Federal case may redefine child porn

(continued from previous page)

All of that makes the distinction between legal child photography and illegal child pornography a particularly subjective one. It may come down to, as the Justice Department's Alice Martin put it, seemingly ephemeral factors such as the poses the model strikes and the camera angles the photographer chooses.

"Prosecuting cases on this borderline presents difficult First Amendment problems," said Amy Adler, a New York University law professor who has written about pornography, culture and the law. "The sexy teenager is sort of a mainstream trope. It's very different from babies being molested, and child pornography law doesn't make a distinction."

Define illegal pose

In a 1986 case called U.S. v. Dost, a federal judge suggested a six-step method to evaluate the legality of images. Here's an excerpt from the opinion:

1. Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
2. Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive.
3. Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.
4. Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude.
5. Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
6. Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

That's no exaggeration: The same section of federal law punishes a pedophile who makes a video recording of a baby being molested, as well as someone who possesses an image of a 17-year-old striking an unlawfully racy pose.

The explanation for that lies in a criminal statute called 18 USC 2252A, which Pierson is accused of violating. Child pornography is defined as the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" under 18 years old.

Until a 1994 case called U.S. v. Knox, judges interpreted that language to mean either images of nude minors or of minors having sex. In that case, however, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended that definition to include videotapes of girls in leotards, and upheld Stephen Knox's conviction on child pornography charges.

"The genitals and pubic area of the young girls...were certainly 'on display' as the camera focused for prolonged time intervals on close-up views of these body parts through their thin but opaque clothing. Additionally, the obvious purpose and inevitable effect of the videotape was to 'attract notice' specifically to the genitalia and pubic area. Applying the plain meaning of the term 'lascivious exhibition' leads to the conclusion that nudity or discernibility are not prerequisites for the occurrence of an exhibition within the meaning of the federal child pornography statute," the 3rd Circuit wrote.

Courts have also looked to a 1986 case called U.S. v. Dost for guidance on what's "lascivious" and what's not. Among the factors they evaluate: whether the focus is on the child's genitalia or pubic area; whether the image suggests sexual coyness; and whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

A crackdown's mixed results
Prosecutors have tried to target child modeling Web sites before, with mixed results.

In 2002, Colorado prosecutors charged James Grady with more than 719 felony charges--ranging from sexual exploitation of children to contributing to the delinquency of minors--for operating TrueTeenBabes.com. The Web site bills itself as "America's premier teen glamour publication" and sells subscriptions for access to nonnude shots of models between 13 and 17 years old.

TrueTeenBabes.com drew the attention of local television reporters, whose reporting sparked a police investigation. But a jury acquitted Grady, and he subsequently filed a lawsuit asking for $10 million in damages for wrongful arrest, according to the Rocky Mountain News. TrueTeenBabes.com is back online today.

In an unrelated prosecution of two Utah men, Matthew Duhamel and Charles Granere currently are facing federal criminal charges of child pornography. They're accused (click for PDF) of running a child modeling site--again, no nudity is alleged--that featured minors in lingerie.

They filed a joint motion in July, which was rejected, asking that the case be dismissed in part on First Amendment grounds. "It seems clear," the motion said, "that the genitals or pubic area of the person must be actually exposed or visible to fall within the proscription against exhibition."

The U.S. Congress tried to clear up some of the ambiguity around what is and what isn't legal but never actually enacted legislation.

In 2002, Rep. Mark Foley announced a bill called the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act that would effectively ban the sale of photographs of minors. But under opposition from civil libertarians and commercial stock photo houses like Corbis, it never left committee. (Foley, of course, is the same politician who resigned in September after disclosures of inappropriate conversations with a teenage page.)

That leaves judges and juries faced with the difficult task of making distinctions between lawful and unlawful camera angles and facial expressions--an exercise that proves to be impossible to do without running afoul of the First Amendment.

"How do we distinguish pictures like these (on child modeling sites) from the everyday photos that our culture tolerates and even prizes?" said Adler, the NYU law professor. "For instance, who's modeling in Vogue? A lot of those people are 15 and in scantily clad or suggestive photos."

[sadchild]

the line

here's the line

|
|

here are desperate people trying to make money dancing on that line

0-<|
0-<|

what can i get away with and still make millions of dollars from the pervs out there?

[duerra]

Whatever...

.... but is this really the best way that our tax dollars can be spent? There's parental consent here and everything, and no nude or even provocative pictures.

Every federal bureaucracy should have their budgets slashed in half, because right now my tax dollars are just being wasted.

[vampares]

their behind the line

where did you learn to draw?
_
o|
^

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

The fact that these photographers pled guilty on all charges should tell you something: They KNOW their website's photos and videos are WRONG. Here is a link to one of their videos and tell me this is something that you would buy for your own kid if they asked for it:

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

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

You people are so pathetic. Can you seriously not see the difference between using a child's beauty to bring attention to a product for sale, and using a child's beauty to bring attention to his/her sexuality? Who do you think subscribes to these sexy preteen websites? I say it's about time someone started shutting these things down. They make child predators think they are normal. Here's a link to one of Webe web's videos. Tell me if this is wouldn't disturb you if you knew a friend or family member collected an entire library of DVDs of this kind of material:

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

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

Vogue magazine hires child models to use their looks to bring attention to a particular product. The PRODUCT is on DISPLAY not the CHILD. So, there's the difference between mainstream modeling and preteen websites. Preteen websites exist only to put children on display as something sexual. Therefore, only pedophiles subscribe to them. Sure, once you get rid of sexy preteen websites, pedophiles can still look at children in mainstream magazines, movies and amusement parks, and nothing can stop them. But how smart is it to make a website that caters only to pedophiles? NO ONE ELSE spends their hard earned money on sexy preteen websites to look at children sexualy. only pedophilles. We HAVE to take these websites away from THEM.

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

If a movie like PrettyBaby can be made with a 12 year old girl playing the role of a prostitue, who strips down fully nude several times, can be called a mainstearm movie, and not child pornography, than you certainly go the other way, and say, fully DRESSED. children posing for websites to bring attention to themselves as a sexualy desirable creatures for pedophiles can DEFINATELY be called child pornography. Shut these websites down, you "normal" people won't miss them, so why are you defending these so called "photographers"?

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

mn-ruggy seems to think that when the death of Jonbenet Ramsey was reported, photos of her weren't considered pornographic. He obviously didn't pay attention to the news when her story was being told. She was just one of many children who compete in child beauty pagents, and I remember a big stink was raised when photos of her and other children i beauty pagents were being bradcast. People who didn't know these pagents existed were shocked that parents would get their child all dolled-up to look like small sexy adults. And yes, child beauty pagents are DEFINATELY a place for perverts to hang out and look at little kids to be sexualy aroused. But "normal" people go to these shows too. Because it's a competition. The kids sing, dance, and try to out-do eachoter to win a title. So child beauty pagents will never be shut down. But these sexy preteen sites only cater to pedophiles. Seriousl, do any of you own ANY photos or movies bought from a sexy preteen site? Prove to me that normal people buy this stuff and I will agree with all of you. Until then, I say SHUT THESE PRETEEN WEBSITES DOWN ONCE AND FOR ALL!

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

Here is a message to Lerianis, all pedophiles, and all pedo-sexuals. You will NEVER fit in in this Christian-run society. I was rasied as a Roman-Catholic myself, and their strict rules has me questioning my faith, and the existence of monsters like YOU make me wonder if God even exists. In any case, you can forget about the outside world accepting your so-called sexual preference, because CHRISTIANS CAN'T ACCEPT THEIR OWN SEXUALITY. They have all kinds of rules on how proper heterosexual men and women should behave.

I want you to understand that I DO NOT TAKE THE BIBLE 100% LITTERALY like most people do. I think most of the stories are metaphors to reach a point & explain what once was unexplainable. But Hard-core Christians do believe every word, and this is what they believe: That, there was no death in the world until Adam and Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit of Knowledge. Once They ate it, death plagued all God's creatures. To counter this, God said "Thou shale be fruitful and multiply."

THIS IS WHY CHRISTIANS HATE THEIR OWN HETEROSEXUALITY, AND THE NAKED HUMAN BODY. To them, it is a constant reminder of paradise lost when Adam and Eve ate The Forbidden Fruit. For a Christian to believe that THIS is how the world was when it was created, you would have to believe that THE FIRST MAN AND WOMAN HAD NO GENITAILIA. Since they were designed to live forever, they had no reason to reproduce, and if they ate fruit from The Tree Of Life, they would have had no need of a complicated digestive system to pump out human waste.

In short, once The Forbidden Fruit was eaten, death plagued the Earth, then God gave all creatures genitals to reproduce so that even though we die, life would always flourish. Now, most reasonable people have accepted that this is all metaphoric nonsense, and the theory of evolution is how life REALLY beggan, but as I said this country is run by hard-core Christians who think the naked human body and sexual reproduction is an evil mutation to counter death, brought on by a lie from the devil who tricked the first man and woman into disobeying God and eatiing the Forbidden Fruit. Christians will never accept hetorosexuality as normal, so they will never accept ANY form of sexuality. It even says in the bible: "For a man to lay down with another man is an abomination to God" I think it says the same thing about lesbians too.

I don't agree with everything Christians say and do, but when it comes to fighting pedophiles, and childporn, looks like I have and entire planet full of sex-hating religious kooks on MY SIDE.

[Mister-BIGMOUTH]

All these sick, disgusting comments about children make it hard to believe that you people are actually "straight laced" I think all of you leaving comments probably download child pornogaphy on limewire on a regular basis. Those of you with youtube accounts more than likely have several videos of peoples children dancing like strippers in your "favorites" catergory.

First of all, this case will not cause any parent to loose personal photos of their own children. No one is interetsed in your ugly kids.

Secondly, these so-called "child modeling" sites are not making photos and videos of children for advertising a particular product. In this case, the child IS the product. More specificaly, the child's underdeveloped sexuality is the product.

Thridly, the only people who buy this garbage are pedophiles. It's pretty obvious. I mean, we aren't talking about Hanna Montanna or the the straight-to-video Olsen Twin films that were made for children. Videos like that were made for kids and are widely well known. Normal people don't know that these sexy preteen sites exist until someone makes a federal case over them. They don't know they exist because only pedphiles, like you people, know, because the site caters to your need to see children in a sexual way.

Now, getting back to normal pictures of children in the media, and the videos. Toy commercials, movies, diapaer ads, plays, underage beauty pagents, cheerleading. Things like that will always exist, but they weren't made for pedophiles to "get off" on. commercials for diapers and underoos are made to sell a particular product. Sure, a pedophile will see it as being sexual, but that can't be helped. Pedophiles have a problem. So is it a smart idea to cater to their sick sexual fantasy? Pedopillia is a crime. Making a product for them to buy and make a profit from their sickness is about as smart as selling weapons to well known killers.

[Mister-BIGMOUTH]

The fact that these loosers pled guilty should tell you all that these so-called "photographers" knew that what they were doing was wrong.

[umbrae]

And people wonder why there is resistance to current anti-child porn laws

I am sure many people will take this article at face value considering that you cannot find many of the pictures in question.

People have been using children model in all types of media for longer than anyone can remember. What next? Can parents no longer take pictures of their children? If the head is facing this direction, and the arm held just so... *poof* pornography! Has any of the people in the Bush administration actually see what kids where these day. Maybe we need to bring in all the clothes manufacturers on pornography charges as well.

Its not pornography if the kid is not naked or involved in sex. Unless the child feels exploited or the parents were not involved; these kids are just making a living.

Once you allow obscure laws to be passed, you lose control on how they are interpreted. Honestly, any photos like this could be your innocent family photos. How many people put those on the web?

Its not pornography because someone gets off on it. If that is the case then no one should leave their houses in the morning. I guess I should start suing every women in a short skirt for public displays of pornography...

[mcduarte]

Burka is the solution

That's why on certain islamic countries women have to use burka. I just feel unfair man don't have to use it also.

[jabbotts]

underwire brahs for 7 year olds with "modesty" padding

Saw it on the news.. now that's responsible fashion; ever heard the term prostitote?

[calidan]

Kids making a Living?

"these kids are just making a living"

I didn't know kids had to make a living. I thought that was the parents job.

[catoprof]

kids ARE sexual beings and

kids ARE sexual beings and this is our problem. Girld start growing pubic hair at 10 or eleven and menstruating shortly thereafter and boys are maybe two years behind, At these ages their hormones give them sexual desires and parents have a lot of problems dealing with their own innocent children having lustful thought or inspiring lustful thoughts in others.

We prefer to outlaw seductive non-nude pictures not because they inspire evil behavior by perverts, but they remind us that our kids are growing up and we refuse to deal with it......
and just maybe we have a few guilty urges of our own as we watch that 8 year old board tranform into a 14 year old rack and butt.

It is much better to throw harmless men who have dealt with these issues into jail than to have to deal with them ourselves.

How dare they make us confront ourselves!!!

[mrdeleted]

well said

The problem I see is that lawyers run this country, and you can't do anything anymore without hiring one to tell you what the laws they set up mean... It is a never ending cycle.

[maxoutkast]

You said, "Unless the child feels exploited..."

Children don't necessarily know if they are being exploited, or at least they don't know how to voice concern if they are. That's why they have government protection.

These children were put into poses that resemble models in Maxim magazine, not Seventeen.

That's why this dude is in trouble.

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

And who do you think is buying these videos? Not your average saint I gauruantee you that! Would you buy something like this for your own kids to watch? These aren't like a Hanna Montana video, or the straight-to-video Olsen Twins movies! Don't let pedophiles think that they are normal by giving them non-nude sexy pictures and videos of children to get off on! I for one am GLAD someone is doing something to get rid of these preteen websites! These children are NOT posing to advertise the latest clothing, these websites are geared toward men who prey on children for sex. It's one thing to see an attractive child from time to time, its another thing to put them on display for perverts. It's sad that most people's reaction is "who cares, they aren't my kids" Well, the parents of these kids don't seem to care either. Parental consent means NOTHING if you are the type of person that thinks it's ok to make money off your own child's underdeveloped sexuality. Here's a link to a free video site kind of like YouTube that has a video by Webe. Tell me this is something you would play for your family, or something you would make with your own childrenI think the world would not decay once these videos are no longer allowed: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v942166fF6X9NqW

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

I for one am GLAD someone is doing something about these websites. They only exist to make money off of pedophiles. These children are not posing to show off the latest clothing. It would be a strange thing to have one of these kids signing autographs for a bunch of filthy old men who buy their videos. Parental consent? BAH. "Who csres they aren't MY kids" is everybodys reaction. Apparently the childrens parents don't care either. It's nice to see someone cares enough to save their short childhood from predators.

[Mister-BIGMOUTH]

If a movie like "Pretty Baby" starring an underage Brooke Shields can be made, where she is naked in some scenes and not be called pornagraphic, you can certainly go the other way, and say videos of fully dressed underage children that are sold to pedophiles for the sole purpose of "getting off" IS pornagraphic. The photographers should be imprisoned, and all their works should get rounded up and destroyed.

[SamPJackson]

Pretty Baby

I have always felt that Brooke Shields' performance in Pretty Baby was kiddie porn. According to some accounts, her father agreed, and Brooke's divorced parents are not on good terms.

[baswwe]

What about Blue Lagoon? How old was she there?

BLUE LAGOON WAS HOT. I remember drooling as a 8 yr old.

[baswwe]

WOW - Blue Lagoon - how old was brooke?

I remember drooling as an 8 year old.

WOW

[Jackson Cracker]

Sign of the times

According to IMDB, this movie came out in 1978 (and the other one mentioned in the article, Taxi Driver, was from 1976). Given the current political climate, neither of these would probably be made or shown in the USA today, since the producers would have to be concerned with being raided or arrested. Even several years ago when Showtime decided to run the Lolita remake there were stories about all the extra cautions and self-censorship the filmmakers had to go through to avoid being accused of child porn.

[jltnol]

Parents??

And just where are the parents of these "exploited" children? Do
they bear no responsibiity for allowing their children to so
photographed?

I'm sorry, but really, someone needs to let folks know that
parenting is a FULL TIME JOB. If you don't / won't / can't assume
responsibility for you child's welfare, then perhaps you shouldn't
have children.

[hugh23920]

Yeah, EXACTLY

If this guy obtained permission from the children's parents to do these photographs, they should be charged along with him. Personally I think the whole child modeling and pageant business is guilty of the same kind of exploitation. Let children be children.

[bemenaker]

wtf?

Where did the parents do anything wrong? Where has ANYONE here involved done anything wrong? (not counting the Justice Dept.)

Seriously, you are out here casting stones at innocents.

[M A]

Read the story again

"..Parents appear to have given their consent." On what are you basing your idea that the parents didn't know or didn't care?

[singleparent]

here is a parent

please dont put all of us under your umbrella of inactive, exploitive parents, i am a single parent raising a daughter on my own,I work 6 part time jobs to provide for her and myself.she has a modeling site that provides a small amount of income(which all goes to her account for college) I manage to be home when my child gets home from school to feed her and help her wih her homework.If she is not in school I am home with her and working nearby.she has never been to daycare in the 13 years i have been raising her alone,she knows who her primary caretaker is.all of her photos are taken by me or by a photographer in my presence.Her website is dedicated to promoting her as a serious model .there are many parents out here that are doing the same as I,yes there are some sites that are not what they claim to be or posting photos that are questionable but dont assume they are all this way,and dont assume that we are inadequete parents. Maybe the government could focus on my ex -partner that is 12 years behind on child support,but i have to pay them to do something about it first!that means I have to pay to file with the courts ,then pay to have the absent parent served,all to have them sent to jail for two months then cut loose,sounds like it costs me more money and time. "Judge ye not lest ye be judged accordingly "

[btljooz]

You didn't notice?...

The whereabouts of the children's parents were PURPOSEFULLY [b]EXCLUDED[/b] in order to skew the story so that all the brainwashed sheeple would get all riled up and actually support this [b][u]idiocy[/u]!!!!![/b]

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

I am amzed at how many people think this is ok. You really need to take a look at a webe video and see if it's something that you wouldn't mind sitting down to watch. Seriously, I think if a movie like Pretty Baby can be made with a nude child and, not be called pornography, then a video made where children are portrayed as sex objects fully dressed, can be called obscene. Anyway here's a webe video:

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

[Terry Murphy]

Now let's get this straight

You have to wonder about the Justice department's priorities (not
to mention sincerity) when they choose to spend time and
resources to investigate and prosecute a case as absurd as this and
yet show virtually no interest in prosecuting former congressman
Tom Foley

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

I find it so amusing that people get so paranoid when a case like this arises. Do you really think the "thought police" are gonna bang on everyone's door and seize pictures of your own children? Do you people have something to hide, or do you seriously no know the difference between your own family pictures and soft-core pornography? Here's a link, get educated.

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

[vampares]

googling at the jury pool of indecent exposure

America's legal system will not be raped. Voting
is the only decision jurors make.

[Philips]

Old anecdote.

> Rather, they argue, his models struck poses that were illegally provocative.

That reminds me old anecdote.

A person with problem comes to a doctor: he can't stop thinking about sex. After few questions, doctor decided to conduct simple test. He shows a picture with black circle on white background. "Oh! I see!! That's pond, there is couple in it and they are doing it!!!" replies promptly visitor. Intrigued doctor shows next picture with black square on it. The visitor reacts quickly: "That's bedroom window and the couple in there are doing it!!". Completely confused doctor shows him last picture with black triangle on it. Visitor doesn't think twice: "That's camping tent and couple inside are doing it!!!". Now totally lost doctor stops for a moment to think what to do next. Suddenly, his visitor's face becomes suspicious: "Doctor, where did you got such dirty pictures???". Lopata.

IOW, I think the prosecutors - not the photographer - needs to be checked.

[alegr]

Lopata

Your "lopata" is lost on non-russian speaking readers...

[Hep Cat]

Your tax dolars at work

I'm glad Abu Gonzales' Justice Department is hard at work nabbing
people who take pictures of fully clothed kids in poses their
parents ordered.

It's not like there's anything else to work on. Except maybe
terrorism. Or illegal business pratcies. Or any one of a zillion other
things that are far more injurious to the public.

[Too Old For IT]

Can't seem to get a handle on home invasions

Elder abuse in nursing homes. Bank robbers. Serial murderers. Drunk drivers. Cop killers. Our porous border.

[rick55555]

It's Called the Greening of America or the "New America"

Don't you know that all these prosecutions are all for the good the New America? It is done in the national interest and part of the greening of America, an Ameica which is chaste and pure as the driven snow.

[SeizeCTRL]

YAY For Bush's MORAL SQUAD!

One step closer to 1984.

Seriously though... ***? So if I was a 15 yr old girl, in a bikini, laying on the beach with my legs spread open and some one happened to glance my way... could they be arrested for the same BS crap as this?

This is way to far... next thing you know, Sears will be indicted for taking pics of girls in their underwear for their catalogs.

This administration has just spiraled out of control...

[Dalkorian]

nope

SeizeCTRL had this comment to add:

"This administration has just spiraled out of control..."

Nope, this administration had spiraled out of control years ago. But
it's nice to see that some people are finally recognizing this
obvious fact ...

;-)

[Dalkorian]

nope

SeizeCTRL had this comment to add:

"This administration has just spiraled out of control..."

Nope, this administration had spiraled out of control years ago. But
it's nice to see that some people are finally recognizing this
obvious fact ...

;-)

[Dmitry1969]

Embarassing

My wife is from Ukraine, I'm from America.

I was looking at our photo scrapbook of our kids growing up and I saw my wife had some photo's in their of our kids nude, as babies.

That struck me as odd, because I would have never have taken such a photo. She thought that was ridiculous.

I have to agree, it is absurd. I've lived with it my whole life, so I don't know how absurd it is...

What if a perv does get off at looking at pictures of fully clothed children. I feel sorry for that guy... as for going after people who take photographs of fully clothed children...thats absurd.

We must, as a country, stop going after people for the thoughts that occur in other people's head.

If some weirdo gets off on looking at an old Buick, that doesn't mean I have to park my car in the garage!

As far as kids go, if they are clothed, and the parents have agreed, and the kids aren't forced or harmed... well, I say, this is a waste. At the very least, don't try to take vaguely worded legislation and make it apply. Write laws that are specific, and then if someone violates them, you'll have my support in going after the lawbreaker.

[btljooz]

Of course, it's a gro$$ wa$te!...

"As far as kids go, if they are clothed, and the parents have agreed, and the kids aren't forced or harmed... well, I say, this is a waste."

"At the very least, don't try to take vaguely worded legislation and make it apply."

Correct.

"Write laws that are specific, and then if someone violates them, you'll have my support in going after the lawbreaker."

THAT'S the sticky part. These laws MUST conform to the Constitution or we will be giving up yet MORE Constitutionally given rights!...destroying the USA as a whole, chipping at it bit by bit until it's too late!

[UserNameWithheld]

Thought Crimes Already Exist

Keep in mind taht people are getting arrested for "Enticing a Minor" when they are chatting up an adult who is pretending to be a child. The reasoning is that the crime is so horrific, that INTENT to commit it is enought to warrant punishment as if the actual crime had been committed.

That's a very dangerous precendent.

[bluemist9999]

I agree, very slippery slope

By all means, society should punish those who break the law. However, what if we were able to read everyone's thoughts and we convicted people on those thoughts?

I'm certain many people have had thoughts of killing someone or committing some other illegal act. So we'd probably end up with maybe 99% of the population in prison.

Minority Report is one example of what can happen. The famous novel "1984" is another example.

I personally don't ever feel the intent to commit an act, devoid of any specific concrete preparations to commit the act in the near future (i.e. terrorists who stockpile weapons) should ever be considered a crime.

[alegr]

Taliban now

American Taliban is winning.

Next you'll get busted by photographing your newborn baby (unless only its head can be seen). Oh, wait, there were already such cases.

Nude beaches next.

Non-nude beaches after that. How dare you to walk with bare midriff in plain view!

Then a pious Catholic checkout girl in your drugstore will refuse to ring the condoms you want to buy (and she will get away with that, because it's her CONSCIOUSNESS).
Then a pious Muslim checkout boy will refuse to ring a bottle of wine or beer you're buying.

Just let them...

[rick55555]

America's Fight for the New Democracy

Is this why we are sending our boys to fight and die in foreign lands so that not only us but they also can practice our new forms of freedoms? that is freedom from all thoughts and deeds that are deemed to be indecent by our great president.

[mn-ruggy]

So why wasn't Jonbenet Ramsey pornographic?

If teenagers who are old enough to get married and who aspire to be models aren't even allowed to practice their modeling skills in a professional environment, then we might as well just outlaw modeling entirely. Provocative poses? Yeah right. Somebody somewhere needs to buy a copy of Vanity Fair and see what commercial photography is like these days. It's not inappropriate.

Remember back to those news images of the late Jonbenet Ramsey, all dolled up with loads of makeup, lipstick, and vamping it up in those child beauty contests? Those images shocked a lot of people, to see a little kid dressed uo and trained to act like an adult, but nobody stooped so low as to call it pornographic.

Maybe this whle thing is just a cynical strategy to establish some courtroom precedent for convictions under the new "2257" law before the new Congress has a chance to throw the entire law out.

Or perhaps there's a team of federally-employed kiddie-porn surfers somewhere who have a quota to meet; but they haven't been finding any truly offensive material in a while so they are now resorting to going after young professionals.

If beauty and conversely ugliness is primarily in the eye of the beholder, then apparently we have some highly depraved individuals now working at the Department of Justice, that need to get a life.

[bw94382]

She was. That's why the case was so sensational.

Jonbenet was 6, she was not a teenager. And we all know that, whoever did it, the underlying reason she was killed was because her parents dressed her up like a prostitute and taught her to dance like a stripper. In a time when we are seeing such an explosion of pornography and shameless sexual exploitation of children, I welcome laws that attempt to eradicate it.

[enigma.live]

Dirty Prosecutors

I think the prosecutors wanted to get their hands on these pictures as evidence so they can look at them all day and fantasize...dirty perverts

[johlt]

This is another example...

...of what Milton Friedman meant when he said "A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." Clearly, someone in the Federal prosecutor's office is trying to make a name for herself by taking these people down.

[btljooz]

nuff said...

[JonB.]

Redifining Child Porn

It seems that the DOJ needs a saliva test for its lawyers.
Oh and don't get caught with a Sear childrens underware catalog
or sale circular.

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

[CNET editors' note: Prohibited content removed.] When a child poses for an advertisement or commercial, it is done to bring attention to a particular product. When a child for one of those sexy preteen non-nude sites, it is to bring attention to their sexuality. what pure-hearted decent human being buys these things? No one. just PEDOPHILES

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

[CNET editors' note: Prohibited content removed.] When a child poses for an advertisement or TV commercial, it is done to bring attention to a particular product. When a child poses for a sexy non-nude preteen site it is to bring attention to themselves and their underdeveloped sexuality. And WHO SUBSCRIBES TO THESE WEBSITES? Not your averege saint I gaurantee you THAT. Normal people like you and I, won't miss them when these sites are finally gone Just the sex-offenders who prey on children. We don't need sexy preteen websites and I say GOOD RIDDANCE.

[imacpwr]

The American Prude..

In the future ALL pictures containing people under the age of 18
will be banned from public display in the States as it might be
construed as child pornography.

[Too Old For IT]

Justice Ginsberg thought 12 was the right age

But then *** would the police do with their time?

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

Do you REALLY thinkt that will happen or are you afraid someone will take away your childporn collection. We don't need sexy preteen websites, and only perverts will miss them once they are gone.

[missingamerica]

Better go after those child beauty pagents...

and cheerleading, and baby food commercials, and diaper commercials, and moist towelette commercials, and don't an awful lot of cartoons feature unclothed juveniles of one species or another? Better nail all of those broadcasters and their supporting advertisers, too...

[johlt]

And while we're at it...

... let's go after women's figure skating, gymnastics and the teen and preteen programming on Disney, Nickelodeon and TBS. Heck, let's throw in girls' softball and tennis while we're at it.

It says in her biography that the prosecutor was appointed by John Ashcroft. Wasn't he the guy that wanted to cover the statues in the Capitol?

[MisterBIGMOUTH]

You're an idiot, missingamerica. When a child poses for an advertisement or TV commercial, it is done to bring attention to a particular product. When a child poses for a sexy non-nude preteen site it is to bring attention to themselves and their underdeveloped sexuality. And WHO SUBSCRIBES TO THESE WEBSITES? Not your averege saint I gaurantee you THAT. Normal people like you and I, won't miss them when these sites are finally gone Just the sex-offenders who prey on children. We don't need sexy preteen websites and I say GOOD RIDDANCE.

[AmericaTalks]

Child Modeling

If anyone is interested in discussing this topic, we will be featuring this story on our radio program this evening. Tune in between 6pm and 8 pm eastern time at www.americatalks.com

[Alexlonebear]

Missed it

I did not here this discussion and as a photographer I am very interested in what was discussed. Is this broadcast archived anywhere.

Alexlonebear

[usrhlp]

the made the burka

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