Posted on 07/11/2002 9:37:26 AM PDT by 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.”
If you're referring to the ilk of Jon Benet Ramsey and the myriad of kiddie beauty pageants, you're right. However, as for the matter of older, post-pubescent adult-sized youngsters, I'll refer you to the Final Examination, posted here in FR that I'm sure SOMEONE will provide the URL to, that all graduates of secondary education were expected to pass at age 13 back around the turn of the 20th century in this country. Compare that with what the educators now call "an elementary education" in TODAY'S schools.
We used to let our young grow up at their own paces. Today, we force everyone to grow up at the pace of the slowest - and then stupidly call ALL of them "children."
Just another example of dumbing-down.
Michael
Not true. How far are you, as a conservative, willing to go to stop crime before it happens? Because, you know, guns in the hands of the wrong people are used in a lot of crimes, and taking those guns away would stop those crimes, correct? Alcohol causes a lot of people to drink and drive, and taking away alcohol from all adults would stop most DUI crimes, correct?
Look, the fact that there are adult men who find the sight of a thirteen-year-old girl in a bikini sexually arousing absolutely disgusts me. But taking that disgust to the next level, i.e. passing a law stating that pictures of thirteen-year-old girls in bikinis are not allowed to be posted on the internet, will cause more problems than it solves. Just wait until the first wife presents an online photo album her husband keeps with one or two photos of their preteen daughter and her friends in swimwear to a divorce-court judge, claiming "child pornography".
Child pornography - still or video images of children under the age of eighteen nude or in sexually explicit situations - is a crime, and there are existing laws that deal with this crime. Making arguments on an individual basis that certain images that do not strictly fall under that definition (children in wet t-shirts, children posed in sexually implicit positions) is absolutely valid. Creating new laws that make a blanket statement that all such images are illegal is not, because invariably, law-abiding citizens will be prosecuted under those laws.
There is no justifiable reason for charging people to look at scantily-dressed young teens. You can twist it using justification but in the end, we all know what is happening. We need new laws when the pedophiles use loopholes to escape the old laws. The problem in this country is NOT too LITTLE pedophilia. It is too much. Allowing children to be used for ANY sexual purposes including sexual modeling is only going to increase sexual crimes against them.
Exactly. And pictures of scantily-clad young teens do not CAUSE crime, either. They are, perhaps, a contributing factor, although I somehow doubt that:
(a) an otherwise normal citizen with no history of pedophilia will suddenly decide to molest a child because he sees a provocative photo, or
(b) a pedophile will decide NOT to molest a child because he can't look at provocative photos of children online anymore.
In fact, the incredibly unlikelihood of option (b) is why I see no reason for a law here. Stopping this admittedly disgusting practice will do absolutely nothing to stop violent pedophiles from harming children.
It will slow the need for more pictures of exploited children to be displayed. These children are being USED for sex and the people doing it should be punished. The web site owners are selling children and sex.
You cannot convince me that the legal need for these websites is more compelling than the need to stop sexually exploiting these children.
But I can see how they were thought to have been guilty. After all, they had a magic room, ate elephants, had robots running across the room chasing children, and put a butchers knife in a little girls vagina.
So are amusement parks, water parks, public beaches, shopping malls, etc...
I don't need to search for a specific phrase, since I scored rather high on my reading-comprehension scores in school.
"wearing revealing attire"
Swim suits, form fitting clothing. aka Fully clothed.
WELL BY G-D MAN! WE NEED TO ARREST EVERY ADULT THAT GOES THERE AS A PEDOPHILE!
Translation: I don't need to search for a specific phrase, since I made it up.
And are you channeling Kevin Curry?
Please search for the phrase "wearing revealing attire".
An apology for your claim I made it up will be appreciated when it is received, so thanks in advance.
Here is what you said QUOTE "lawmakers [will] attempt to craft legislation to clamp down on Internet sites featuring [fully clothed] preteen and teen 'models'"
You made up the quote. Now you want me to apologize because you made up a quote. You are channeling Porndog.
Agreed. But what is your limit for the definition of sexual exploitation of children? So far, you have told me you do not limit it to pictures of fully-clothed children. Thusly, by your own definition, you are a child pornographer.
You are being purposefully inane. There is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children. It should not be done. There is a difference between posting a picture of your kid in a bathing suit and creating a website that has hundreds of pictures of kids in bathing suits that you charge people $39 to see. If you can't see that, I can't help you.
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.