People often have these diseases because they show no other symptoms or because it is normal for them to not even show up on a blood test! you could be tested 50 times and not show it, yet still have the disease.

[whytter_bugs]

oops

meant to go under the comment about obesity

[UGannon]

the point is not the clothing but the provocotive posing

that's what I find most disgusting children are trained and told to pose in a provocotive way they don't think the poses up themselves do they???!!!

[maxoutkast]

I clicked on the link above that has some of the pictures from this guy's website. Certainly not porn, but certainly sexually suggestive. Not artistic at all. I think photographing kids for modeling has always been kind of creepy, and I can't stand people who push their kids into that industry by force. This would appear to be another example of society blurring the line between what is decent and what is not, then calling one another out on it. These parents let their kids idolize Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, let them dress like they do, and then wonder why the aforementioned line gets so blurred (to them). That said, I have nothing against a young person who wants to pursue a career in fashion or modeling, I had a friend growing up that did just that, and has become very successful. When she began modeling it was for local department stores, etc, not daddy's weird website. It is important for the parents, and the fashion and modeling industries, to take responsibility and care in how their kids go about pursuing such a career.

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

These websites are NOT modeling sites! These kids are NOT posing in the latest fashion to sell clothing, they exist ONLY to make money off of child predators. Do you people even know anybody who buys these videos? Do you think you would feel comfortable around someone if you knew they had a library of DVDs full of videos from Webe? I doubt you would. I know there is nothing that can be done to stop child molestors from getting aroused by children. If all child modeling were outlawed, if child actors were banned, predators can still go to the park and watch kids play. But why give these perverts an outlet? Why give them something like THIS to make them feel normal? Why give them a legal way to feed their perversion. I say DOWN WITH SEXY PRETEEN WEBSITES. "Who cares, they aren't my kids" is everybody's reaction here on CNET. Well, these kids parents don't seem to care either. Thankfully someone cared enough to shut down at least one site. And if you STILL think there is nothing wrong with sites like this, you obviously never seen a picture or video from Webe. Here's a link & tell me this is something that wouldn't make you feel a bit odd about if you knew a friend or family member spent hundreds of dollars on to fill a shelf of. It's something we definately don't need, adn wouldn't harm us if it were BANNED

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v942166fF6X9NqW

[erryjs]

I am a CHRISTIAN teenager and i find porn ofensive. however i woluld like to be a model and some positions are off limits. most teen model pictures are normal some les then theres just wrong. these picture that i cant see may be slightly less normal however that doesnt make them pornographic material. teens have been used in underware pictures and nobody cares some comercial even imply that a child is nude and no one complains. ehat im saying is...
PORN IS PORN MODELING PICTURES ARE MODELING PICTURES. if you come acros true child porn (nude, sexual) then report it. otherwise leave us alone
I am not defending pedofiles nor am i raising them up. i hate them but thats the way the world is all anybody can do is affect themselves and those around them, hopefuly for the better.

[unknownguest]

World renowned photographs such as Jock Sturges, Robert Mapplethorpe, and Sally Mann have photographed nude children and been accused of child pornography. Which is ridicules. They were capturing the essence of the soul. People who look at it and see pornography are ignorant fools who do not grasp art. Nudity has been depicted in paintings and photography as long as the mediums have existed.