Posted on 03/10/2005 5:24:52 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(CNSNews.com) - A Florida Republican congressman introduced a bill Wednesday to prohibit so-called online "child modeling" websites that he says are "nothing more than a fix for pedophiles."
"They don't sell products, they don't sell services - all they serve are young children on a platter for America's most depraved. These sites sell child erotica and they should be banned," said Rep. Mark Foley, co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, in a statement.
The websites feature children as young as four- to six-years-old, Foley said, and cause "immense psychological damage to the children" as well as placing them in "physical danger when contact is made with the people who visit their sites."
The measure would ban all websites that charge fees to view models 16 years of age and under that do not promote specific products or services beyond the child.
"If a child is modeling for Gap or Gucci, it's legal. If the site is selling nothing else than the child via photos or video clips, it should be illegal," said Foley.
He said pedophiles who pay to see photos and video clips of the children in sexually suggestive poses send the children provocative clothing and bathing suits to "model" and talk to them via email. In extreme cases, "parties" have been held in hotel rooms where pedophiles can meet the children they've been viewing online in person.
I would be happy if all fifty states, as well as all U.S. Territories, banned these perv websites today. And if there's a constitutional amendment offered empowering the federal government to ban child porn, I'll gladly support it.
PING!
I'll admit this much: this unconstitutional legislation will actually do America some good, if enacted, unlike other unconstitutional stuff that's been done in the past.
This may have a chance in the court.
I have heard about this and the parents are sick. I saw one mother who said it was a good way to get a college fund going.
I'd also approve of a law to ban all these damned Child Beauty Contests. They are also full of pedophiles and child exploiters. FWIW, I'd also charge the parents with child abuse for participating in this crap.
Jean Bennet Ramsey probably lost her life due to her over-participation in these unsavory pageants.
Unconstitutionally and conservative good and unconstitutionally and liberal bad???
Get this through your head:
Unconstitutional is unconstitutional is unconstitutional, no matter the legislation's intention...
No wonder Jacko was sick today, he must've heard about this!
Doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional or not, it won't stop websites in Russia,Japan,Nigeria, etc. etc.......
I don't see why it should be unconstitutional. Even under a strict interpretation... anything on the internet falls under "interstate commerce."
And no, photos are not protected by the first ammendment, despite what the supreme court may tell you. (Interesting how they consider pornography "free speech", but not political commercials.)
They should change the bill to insist that the child's face be blacked out. That would reduce some of the "appeal" of pedophiles while not butting heads with first amendment issues.
I agree. I didn't say I supported this particular legislation. However, were this legislation constitutional, I would most definitely support it.
While not a jurist or a lawyer, I don't thinking banning such sites infringes on free speech--there are limits to free speech even in a free society. Besides, who would challenge its constitutionality? NAMBLA? Not likely. The Internet is sugar candy mountain to those depraved a**holes; they probably wouldn't want to call yet more attention to themselves in a high-profile court case and bring on even more federal scrutiny. The ACLU? Would they truly risk their support base even further by rushing to the defense of child exploiters? I count a few ACLU-supporting liberals as friends. They would draw the line, I think, at defending the indefensible.
Parents of these child models love it. I saw a Oprah show about this very thing and these parents are in denial. One father took pics of his daughter in the clothes that her middle aged male fans sent her.
I'm not worried about free-speech aspects related to this bill. I'm worried about Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the powers Congress actually has under the Constitution. This list has been updated over time, of course, by some of the Constitution's 27 amendments. I can only hope that, buried within one of these amendments, is something that can justify this bill. Otherwise, I cannot support it. A Constitutional amendment to ban this moral gross-out, of course, is another thing entirely, and I would support that.
What about all the other perversions the Web caters to?
Heck, if you're going to start regulating what goes on the Web, let's do it right and get rid of some of those gawsh-awful political sites, like DU, that really do harm. Then we can work on those promoting tobaccy, demon rum and gambling. I don't visit them, mind you, but I understand they're everywhere, just a few clicks away -- and impressionable kids can easily find them, as they likely know a lot more about the Internet than their parents.
Yep, it's time the Congress get real busy and clean up that sewer before it makes us all sickos.
It probably is unconstitutional and impossible to ban the websites, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional to prove that parents who put their kids on the sites are unfit parents. That should be an effective way to stop this.
That's true, it's hard to stop stuff on the internet from all over the world without sucking up to the UN or ICC.
There you go again, throwing facts around.
Too many people think it's the United States Wide Web instead of the World Wide Web.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.