Posted on 05/08/2002 11:07:24 AM PDT by Houmatt
WASHINGTON -- Two congressmen launched an effort on Tuesday to outlaw "child modeling" Internet sites that depict children as young as 5 years old wearing bikinis and other suggestive outfits, saying they encourage child sex abuse.
Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican, and Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Beaumont, introduced a bill that would ban Web sites that charge money to view pictures or videos of children younger than 17 years old.
Web sites such as www.lilamber.com and www.stacystarlet.com do not contain nudity or pornography, and have not been linked to any cases of child abuse or abduction, the two said.
But the Web sites do exploit children and cater to child molesters, the congressmen said.
"These Web sites are nothing more than a way for pedophiles to get their fix," Foley said.
Customers can send in outfits for the children to wear, chat with them over the Internet and in some cases arrange to meet them in hotel rooms, he said.
"Someone's exploiting the kid where they're going to be used for someone else's sexual gratification," Lampson said.
An operator of several child-modeling Web sites said he did not traffic in child pornography, and said he did not want to speculate on why his customers visit the sites because he had never met them.
"I can say no one involved in our site would ever say we are exploiting these children, that is why they are happy to be involved," said the operator, who did not wish to be named.
The bill would ban Web sites that charge money to view pictures of children, without promoting any other products or services. Clothing stores that run advertisements using child models, for example, would not be affected.
Violators could face fines and up to 10 years in prison.
Foley said the FBI has launched a preliminary investigation of child-modeling sites.
An FBI spokeswoman did not return calls seeking comment.
Previous congressional efforts to curb online obscenity and pornography have been struck down by courts on free-speech grounds. Foley said his staff had met with legal experts to make sure the bill would pass constitutional muster.
A free-speech activist who has served as a legal consultant to several child-modeling sites said the bill was unnecessary because existing laws already ban pedophilia and regulate the modeling industry.
"If there are existing laws that criminalize behavior, enforce the laws," said Jeffrey J. Douglas, a California attorney who serves as president of the First Amendment Lawyers Association.
Free speech should not be compromised because of its potential impact on criminals, Douglas said.
"Otherwise the only thing appropriate for you and I to view or read is something that's appropriate for a pedophile to view or read," said Douglas, who recently helped to overturn a law on "virtual" child pornography.
Foley has sponsored a bill that would reinstate the virtual-porn ban. The two bills might be combined when a House subcommittee meets on Thursday, he said.
What the article does not say is Douglas is the head of the legal arm of the adult entertainment industry, the Free Speech Coalition.
Now, I want someone to tell me again how the porn industry does not support child pornography.
Wait for the LP'ers to defend this.
OK, have an undercover detective send a nice outfit, arrange such a meeting, then take the kid into custody on suspicion of abuse.
I find it hard to believe that 5 year olds are capable of engaging in internet chat.
Well then, seems all they have to do is offer some products for sale and the law doesnt apply to them.
Me thinks politicians have way to much time on their hands and way to much of our money to spend.
Pardon me, but I have to ask: What is an LP'er?
I'd guess that, if it's real, an older person may read the messages to the kid and types the kid's answers in.
A really bright kid could do it himself or herself. When I was 5 years old I was typing letters to my aunt, and I didn't and don't have a genius IQ.
Libertarian Party.
Figures. He's probably a pedophile, too.
Your assertion that LP'ers endorse chid abuse or child pornography in any way shows the shallowness of your thought.
In case you want to claim you were 'joking', would you like it if I tried to link you to deviant sexual behavior?
Children cannot give consent and what is done to them is wrong.
We are NOT talking about pornography here, not even anything necessarily wrong. Where does this end - with a complete ban on pictures of children entirely?
"Seductive" behavior by a child;ie: hip rolling,"flirting", etc. is said by some to be an indicator of possible ongoing sexual child abuse- ( although, in what passes for modern culture, it may be a mere imitation of what pop stars are doing in videos, etc. )
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.