Child porn, sexual exploitation charges leveled against 3 operators (need poll voters now!)

MSNBC.com ^ | 07-11-02 | MSNBC.com

[press]

Please go to this story and vote for the top choice, to enact new laws protecting our children from the likes of Larry Flint. The liberals are winning this poll and we must reverse this now!

Even as lawmakers attempt to craft legislation to clamp down on Internet sites featuring preteen and teen “models,” authorities are using laws already on the books to prosecute operators of three such sites who allegedly possessed — and may have been selling — sexually explicit material featuring minors.

‘The cases could send a wake-up call ... that there has to be a limit of where you can go and a line beyond which you shouldn’t venture.’ — DAVE MUNDY

'Non-nude" site operator

ALL THREE CASES involve operators of “model” sites who crossed the legal line, either by possessing child pornography — a violation of federal law — or photos or videos showing underage girls in various states of undress that ran afoul of state laws against sexual exploitation of children, according to authorities.

The cases appear to provide new ammunition to critics of the “model” sites, which charge members a monthly fee to view photos of under-18 girls — including some as young as 8 or 9 — wearing revealing attire and striking suggestive poses. The majority of the sites do not feature nudity or overtly sexual material, but the cases currently in the courts indicate that some operators are happy to push the envelope.

Two members of Congress — Reps. Mark Foley, R-Fla., and Nick Lampson, D-Texas — have announced plans to introduce legislation to crack down on the sites, which they say appeal to and are likely to encourage pedophiles.

‘YOUNG CHILDREN ON A PLATTER’

“These Web sites … don’t sell products, they don’t sell services — all they serve are young children on a platter for America’s most depraved,” Foley said in March in announcing the legislation, which an aide said would likely have its first hearing in September.

'Legal child porn' under fire

But some in the fledgling “non-nude” niche are hopeful that the criminal cases will provide clear signals where the legal boundaries lie as they seek a degree of legitimacy for what one operator compared to the “pin-up” calendars of his youth.

“The cases could send a wake-up call ... that there has to be a limit of where you can go and a line beyond which you shouldn’t venture,” said Dave Mundy, whose “non-nude” Bayougirls.com site features underage as well as adult models.

But it is likely that any line drawn by the courts will be blurred, given the differing circumstances and venues of the three cases to be decided in the coming months:

The first, scheduled to go to trial on July 22, involves a “mom and pop” site run by an Arkansas couple that featured their 12-year-old daughter.

Sheriff’s deputies officers who served a search warrant on the home of James and Donna Cummings of Magazine, Ark., in October 2001 found a videotape featuring the daughter that a prosecutor described as “significantly more explicit” than the cheesecake-style photos of her that were posted on the site.

The Cummingses, who are free on bail, are charged with the state felony of “engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium,” and face a maximum of 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. In the meantime, the couple’s four children have temporarily been placed in the custody of a grandparent pending the outcome of the trial.

CHILD PORN CHARGES LEVELED

In March, a federal grand jury in Missouri indicted Gary Lee Smith, 35, on federal child pornography charges.

The indictment alleges that Smith, who operated at least one preteen “model” site and possibly others, “employed and enticed a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct” that was later transported across state and national borders. Published reports have indicated that the charges involve a 12-year-old Missouri girl who allegedly posed for Smith in a hotel room last year.

Smith, who was previously convicted of sexual abuse of a 16-year-old in Arkansas, is being held without bail. He faces up to 90 years in prison without parole and a fine of up to $750,000 if convicted of all three counts against him at his trial, currently scheduled to begin on Sept. 23.

On April 5, Arapahoe County, Colo., deputies raided the home and offices of photographer James Steven Grady, who also operated the TrueTeenBabes and TrueTeenCams Web sites.

James Steven Grady

In the raid, which interrupted live chat session featuring a scantily clad 18-year-old “model,” deputies seized more than 100,000 images of teenage girls, including 220 featuring underage girls posing nude or partially nude, police said.

Grady, 42, has pleaded innocent to 886 felony counts of violating a state statute against sexual exploitation of children. He remains in jail in lieu of $500,000 bail and could face a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted at his trial, currently scheduled to begin on Oct. 3.

The case against Smith may be the strongest of the three, since it is based on the frequently used federal child pornography statute.

In a statement announcing Smith’s indictment, U.S. Attorney Todd Graves said that investigators had seized copies the child pornography that Smith allegedly was selling and had obtained guilty pleas from three ancillary figures in the case, who apparently are cooperating with authorities.

Attempts by MSNBC.com to reach Smith’s attorney were unsuccessful.

‘EROTIC NUDITY’ AT ISSUE

The case against Grady will largely rest on a section of a Colorado state law prohibiting sexual exploitation of children that deals with “erotic nudity,” which it defines as the display of genitals, pubic area or the breast area “for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or stimulation.”

Prosecutors say that Grady, who has a criminal record that includes theft, fraud and contempt-of-court convictions, mingled his professional glamour photography business with hard-core adult porn and teen “model” sites. The 886 counts filed against him include four violations of the law for each of the 220 photos featuring 13 underage girls that prosecutors say were found in Grady’s offices and on his computers.

Grayson Robinson, the undersheriff of Arapahoe County, who was involved in the April 5 raid on Grady’s businesses, told MSNBC.com that the photos featured both “full nudity … and kind of opaque nudity through sheer clothing.”

Grady’s attorney, Andrew Contiguglia, hinted during a preliminary hearing on May 29 that he will argue that the photos were fashion photos that had artistic merit, telling the court, “I have not heard anything related to sexual purpose.” The artistic merit argument has been used successfully by a number of photographers to defend their images of nude or partly nude children.

But Robinson, the undersheriff, said it isn’t likely to carry much weight given the circumstances in which the photos were taken.

‘CLEARLY EXPLOITIVE’

“Where we are focused is the sexual exploitation of juveniles, and this is clearly exploitive of young girls who are not old enough to sign contracts or make a variety of life’s decisions,” he said.

In the case of the Arkansas couple, the videotape seized during a search of the home and the circumstances in which the search warrant was obtained are expected to be key as prosecutors seek to prove that they violated a state law barring “engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium.”

Prosecutor Tom Tatum II told MSNBC.com that the material on the tape was “significantly more explicit” than the images of the daughter on the Web site, though “a couple of the photos (posted there) maybe crossed the line as well.”

A news group posting requesting donations to help pay the Cummingses’ legal expenses, which was sent from the same email account that James Cummings used to register his daughter’s Web site, described the videotape as being 3-years-old — shot when the daughter was 9 — and stated that it did not contain nudity.

The post, which was filed to a news group devoted to sex topics on Nov. 2, 2001, also stated that sheriff’s deputies obtained a search warrant for the Cummings home by falsely claiming that the couple was selling videotapes of their daughter on the Web site.

SEARCH WARRANT QUESTIONED

An attorney for the Cummingses, David Dunagin, declined to discuss the evidence against his clients, but indicated that the circumstances under which the search warrant was obtained could prove an avenue for appeal if they are convicted.

Even before the courts rule, the cases have added fuel to what was an already superheated debate over the preteen and teen “model” sites.

Foley, the Florida congressman, seized on the issue last year after NBC’s Miami affiliate, WTVJ/NBC 6, reported that a company in his home state, Webe Web Inc., had created at least a half dozen sites featuring teen and preteen girls. After asking the FBI to investigate the sites, the congressman announced in March that he would introduce a bill that would ban sites that “do not promote products or services beyond the child.”

But Jeffrey J. Douglas, chairman of the board of the Free Speech Coalition, an adult-industry trade association, said such an approach is “utterly unconstitutional” as well as unnecessary.

“The problem isn’t the Web sites,” he said. “If there are Web sites that are literally promoting child porn, those laws already exist. If it’s a matter of trying to address people’s poor taste in eroticizing children … I don’t think there’s a federal solution to that problem.”

The unwanted attention from law enforcement and legislators has prompted at least a handful of operators to shut down their sites or eliminate all photos of underage “models” until the legal landscape is more certain.

SITE OPERATORS LAY LOW

“I’ve actually had guys who were running other (model) sites ... email me and ask me to remove their links because they want to lay low,” said Mundy, the operator of the BayouGirls site.

But while others fade into the background, a handful of operators like Mundy are stepping forward to defend their sites against what they see as political grandstanding.

“I think it’s a huge overreaction,” David Leiber, who runs the Bekah-teen-model site, said of Foley’s proposed legislation. “The thing that makes me sad is that there are a lot of children that are being exploited — kids who are being beaten to death, sexually abused — and those issues are being ignored.”

Leiber added that he is not exploiting the 13-year-old girl featured in “hundreds of photos” and video clips available on the site for those willing to pay $14.95 a month.

“She’s trying to get noticed so she can model for J.C. Penny and things like that,” he said.

But Mariana Dunn, who has engaged in an undercover crusade over the past eight months to document the excesses of individual “model” sites, said her experience indicates that the sites are “as addictive, as haunting, as mesmerizing, and just as ... harmful to the children involved as the hard-core (child pornography sites).”

And she said that she fears the problem will grow exponentially if lawmakers don’t crack down hard.

“Owners scared of the current climate closed their sites and are waiting; some sites continue to operate, waiting also,” said Dunn, who agreed to be interviewed on the condition she not be identified by her real name, which she said would endanger her evidence-gathering efforts. “... I feel failure of Foley’s efforts will open the floodgates.”

[press]

YOU can defend child porn, larry flint, the industry, the sexual exploitation of children. Not me. I'm conservative.

[GreenEggsHam]

There is no shortage of sexual suggestiveness in the 12-18 age range.
++++++
That doesn't surprise me. I was talking more about the younger ones...but you're right about their maybe not comprehending what they're going to be used for or what the implications are. Those young kid beauty pageants gross me out!!!

[That Subliminal Kid]

I think it's time to bring back public hangings.

[Teacher317]

If the kids are working for Gap or something legitimate, it's fine. If they're only selling pictures of themselves or videotapes of themselves, it's illegal.

But then you get Abercrombie's catalog of nudes "selling" sweaters and fashion accessories, sold for "legitimate" purposes, using the same kids as models. There's virtually no way to make the distinction, and the attempt almost always results in unintended consequences.

Besides, the kids aren't the ones who created the website linked in post #9. No nudes (which they very prominently post), and some rather normal photos that look like the shots anyone might have in their photo albums. I'll post an example and pray I don't get banned:

If THAT is illegal to own or view, then MTV Spring break is in BIG trouble. ;^)

[ChicagahAl]

"If the kids are working for Gap or something legitimate, it's fine. If they're only selling pictures of themselves or videotapes of themselves, it's illegal." Sounds rather Sovietish. "All right, Comrade, the thought police don't consider your activities legitimate, therefore get in the back of the van." The feminist left and the religious right have been in bed together on the child-porn scam for a long time. They went to congress a few years ago and begged for tougher laws because they just weren't catching enough child pornographers, at least not compared to the number that they contend are out there. Since then, they have tried, and unfortunately succeeded at times, to make any picture of a 17 year old be considered kiddie-porn. Some congresscritter (who's name escapes me at the moment) even proposed recently to make it illegal for anyone to take any picture of anyone 17 or under. No more school pictures, senior pictures, baby pictures of your kids on the wall, no more family albums. Brilliant! The reality is that there are very few adults who find actual children attractive, adults are not biologically programmed that way. The true sickos are the feminazis and religious reich who both aspire to be the national thought police. Now that is something to fear. Whenever you hear the words, "For the children", or "Exploitation", grab your wallet with one hand and your copy of the Bill of Rights with the other hand; they'll both need protecting.

[D.P.Roberts]

I'm reminded of New York's former censor, Anthony Comstock, who would go into a theatre, demand a picture of a play's leading lady, take it back to his room with him, and emerge later to declare whether she was depraved or not, thereby determining whether the play would be shut down. Bet Anthony thought he was a conservative, too. What do you think he was?

[rwfromkansas]

How about this abercrombie photo:

Certainly this young woman is very attractive, but the way this is posed is clearly intended to sell clothes by selling sex. Abercrombie has gotten in trouble in the past for its sometimes-almost erotic imagery. This picture is nothing compared to what they have gotten people in an uproar over before.

[truenospinzone]

Not me. I'm conservative.

No, you aren't. You are asking for new laws to be enacted, as opposed to enforcing existing laws in a consisitent manner. You are asking the government to outlaw not only that which is explicitly harmful to minors, but also that which might be harmful in the hands of some. In other words, you are asking for laws against thought, not action. You know, like hate crimes. And we all know how "conservative" hate crimes are, don't we?

[Wright is right!]

Well, ALL of the TV networks have, at one time or another, broadcast videotapes of Jon Benet Ramsey performing at child beauty pageants. Many of the routines done by the contestants in these pageants feature a certain amount of "allure." Are we now to suggest that all of the broadcast networks have been putting "child porn" out over the airwaves?

I agree that it's time for a re-classification of what exactly is a "child" and what "child porn" is. To me, a "child" is a very young innocent - a sexually non-sentient pre-pubescent. Just because a child might "know" what sex is, the fact that they are not sexually-sentient means that they don't have the hormonal urges that life brings on at puberty. I find porn involving these children to be one of the most morally repugnant of sins.

However, these's a huge difference between the little 5, 6, and 7-year old Jon Benets of the world and the fully ripe, adult-sized (and usually adult-appearing) teens. Most of these gals are as developed as they'll ever be and probably know more about sensuality than the average 25-year old in the age when most of us here grew up. They may lack the maturity to enter into complex legal contracts, and they may exhibit a lot of the ill-guided behaviors of youth, but it's a real political stretch to refer to them as "children." They are, in fact, children only in the strictest and most arbitrary of legal senses - prohibited by their elders from even having a chance to make choices of their own and learning from them the consequences of their actions. Can you say, once again, "NANNY STATE?" I knew you could.

I will never condone the exploitation of minors - but there needs to be (and will NOT be due to ludicrous political reasons) a re-examination of the entire issue of Age Of Consent, Adolescence vs. Childhood, and the Age Of Majority.

This is all brought to you by the Laws Of Unintended Consequences. A century ago, people left school at 13, married and started families shortly thereafter and became productive adults by their mid-teens. The educational establishment, ever hungry to expand its power base and silently acquiesced to by fathers wanting to clutch their daughters close to the bosom of home until later in life, have false-prolonged "childhood" PAST childhood, PAST almost all of true adolescences and into real biological adulthood.

And then they have the temerity to call someone just a year or so short of their artificially-inflated age of adulthood "a child."

Child porn is dead dead wrong. And so is what society has done to keep people classified artificially as "children" when they're not.

Michael

[AppyPappy]

In the raid, which interrupted live chat session featuring a scantily clad 18-year-old “model,” deputies seized more than 100,000 images of teenage girls, including 220 featuring underage girls posing nude or partially nude, police said.

It sometimes helps to read the article.

[AppyPappy]

A century ago, people left school at 13, married and started families shortly thereafter and became productive adults by their mid-teens.

It's amazing what great lengths people will stretch to make pedophilia acceptable. Now you are going to tell me that it was OK for priests to seduce young boys because young girls used to get married.

[Wright is right!]

"The feminist left and the religious right have been in bed together on the child-porn scam for a long time. They went to congress a few years ago and begged for tougher laws because they just weren't catching enough child pornographers, at least not compared to the number that they contend are out there. Since then, they have tried, and unfortunately succeeded at times, to make any picture of a 17 year old be considered kiddie-porn."

You're right - but you're wagging the symptom, not the root cause. The real culprits are those who sought to prolong childhood in the first place - those who had a real economic incentive to do so, the educators. Instead of teaching kids as fast as they can learn, they teach them less and less each year, but keep them more and more years. Unwittingly, they have supplied your feminists and those of the religious reich their new, desperately-wanted class of "victims."

Michael

[AppyPappy]

The difference between a conservative and a libertarian is that a conservative wants to stop crime BEFORE it happens and a libertarian wants to stop crime AFTER it happens. When I look at the current problems with pedophilia and child molestation, I don't see the biggest problem being false arrest.

[AppyPappy]

Opposite. We are trying to turn children into adults WAY too early and they are not able to handle it.

[Lazamataz]

It sometimes helps to read the article.

"lawmakers [will] attempt to craft legislation to clamp down on Internet sites featuring [fully clothed] preteen and teen 'models'"

Why yes, it does.

[Wright is right!]

"It's amazing what great lengths people will stretch to make pedophilia acceptable."

Pedos like pre-pubescents. Pedos don't like teens. However GAY PEDERASTIC PRIESTS DO like teen boys. Your reply is a non-sensical non-sequitur.

Michael

[AppyPappy]

lawmakers [will] attempt to craft legislation to clamp down on Internet sites featuring [fully clothed] preteen and teen 'models'"

The phrase "Fully-clothed" never appears in the article. Do a search.

[AppyPappy]

So it is OK to molest a 13 year-old because it isn't pedophilia?

[D.P.Roberts]

Do your comments ever follow from what was said?

[GreenEggsHam]

As life spans increase...blah blah blah. In my parents generation it wasn't uncommon to marry and have children at a young age. That doesn't happen much anymore and as society adapts we don't equip teenagers to deal with the responsibilities of marriage and children. While some might say that teens will be teens, *ADULTS* should not be promoting or exploiting the sexuality of anyone, let alone anyone under the age of 18. The Jon Benet Ramsey stuff makes me sick to my stomach. Maybe it's just me. But I don't find 5 year old girls who look like 21-year-olds pouting and sticking their rears out while they sing "My Heart Belongs To Daddy" to be "cute" in any way. And yes, the TV networks ate it up. Sex sells.