November 30, 2006 4:00 AM PST

Federal case may redefine child porn

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.

Pierson's child pornography indictment arises out of an FBI and U.S. Postal Inspection Service investigation of so-called child modeling sites, which have been the subject of a series of critical congressional hearings and news reports in the last few years. An August article in The New York Times, for instance, called the modeling Web sites "the latest trend in child exploitation."

Jeff Pierson
Credit: Southern Illusions
Jeff Pierson,
photographer

In addition to Pierson, the U.S. attorney also announced indictments against Marc Greenberg, 42, Jeffrey Libman, 39, partners in a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., business called Webe Web, which in turn ran the now-defunct ChildSuperModels.com site. It was one of the larger sites that featured photographs of child models, allegedly from Pierson, and became the target of a report on Florida's NBC6 affiliate suggesting that it was a magnet for pedophiles.

First Amendment scholars interviewed Wednesday raised questions about the Justice Department's attack on Internet child modeling. They warned that any legal precedent might endanger the mainstream use of child models in advertising and suggested that prosecutors' budgets might be better spent investigating actual cases of child molestation.

Amy Adler
Credit: NYU
Amy Adler,
NYU law professor

"I don't know what the DOJ's trying," said Lee Tien, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group. "The best I can say is that it's puzzling that they would devote investigative and law enforcement resources to something (like this). This is a far cry from what folks normally think of as child pornography."

The Web sites that prompted the indictments are now offline. But copies saved in Google's cache and through Archive.org show the photographs in question depicted girls wearing everything from sweaters to, more frequently, swimsuits and midriff-baring attire. Parents appear to have given their consent.

Richard Jaffe, Pierson's attorney, said he could not immediately comment because he was in court on Wednesday. Jill Ellis, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the northern district of Alabama, confirmed to CNET News.com that no nudity was involved. An arraignment for Pierson has been scheduled for December 14 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Armstrong.

No sex, no nudity
Because no sex or nudity is involved, the prosecutions raise unusual First Amendment concerns that stretch beyond mere modeling-related Web sites: children and teens in various degrees of undress appear in everything from newspaper underwear advertisements to the covers of Seventeen and Vogue.

Alice Martin
Credit: DOJ
Alice Martin,
U.S. Attorney

When actress and model Brooke Shields was 15 years old, for instance, she appeared in a racy Calvin Klein jean advertisement featuring the memorable line, "Nothing comes between me and my Calvins." Shields also appeared nude at 12 years old in an Oscar-nominated movie called Pretty Baby that was set in a New Orleans brothel. Similarly, 14-year-old Jodie Foster, wearing revealing clothing, played a pre-teen prostitute in Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver.

Sally Mann, named Time magazine's "photographer of the year" in 2001, was attacked by critics for featuring nude images of her own children in a book called Immediate Family. Famed photographer Jock Sturges' photos often feature nude boys and girls on the beaches of California and France--images that are far more revealing than those of swimsuit-clad youths.

CONTINUED: A subjective distinction…
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
indictment, nudity, attorney, First Amendment, Alabama

114 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
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?
Posted by sadchild (280 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by duerra (76 comments )
Link Flag
their behind the line
where did you learn to draw?
_
o|
^
Posted by vampares (39 comments )
Link Flag
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
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
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
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
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"?
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
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!
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by Mister-BIGMOUTH (8 comments )
Link Flag
The fact that these loosers pled guilty should tell you all that these so-called "photographers" knew that what they were doing was wrong.
Posted by Mister-BIGMOUTH (8 comments )
Link Flag
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...
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by mcduarte (9 comments )
Link Flag
underwire brahs for 7 year olds with "modesty" padding
Saw it on the news.. now that's responsible fashion; ever heard the term prostitote?
Posted by jabbotts (492 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by calidan (2 comments )
Link Flag
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!!!
Posted by catoprof (9 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by mrdeleted (3 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by maxoutkast (6 comments )
Link Flag
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
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by Mister-BIGMOUTH (8 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by SamPJackson (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What about Blue Lagoon? How old was she there?
BLUE LAGOON WAS HOT. I remember drooling as a 8 yr old.
Posted by baswwe (299 comments )
Link Flag
WOW - Blue Lagoon - how old was brooke?
I remember drooling as an 8 year old.

WOW
Posted by baswwe (299 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by Jackson Cracker (272 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by jltnol (85 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by hugh23920 (12 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by bemenaker (438 comments )
Link Flag
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?
Posted by M A (51 comments )
Link Flag
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 "
Posted by singleparent (1 comment )
Link Flag
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]
Posted by btljooz (401 comments )
Link Flag
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
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
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
Posted by Terry Murphy (82 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
googling at the jury pool of indecent exposure
America's legal system will not be raped. Voting
is the only decision jurors make.
Posted by vampares (39 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by Philips (400 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Lopata
Your "lopata" is lost on non-russian speaking readers...
Posted by alegr (1590 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by Hep Cat (440 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by Too Old For IT (351 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by rick55555 (4 comments )
Link Flag
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...
Posted by SeizeCTRL (1333 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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 ...

;-)
Posted by Dalkorian (3000 comments )
Link Flag
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 ...

;-)
Posted by Dalkorian (3000 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by Dmitry1969 (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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!
Posted by btljooz (401 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by UserNameWithheld (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by bluemist9999 (1020 comments )
Link Flag
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...
Posted by alegr (1590 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by rick55555 (4 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by mn-ruggy (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by bw94382 (24 comments )
Link Flag
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
Posted by enigma.live (48 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by johlt (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
nuff said...
Posted by btljooz (401 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by JonB. (59 comments )
Reply Link Flag
[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
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
[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.
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by imacpwr (456 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Justice Ginsberg thought 12 was the right age
But then *** would the police do with their time?
Posted by Too Old For IT (351 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
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...
Posted by missingamerica (6147 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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?
Posted by johlt (2 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by MisterBIGMOUTH (20 comments )
Link Flag
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
Posted by AmericaTalks (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
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
Posted by Alexlonebear (7 comments )
Link Flag
the made the burka
because have you seen some of the muslim women? i think id want them enforcing too!
Posted by usrhlp (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
the made the burka
because have you seen some of the muslim women? i think id want them enforcing too!
Posted by usrhlp (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by DeusExMachina (516 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by SpiritMatter (68 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by bw94382 (24 comments )
Link Flag
if your freaking OBESE it is shameful
lose the fat!
Posted by baswwe (299 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by bw94382 (24 comments )
Reply Link Flag
People like you need an education....
Get it here:

Sexual Predator Hysteria
Its 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:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.soab.state.pa.us/soab/cwp/browse.asp?a=3&#38;bc=0&#38;c=39615&#38;soabNav=" target="_newWindow">http://www.soab.state.pa.us/soab/cwp/browse.asp?a=3&#38;bc=0&#38;c=39615&#38;soabNav=</a>

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

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/?20064" target="_newWindow">http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/?20064</a>

Move along to these quotes from:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://portlandme.wpadmin.about.com/?comments_popup=257612:" target="_newWindow">http://portlandme.wpadmin.about.com/?comments_popup=257612:</a>

&gt;According to data compiled by the U.S. Justice Department (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex" target="_newWindow">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex</a> ), 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 offenders likelihood of committing a new crime decreases the longer he or she remains free; in other words, if theyre going to commit another crime, it will probably happen in the first few years after their release.

Of course, this sort of data doesnt make for good sound bytes for politicians seeking to foster a get tough image to bolster their chances for election or re-election; but its 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 medias dutiful reporting of same), its 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 childs injuries. The argument that it wasnt the carpenters 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 publics 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 Megans 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 Nazis in the same way that our present-day politicians justify Megans 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.

Its doubtful that the German people would have acquiesced to Hitlers 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 couldnt happen again is delusional. The simple fact is that history shows that you cant 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&lt;

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':

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1855771&#38;page=1" target="_newWindow">http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1855771&#38;page=1</a>

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:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://saltlakecity.about.com/b/a/257300.htm" target="_newWindow">http://saltlakecity.about.com/b/a/257300.htm</a>

Take this Poll on SOLs:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://saltlakecity.about.com/library/blsub/blpoll/blpollsexoffender2.htm" target="_newWindow">http://saltlakecity.about.com/library/blsub/blpoll/blpollsexoffender2.htm</a>

Or just view the Results:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://saltlakecity.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?linkback=http%3A%2F%2Fsaltlakecity.about.com%2Flibrary%2Fblsub%2Fblpoll%2Fblpollsexoffender2.htm&#38;poll_id=5911059616&#38;poll=3&#38;submit1=Submit+Vote" target="_newWindow">http://saltlakecity.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?linkback=http%3A%2F%2Fsaltlakecity.about.com%2Flibrary%2Fblsub%2Fblpoll%2Fblpollsexoffender2.htm&#38;poll_id=5911059616&#38;poll=3&#38;submit1=Submit+Vote</a>

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

Now for FBI info:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry.htm</a>

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

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://government.zdnet.com/?p=2532" target="_newWindow">http://government.zdnet.com/?p=2532</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://government.zdnet.com/?p=2723" target="_newWindow">http://government.zdnet.com/?p=2723</a>

AND its 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.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/" target="_newWindow">http://findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html</a>

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

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060802_brain_prey.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060802_brain_prey.html</a>
Posted by btljooz (401 comments )
Link Flag
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"
Posted by JustDaTruth (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by mgreere (332 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.