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.”

[Lazamataz]

You were adding editorial content. You were assuming "fully clothed" when you meant "had on some form of clothing". My child cannot go to school in a bikini because she is not "fully clothed" in my eyes.

But certainly she is able to go to the public swimming pool? Or are you unwilling to let her go there, on the chance a pedophile might get a charge by looking at her?

But your point about "fully clothed" is well-taken. Please amend my quote to say lawmakers [will] attempt to craft legislation to clamp down on Internet sites featuring [decently clothed] preteen and teen 'models'"

[Lazamataz]

There is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children.

Ergo, there is no limit to the actions you would arrest people for, in the Quest to Eliminate Child Exploitation.

You should be working for Child Protective Services. They already think like this.

[AppyPappy]

How about "lawmakers attempt to craft legislation to clamp down on Internet sites featuring preteen and teen 'models'"?

[AppyPappy]

Ergo, there is no limit to the actions you would arrest people for, in the Quest to Eliminate Child Exploitation.

While you are stooping so low, how about tying my shoe?

[Lazamataz]

It is wise to include context in a given quote, so I stand by my contextually-sound "lawmakers [will] attempt to craft legislation to clamp down on Internet sites featuring [decently clothed] preteen and teen 'models'".

[Lazamataz]

I came to a reasonable conclusion based on the premise you offered, which was "There is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children."

If there is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children, and if sexual exploitation of children should be vigorously prosecuted, then it follows that there is no limit to the actions that should be vigorously prosecuted.

[Redcloak]

...a conservative wants to stop crime BEFORE it happens...

Isn't that a Tom Cruise movie?

[Tis The Time''s Plague]

Get your Burqas. From birth to death - everyone wears a burqa. No exceptions.

[Demidog]

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).”

Sounds like this woman is attempting to diagnose everyone else with her affliction.

Clearly there is a difference between real porn and these "teen-model" sites and this article is irresponsibly written because it attempts to paint the innocuous (even though bizarre) sites with the real pornography sites.

At any rate, I seem to remember a prohibition on Congress about speech. If there are actual crimes being committed then lets prosecute the perps. Otherwise, let's not pretend that there's some huge conspiracy here to market pedophilia as acceptable behavior.

Pedophiles will not rely on teen sites on the internet to get their jollies. They would presumably be just as satisfied with the child underwear section of the Sears catalogue. And they would have alot more privacy since they wouldn't be subjecting their surfing habits to the FBI.

Pedophilia is NOT NORMAL. To assume that people not posessed with the sick urge to molest children would find anything "erotic" about a 12 year old dancing in a bikini (or even naked) is absurd. Most normal people would either find such pictures cute, or might find them distasteful given that 12 year old girls and boys shouldn't be so foucused on outward appearances, but they certainly wouldn't suddenly get the urge to have sex with children.

[Demidog]

It may not qualify legally as porn, but the purpose it serves is the same: To produce a feeling of sexual excitement while viewing a child in a sexual situation.

Really? And what normal person is going to be sexually aroused by a 12 year old?

[Demidog]

However, having said that, I do think that DHS should be investigating every single family that allows their children to be treated in this fashion.

I think they'd be far more likely to catch criminals if they simply scanned this thread for people claiming that fully clothed 12 year olds were able to arouse them sexually.

[Demidog]

It sometimes helps to read the article.

Looks like you didn't read the rest of the article. It certainly did list one site which looked to be selling sex. However it wasn't the topic of the legislation and one wonders why the editor didn't balk at including it.

[Demidog]

There is no limit to the sexual exploitation of children. It should not be done.

So then you would advocate laws against child acting, using children in underwear ads in catalogues or any public display?

[GreenEggsHam]

Demidog, you're grossly misinterpreting my statement. Nowhere did I say that normal people are going to be sexually aroused by a 12 year old. Read again.

[GreenEggsHam]

However, having said that, I do think that DHS should be investigating every single family that allows their children to be treated in this fashion.
I think they'd be far more likely to catch criminals if they simply scanned this thread for people claiming that fully clothed 12 year olds were able to arouse them sexually.
++++++
Bite me, dog - Now you're grossly misquoting me. I suggest you go back outside and play hide and go **** yourself.

[Demidog]

I haven't misquoted you. I wasn't even directing it at you personally. But if I was, perhaps you'd know how the families feel whom you've decided should be investigated by some authoritarian agency simply because you think they're out of line.

If, as you've now admitted, only pedophiles will be aroused by these sites, then what in the world is any legislation going to prevent or remedy?

[GreenEggsHam]

I haven't misquoted you. I wasn't even directing it at you personally. But if I was, perhaps you'd know how the families feel whom you've decided should be investigated by some authoritarian agency simply because you think they're out of line.
If, as you've now admitted, only pedophiles will be aroused by these sites, then what in the world is any legislation going to prevent or remedy?
+++++
Ok, then to whom "in this thread" were you directing your comment? I think you're doing a little dodging here. If you'll read the entire thread instead of jumping on one post in a *discussion* you'll see that I'm not in favor of the legislation advocated by the original article. That doesn't mean that I like the sexploitation of the children, though.

[GreenEggsHam]

Further, investigation in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. If more families who are abusing children were reported...blah blah blah. if there's no abuse going on, nothing further needs to be done. I believe it's everybody's responsibility to protect children from abuse. If you're so govophobic that you're willing to sacrifice the lives of children so that you don't feel like the big bad man is gonna come knocking on your door...eh, nevermind. (but I bet you wouldn't mind getting to "decide" who the FBI/CIA investigate right about now, would you?)

[Demidog]

Further, investigation in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. If more families who are abusing children were reported...blah blah blah.

Since CPS was enacted in 1974, the number of abuse reports has skyrocketed. Unfortunately, 70% of those reports by the most conservative standards were unsubstantiated. The mere report of a crime is not beneficial to anyone concerned if there was no crime committed.

I believe it's everybody's responsibility to protect children from abuse.

Not at the expense of privacy and civil liberties for the entire nation. "He that would give up security for safety blah blah blah."

If you're so govophobic that you're willing to sacrifice the lives of children so that you don't feel like the big bad man is gonna come knocking on your door...eh, nevermind. (but I bet you wouldn't mind getting to "decide" who the FBI/CIA investigate right about now, would you?)

If it were up to me both agencies would be abolished since both are patently unconsitutional. Hope that answers your question.

[Demidog]

Ok, then to whom "in this thread" were you directing your comment?

Anyone who claimed they'd get aroused by a 12 year old in a bikini. Was that you? If so, I didn't see you say so. And if you did then I'll apologize for claiming not to direct my comments at you once I see the quote.