Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House Bill Would Ban 'Child Modeling' Websites
CNSNews.com ^ | March 09, 2005 | Melanie Hunter

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; childabuse; childmodeling; childmolesters; childporn; filth; garbage; kiddieporn; perverted; perverts; porn; website
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last
This is a good bill for the country. However, it is also unconstitutional; as far as I know, the federal government doesn't have the power to ban these disgusting websites. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

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.

1 posted on 03/10/2005 5:24:52 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; alisasny; AlwaysFree; AnnaSASsyFR; Angelwood; aristeides; Askel5; ...

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.


2 posted on 03/10/2005 5:27:28 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

This may have a chance in the court.


3 posted on 03/10/2005 5:27:35 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


4 posted on 03/10/2005 5:28:42 PM PST by Vicki (Truth and Reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


5 posted on 03/10/2005 5:30:51 PM PST by clee1 (It takes 17 muscles to frown, 5 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm a very lazy person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vicki
I'll bet that the mom uses the money for college.
6 posted on 03/10/2005 5:31:56 PM PST by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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...


7 posted on 03/10/2005 5:32:09 PM PST by El Conservador ("No blood for oil!"... Then don't drive, you moron!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

No wonder Jacko was sick today, he must've heard about this!


8 posted on 03/10/2005 5:33:34 PM PST by The Loan Arranger (http://profiles.yahoo.com/sandbear1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional or not, it won't stop websites in Russia,Japan,Nigeria, etc. etc.......


9 posted on 03/10/2005 5:34:52 PM PST by Brett66 (W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.)


10 posted on 03/10/2005 5:36:23 PM PST by explodingspleen (http://mish-mash.info/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


11 posted on 03/10/2005 5:36:36 PM PST by Tall_Texan (If you can think 180-degrees apart from reality, you might be a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Conservador

I agree. I didn't say I supported this particular legislation. However, were this legislation constitutional, I would most definitely support it.


12 posted on 03/10/2005 5:39:48 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


13 posted on 03/10/2005 5:43:31 PM PST by Rembrandt_fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


14 posted on 03/10/2005 5:45:00 PM PST by cyborg (http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rembrandt_fan
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.

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.

15 posted on 03/10/2005 5:57:47 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
You are quite correct. There is no Constitutional authority for Congress to pass such a law. (Not that the grandstanding idiots won't waste time and resources passing it anyway!) So long as no laws are violated making the pictures for the sites, then there is no cause for action. A picture of a child in a "suggestive" pose is disgusting, but legal so long as that child wasn't used for a sexual act. It's the sexual act rather than the image of the sexual act that is a crime.


16 posted on 03/10/2005 6:03:29 PM PST by Redcloak (More cleverly arranged 1's and 0's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Why would the good Senator stop with child "modeling?"

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.

17 posted on 03/10/2005 6:07:56 PM PST by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


18 posted on 03/10/2005 6:12:09 PM PST by deaconjim (Freep the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brett66

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.


19 posted on 03/10/2005 6:12:17 PM PST by Sender (Team Infidel USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
Doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional or not, it won't stop websites in Russia,Japan,Nigeria, etc. etc...

There you go again, throwing facts around.

Too many people think it's the United States Wide Web instead of the World Wide Web.

20 posted on 03/10/2005 6:14:08 PM PST by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Spec.4 Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson