NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally I find this website to be something disgusting but the content is not exactly in the "porn" category but simply having children in "provocative poses". I find it to be wrong but whatever jury this comes before may not agree with me as there was no nudity involved. For me when you see the simple fact that the site charges people to see the photos that is all I need to see the motives of the people running the site. I am curious if anyone thinks this case will go anywhere.

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

It's child exploitation from the looks of it. Yes, they should be charged.

A complicated case to say the least. Looks like child exploitation to me, but I'm not a lawyer, so they might just get away with it. Unpleasant to say the least.

I read towards the bottom that there was a handgun involved, so yeah, child exploitation, unfortunately :(

Not porn, but still sexually suggestive.

It's a tough case. No one's prosecuting the beauty pagents for little girls, like th ones JonBenet Ramsey was in before she was killed, and some of the pictures from there are enough to set your teeth on edge. So, why go after these sites?

I don't know. You've got to draw a line somewhere. If this is considered kiddy porn then how about kids' swimsuit ads in catalogs? This is complicated because certainly we don't want kids being exploited, but I'm sure nobody wants Sears to be shut down for putting out a catalog that shows models wearing the clothes they sell. Hopefully someone can write legislation that clearly defines a boundary between child porn and legitimate photographs.

The sites also attracted the attention of Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.,

I'll bet they did!

I'll bet they did!

He made legislation against them because they all contained girls though. :)

Isn't the legal definition of porn, "I know it when I see it"? I mean, I usually hate that definition but couldn't they use it in this case?

A complicated case to say the least. Looks like child exploitation to me, but I'm not a lawyer, so they might just get away with it. Unpleasant to say the least.
We thank you for not being a lawyer, really we do.






I think it is exploitation, but hey onwards with the liberal society!

And the witch-hunt continues. First the real Pedophiles, then anyone asociated, now anyone showing "suggestive" pictures.

All you dads had better get rid of any photos of your kids. You're next.

From what I've gathered from the article, this is child exploitation. (Not to mention that whatever the idiot says, a quick Google search for Lil Amber brings up a hit for his website, where it is mentioned in Google's text that she apparently has a "hot ass" which to me says she was being marketed. I have no problem with child modeling sites, but I do have a problem with child exploitation. This should be shut down thusly.

And the witch-hunt continues. First the real Pedophiles, then anyone asociated, now anyone showing "suggestive" pictures.

All you dads had better get rid of any photos of your kids. You're next.

How many dads do you know that charge money to look at pictures of their kids? Or have any photographs of their kids that are anything like:

“The children are dressed in underwear, adult lingerie, high heels, etc., and placed in sexually suggestive poses which focus the viewer's attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity.”

How many dads do you know that charge money to look at pictures of their kids? Or have any photographs of their kids that are anything like:

“The children are dressed in underwear, adult lingerie, high heels, etc., and placed in sexually suggestive poses which focus the viewer's attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity.”

Not many. But it won't matter. Until someone has the guts to stand up to the prosecutors and "child advocates", we're just going to get wider and wider definitions of "child pornography", and more and more extreme punishments for anyone convicted under them.

Look at the latest piece of crap that's coming down the pipe - a convicted "molester" has to live away from schools a minimum distance, and report himself to the local cops. That's not while he's on parole - it's for THE REST OF HIS OR HER LIFE.

Some of you are going to say "yeah, that's what a filthy pedo deserves." Well, what about a cousin of mine? He's 26, owns a small business, has a wife and two kids. When he was 19 he did something stupid - he banged a 17 year old. (She's his wife now, btw.) Her family went bonkers, and he served six months for statutory rape.

This new law WILL INCLUDE HIM. He's going to be branded a child molester for the rest of his life. And don't give me any shit about the records being secure.

So, yeah. If you have any photos of anyone under eighteen, get rid of 'em now - you're next.

Not many. But it won't matter. Until someone has the guts to stand up to the prosecutors and "child advocates", we're just going to get wider and wider definitions of "child pornography", and more and more extreme punishments for anyone convicted under them.

Look at the latest piece of crap that's coming down the pipe - a convicted "molester" has to live away from schools a minimum distance, and report himself to the local cops. That's not while he's on parole - it's for THE REST OF HIS OR HER LIFE.

Some of you are going to say "yeah, that's what a filthy pedo deserves." Well, what about a cousin of mine? He's 26, owns a small business, has a wife and two kids. When he was 19 he did something stupid - he banged a 17 year old. (She's his wife now, btw.) Her family went bonkers, and he served six months for statutory rape.

This new law WILL INCLUDE HIM. He's going to be branded a child molester for the rest of his life. And don't give me any shit about the records being secure.

So, yeah. If you have any photos of anyone under eighteen, get rid of 'em now - you're next.

Well, that is the fault of bureacratic system which isn't perfect. Take away the one from that 17 and yeah, for the rest of his life he should have to keep a minimum distance from schools and report himself to the police. I'm not saying that the system shouldn't strive for perfection and fairness.

Well, that is the fault of bureacratic system which isn't perfect. Take away the one from that 17 and yeah, for the rest of his life he should have to keep a minimum distance from schools and report himself to the police. I'm not saying that the system shouldn't strive for perfection and fairness.

That's the crazy part about this new legislation. It doesn't force HIM to stay away from schools, only that his place of residence be a certain distance away.

But that's just a symptom. The disease is this absolute terror of pedophiles that our judicial systems and media have fed for so long. Not that they shouldn't be prosecuted and stopped, sure; but we've lost all perspective.

This web site is unpleasent, and may certainly be a turn on to pedos. What it ISN'T is child porn. The kids aren't being molested, they aren't naked, they're not being harmed. For this to be considered child porn, they must have expanded the definition of pornography so far as to be insane. Yet no one in the prosecutor's offices seems to have raised a fuss, and no one else is willing to risk their wrath by speaking out.

This is madness.

That's the crazy part about this new legislation. It doesn't force HIM to stay away from schools, only that his place of residence be a certain distance away.

But that's just a symptom. The disease is this absolute terror of pedophiles that our judicial systems and media have fed for so long. Not that they shouldn't be prosecuted and stopped, sure; but we've lost all perspective.

This web site is unpleasent, and may certainly be a turn on to pedos. What it ISN'T is child porn. The kids aren't being molested, they aren't naked, they're not being harmed. For this to be considered child porn, they must have expanded the definition of pornography so far as to be insane. Yet no one in the prosecutor's offices seems to have raised a fuss, and no one else is willing to risk their wrath by speaking out.

This is madness.

We've already established that it was child porn, but child exploitation.

We've already established that it was child porn, but child exploitation.

Define THAT. Any movie or TV show that has child actors can be said to be "exploiting" them. As long as the kids are properly paid and child labour laws are followed, there's nothing wrong with it.

These sites probably do qualify as child pornography under US law. Under US law, nudity is neither necessary nor sufficient from something to count as pornography.

There are legal sources of images of nude children, as long as the images are not sexually provocative.

Similarly, images which are sexually provocative would qualify, regardless of whether they feature nudity.

If this definition is too broad, I don't see a reasonable other place to draw the line short of depictions of sexual activity, but I suspect most people want the bar set somewhat lower.

Define THAT. Any movie or TV show that has child actors can be said to be "exploiting" them. As long as the kids are properly paid and child labour laws are followed, there's nothing wrong with it.

Name one mainstream movie that has a child in a sexual pose and is posing in undies and sexual clothings. Remember a child is a person under 12.

Where does child exploitation begin? On this day in the year 1980, citing its sexual innuendo, CBS bans Calvin Klein's infamous Brooke Shields commercial, which featured the young starlet writhing about, proclaiming: "Nothing gets between me and my Calvin Klein's." From an ADULT site I can't link to here.

Brooke was 15 at the time the commercial was filmed. She also appeared naked as a child in Blue Lagoon and Pretty Baby. Those aren't considered child exploitation though. Maybe they should be. Then again, maybe soon the ads in a children's clothing catalog will end up going to court. Somewhere a line has to be drawn, but right now it seems like the laws are being applied randomly.

Name one mainstream movie that has a child in a sexual pose and is posing in undies and sexual clothings. Remember a child is a person under 12.

Lolita.

Most mainstream movies don't have a thematic purpose in doing so. That one does.

Name one mainstream movie that has a child in a sexual pose and is posing in undies and sexual clothings. Remember a child is a person under 12.
If you'll let her be 12, Léon (The Professional) features quite a lot of that.

Lolita.

Most mainstream movies don't have a thematic purpose in doing so. That one does.
Lolita was 12.

Lolita was 12.

Ah? I'd thought ten. Nevertheless, I think you get my point. It's not something needed by most films.

Ah? I'd thought ten. Nevertheless, I think you get my point. It's not something needed by most films.
It's one of my favourite books.

It's one of my favourite books.

Then you have good taste. Nabokov is an excellent writer.

Of course, you'd also know that Lolita is one of the most banned books in history, right.

I, as well, am not a lawyer, yet. But I'm working on it. ;)

This, in my opinion, does not rise to the level of “visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct” and it looks like a fishing expedition to me, probably for someone with political aspirations.

From the horse's mouth, the United States Code:

U.S. Code: Title 18: Part 1: Chap. 110: § 2256 (really you only need the Title and Section, but the rest is good if you want to browse more about the topic):

"sexually
explicit conduct" means actual or simulated -
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital,
oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between
persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of
any person;


Now granted, I haven't seen the websites in question, but unless there is actual sexually explicit conduct on them as defined above, which from the sound of the article, there isn't, this charge will be dismissed in no time. The second page of the article is crap, and whoever they spoke to for it is just trying to sound educated on the topic. Everything here hinges on the above definitions. Money and what not is after the fact.

My guess though is that they'll come up with some sort of plea bargin before this makes it to trial, hence the 80 or so charges filed. The prosecutors know their charges won't stick, so they're trying to scare a plea out of the site operators. Hopefully, their lawyers will not let them take anything though. Which if they don't, I also wouldn't be surprised if they do get convicted in Alabama. But thankfully, a federal appeals court will likely overturn it in no time.

its not porn, but its still wrong.

ohforgods sake do we have to witchhunt everything?

no its not child porn. its children in provocative poses. is it creepy? yes. is it porn? NO.

its no more porn than the pictures of scantily clad women in maxim are porn.

if the children are being exploited, those responsible should be punished under some other law, not child porn.

Then you have good taste. Nabokov is an excellent writer.

Of course, you'd also know that Lolita is one of the most banned books in history, right.

I'm reminded of a particular book I once read written by an internationally respected and award winning science-fiction writer, which was originally published in the early seventies - before the current massive hoo-ha about pedophilia - and featured six and seven year olds having explicit sex: in later editions the six and seven year olds had a round hundred years added to their age so as to avoid any risk of prosecution. Very strange.

Where does child exploitation begin? From an ADULT site I can't link to here.

Brooke was 15 at the time the commercial was filmed. She also appeared naked as a child in Blue Lagoon and Pretty Baby. Those aren't considered child exploitation though. Maybe they should be. Then again, maybe soon the ads in a children's clothing catalog will end up going to court. Somewhere a line has to be drawn, but right now it seems like the laws are being applied randomly.


That just illustates how the times have changed - and not necessarily for the better. No white male between the ages of 16 and 96 can safely look at a female child between the ages of 6months and 18 without someone suspecting him of Paedophelia.. He can roger all the boys he wants to of course (over the age of say 16?) and even the odd goat But just look at just ONE female and someone is going to be thinking "hmmmm". In fact even without looking, someone is going to be thinking.

As I said, the world has changed - and not for the better.

Not to mention that the term paedophelia which is bandied about with gay (no pun intended) and reckless abandon (but fortunately not by knowledgeable NSers), means to ONLY be sexually aroused by pre-pubescent children. It's a recognised mental illness - but we don't put depressives on a bloody civil list - do we? It also means that a man who finds a 13 year old girl with budding breasts sexually attractive, is not a paedophile. He's a man (albeit it with warped sense of responsibility). Here's the killer though - 100 years ago, he could have married her. Today, he's be shot, drawn and quartered and the parts tarred and feathered for good measure and then fed to the squirrels.

Add to this the commonly accepted wisdom that the bodies and minds of adolescents mature faster than a 100 years ago, why should it be considered taboo to find adolescents attractive?

Am I advocating sex with pre-pubescents? No. Am I advocating sex with adolescents? No again. I'm just pointing out that 100 years ago it was accepted (and fucking a goat wasn't). Now it's the other way around. It seems to me the whole world has latched onto the one remaining moral that it hasn't ridden roughshod over, in order to assuage their consciences about the rest.

All this of course is slightly deviant from the topic :)

The sites in question are within the letter of the law. As they were designed to be. Untouchable. However, I imaging if you were to subscribe and "prove" yourself (as being non-law enforcement) you'd probably get the material you were after. So, yes, it's exploitation, even if you can't see it. And the scumbag should be shot, drawn and qua... Well, incarcerated at any rate. The irony is, he probably isn't even a paedophile. So, he's not only exploiting the children, he's exploiting the paedophiles sickness. Grounds enough for tar and feathering, I think...

its not porn, but its still wrong.
Why is it wrong? For it to be wrong, it has to have crossed some sort of line. Whatline is it that you think it has crossed?

Why is it wrong? For it to be wrong, it has to have crossed some sort of line. Whatline is it that you think it has crossed?

It crossed the line of making children into sex objects. To me thats very wrong.

If I remeber correctly, "sexually suggestive poses" count as child pornography. So legally, these websites are illegal.

Morally? It's damn sick.

I'm reminded of a particular book I once read written by an internationally respected and award winning science-fiction writer, which was originally published in the early seventies - before the current massive hoo-ha about pedophilia - and featured six and seven year olds having explicit sex: in later editions the six and seven year olds had a round hundred years added to their age so as to avoid any risk of prosecution. Very strange.
Oh, I've read that book. That's... why can't I remember the title?

The kids had their own slang to describe the sex and everything (because they'd been isolated on a spaceship). It was like a sexually explicit space-based Lord of the Flies.

If I remeber correctly, "sexually suggestive poses" count as child pornography. So legally, these websites are illegal.
The statute quoted above disagrees with you.

Though I do think they would violate Canadian law (which defines child pornography only to outlaw its production and distribution, not its possession).

So, yeah. If you have any photos of anyone under eighteen, get rid of 'em now - you're next.

So now school yearbooks will have to be illegal? :p

How can provocative posing be equivalent to pornography? Models older than 18 (or 21) often pose in far more provocative poses for advertisements, do these advertisements count as porn then?

The firearm is another story.

While I've already established that this does not rise to the level of Child Pornography as defined in the USC, I'll go ahead and throw this one out there for kicks:

Consider that up until fairly recently in human history, the concept of sex with a minor of basically any age was not illegal and often was looked upon favorably. Numerous accounts exist all over the world of young girls (usually around 12-14) being married off, and if a girl wasn't wed by the time she was 18, she was often considered to old to be viable, and especially if she waited much after that.

Also, technically speaking, by the time girls begin menstruating, they are physically capable of producing offspring, which is kind of the point of the whole sex thing from a natural standpoint.

And then there were the Romans. They are easily one of the greatest civilizations, and possibly the greatest, and much of modern civilization, especially the West, is based on the Roman Empire of yore. And to them, pretty much anything animal, vegetable, or mineral, of any age and of any gender, was fair game before the Christian religion took over... and the Empire rapidly fell apart...

Discuss.

Well, as a 21 year old male I'mma throw in some thoughts.

Firstly, I do think our society is getting a bit preoccupied with pedophilia. Even I'm uncomfortable around girls who I'm not sure are my age. It's just strange, you know? To be scared to go into a school? A friend of mine is a substitute teacher, I haven't asked him how he feels about that but I know at some point he was a councilor for the YMCA and part of his job was to make sure the kids didn't grab ass while they changed into their bathing suits, these kids being around 8 I think.

How sensitive would his position be? If he doesn't watch, he could get sued because someone molested someone else. If he does his job, then he could get sued for whatever you might get sued for. It's a nasty situation.

Now, this site...the article said thong and halter top. What young girl should be wearing that, let alone have her picture taken while wearing such an outfit?

It's not just a matter of legality, it's also a matter of good taste. I think good taste dictates that little girls dress like little girls. I wouldn't want to see a thong and halter top on a girl until she was my age, and even then I don't much care for thongs.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, maybe there IS a witch hunt going on in the US. But, can we really say that stopping someone from taking these pictures of little girls is a bad thing? What business does someone that young have in provocative clothing? Nothing, says my common sense. Mine might be wrong.

How long before the pictures started getting more and more showy as he pushed the boundary? What if he started taking pictures of them in wet t-shirts or covered in lotion?

I support free speech and pornography, these are rights. The little girl does not have the power of consent, she's not old enough. Therefore, her mom had to sign. The mother was very obviously duped if you read the article, and they didn't feel comfortable leaving because the man showed them a GUN. That's coercion, even if subtle.

"Hi, I'll be taking pictures of your daughter today. Look at my .45!"
"Ok, that's kinda weird, but whatever."
snapsnapsnap
"Mom, I don't feel comfortable here."
"Well, we can't leave, he's got a gun."

It's wrong, what this man is doing. As someone else mentioned, he's also exploiting a sick portion of the population, people who don't need encouragement.

In my opinion, if you want to take photographs of young girls OR boys, there should be an agency to protect them. Government inspections of your facilities, maybe even training and screening to prevent this type of thing. That's not infringing on rights, it's the same damn thing as giving someone a driver's license or a gun permit. We've verified that you know what you're doing, and we're going to be checking on you.

Above the age of consent, you can take pictures of people in orgies with buffalo for all I care, but when it comes to children it needs to be closely watched. What purpose at all do suggestive photos of children serve? None, that's what.

The exception of course being meaningful projects. Lolita, The Professional, maybe a re-interpretation of the Lord of the Flies, these things have merit. There's nothing saying there couldn't be a supervisor to make sure the kids are protected. Show 'em naked and making out for all I care, but let's make sure it's serving a purpose rather than being exploitive. I know it's a gray area, but it how hard could it be to draw up some protective laws and rules?

It's got to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and carefully. An important aspect of it needs to be the extent to which the children (models) and parents understand the nature of the photographs. A lot of these kinds of 'modelling' agencies have sprung up in Canada too, and the way this article describes the deliberate exlusion of the mother is how they places work. When these kids and/or finally realise how they are being exploited (assuming they ever do) they often have no way to get the company to remove the pictures because they've signed away their rights to them.

One can get hysterical and say that the law is going to be applied to anyone who has pictures of kids...but I don't think that is so. A legal test will have to be designed (if one is not already out there) to determine whether the subject matter of the pictures is exploitative or not.

I don't know. You've got to draw a line somewhere. If this is considered kiddy porn then how about kids' swimsuit ads in catalogs? This is complicated because certainly we don't want kids being exploited, but I'm sure nobody wants Sears to be shut down for putting out a catalog that shows models wearing the clothes they sell. Hopefully someone can write legislation that clearly defines a boundary between child porn and legitimate photographs.

Agreed. The article mentions this however: “The children are dressed in underwear, adult lingerie, high heels, etc., and placed in sexually suggestive poses which focus the viewer's attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity.”

Sorry, but putting 12 year olds into lingerie and high heels and having them blow kisses at the camera? Who is seriously going to argue this is legitimate?

a quick Google search for Lil Amber brings up a hit for his website, where it is mentioned in Google's text that she apparently has a "hot ass" .

That article is from a Colombia paper...and is rather disturbing...and intended to be.

it deffenitly is a tricky issue. There are a lot of problems with child porn laws. far to offten there catching innosent people insted of pedophiles. I remeber when i was in art school, a 17 yearold student was halled into court for painting a nude self portriat of her self. She was found guilty too, luckally she was clearred on the apeal but, lawmakers really need to sit down and acctually think about these sort of brawd sweeping laws.:headbang:

Agreed. The article mentions this however: “The children are dressed in underwear, adult lingerie, high heels, etc., and placed in sexually suggestive poses which focus the viewer's attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity.”

Sorry, but putting 12 year olds into lingerie and high heels and having them blow kisses at the camera? Who is seriously going to argue this is legitimate?

I'm not going to argue it's legitimate. But there's a big gap between "illegitimate" and "illegal".

Well, look at it in terms of adult modelling. You have your non-porn modelling, where the models sell the product. Then you have your porn modelling, where the models ARE the product. Which one does that site resemble more? If you said "porn modelling", you won the prize.

Personally I find this website to be something disgusting but the content is not exactly in the "porn" category but simply having children in "provocative poses". I find it to be wrong but whatever jury this comes before may not agree with me as there was no nudity involved. For me when you see the simple fact that the site charges people to see the photos that is all I need to see the motives of the people running the site. I am curious if anyone thinks this case will go anywhere.

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

Pointless to protest this behavior on NSG.

Child Porn? No.

Erotic Material showcasing 'underage' girls for a paying audience? Most Definitely.

Child Expoitation? If the sites are using child models for erotic purposes (which they clearly are), for a paying audience, then I believe it is. If every situation is the same as the one described in the article (the mother of the model didn't realize what sort of site it was until she walked in on her daughter in a thong and haltertop), then it is definitely child exploitation.

Any notion that these sites are for young girls to build a portfolio is laughable. I highly doubt that any of these girls have gone on to succesful modeling careers (unless it's in the adult entertainment industry.)

No, I think this is the end of this particular studio. How heavy they are fined or punished will determine whether or not another studio takes their traffic.

4 words.....its sick and wrong

Is it porn? NO
Is it child exploitation? YES
Is it ungood? YES
Is it not right? Most definetly, especially if the part about the gun is true.

Stupid fucking Alabama. Child exploitation is illegal, but isn't child porn, way to win it for the bad guy.

This case will certainly increase anti-semitism. The indictment, unsealed this week in Birmingham, Ala., charges Webe Web Corp. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and its principals, Marc Evan Greenberg and Jeffrey Robert Libman The defendants have Jewish surnames.

This case will certainly increase anti-semitism. The defendants have Jewish surnames.

No, this will just make a few crazy anti-semites cry a bit louder than usual.

This case will certainly increase anti-semitism. The defendants have Jewish surnames.

I have to admit, the thought 'damn jews' never entered my mind when I was reading the article.

To me it shows some sort of motive by introducing a gun. If the children were displayed as doing even the slightest sexual positions, the defendants don't stand a chance. I find this to be horrendous and I hope when and if they get convicted that they are given the mandatory sentence of 20 years imprisonment. If what the media states is true, I find it to be very sad. I do NOT understand why some people are infactuated by the children and why they are willing to take the child's innocence. :confused: Very Sad Indeed. :( Makes me Mad as Hell. :mad:

I do NOT understand why some people are infactuated by the children and why they are willing to take the child's innocence. :confused: Very Sad Indeed. :( Makes me Mad as Hell. :mad:

*shrugs* Some people just like em young.

This case will certainly increase anti-semitism. The defendants have Jewish surnames.

This proves my point about NSG, children being exploited for pedophiles and this is posted as a concern.
Nice priorities.

Is it porn? NO
Is it child exploitation? YES
Is it ungood? YES
Is it not right? Most definetly, especially if the part about the gun is true.

I would certainly agree on the fact that it isn't porn but exploitation certainly. Despite the changing times where certain actions are deemed more acceptable, somehow I doubt that this will ever be explained away as not something disgusting but perfectly fine, as if charging people to see these pictures is fine! The prosecutor only has to wave some of these photos to a jury and ask if they would ever want their kid to be seen like that. These two are going down.

Then again juries are strange things, who knows what bullshit story from the defense lawyer that they may be suckered into...