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

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

[jejones]

These are young children ranging from 1 to 16 hearing nothing but bathing suits...

Sounds like the Target, Kohl's, JC Penney's, and Sears advertising inserts in the Sunday paper. Do you, or the Congressmen proposing this legislation, intend to go after them next?

[jenny65]

Worse. In many cases, these aren't even children. These are adult-sized adolescents who can drive automobiles and do other adult-type activities. The left makes a lot of money by classifying 16 and 17 year olds as "children", particularly when it comes to so-called "child porn". Its time to reclassify 16 and 17 year olds as something other than children.

Yep, one minute before their 18th birthday, they're innocent children who must be protected at all costs from perverts. But one minute later it's "Hey, sexy!"

[AppyPappy]

So you think child actors are sexually exploited and underwear ads are the same as pedophilia?

It should be against the law to sexually exploi children PERIOD. A guy fucking a two-year-old is not the same as a picture of a kid in pajamas. Don't be dense.

[GreenEggsHam]

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.
+++++
How many kids lives were saved by the 30% that were? "Unsubstantiated", I'm guessing means that DHS didn't have enough evidence to pursue things further, not necessarily that abuse wasn't occurring. Reporting potential abuse of children is beneficial to all children. You can't catch criminals if you don't investigate.

(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.
+++++
Law enforcement is unconstitutional? do tell...

[GreenEggsHam]

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.
+++++
weak cop out

[Demidog]

So you think child actors are sexually exploited and underwear ads are the same as pedophilia?

You're redefining your terms now. You said any exploitation. Furthermore, by your own definition, underwear ads are sexual exploitation since you consider these teen model sites sexual exploitation.

[AppyPappy]

Underwear ads ARE sexual exploitation if they are sold as such. If a guy goes out and takes hundreds of pictures of kids in underwear so he can sell the pictures on his website, that's sexual exploitation. He's not selling the underwear, he's selling the kids.

[biblewonk]

According to you, every public pool where children are is a den of sin and pornography!

A child in a bathing suit at a swimming pool is not porn until someone enjoys a picture of video of it.

[biblewonk]

Its time to reclassify 16 and 17 year olds as something other than children.

How about jailbait.

[Salvation]

	What is the best approach for dealing with preteen and teen "model" sites?
	* 10730 responses
	Enact new laws specifically targeting the sites.  29%
	Enforce existing laws against child porn and exploitation of children.  53%
	Don't do anything; this isn't a major problem.  18%

[Windsong]

You sir are without a doubt one of the official SLIMEBALLS of Free Republic. I have observed from the sidelines how repugnant you are both in word and in spirit for months now.

RETCH!!!!!

[Lazamataz]

You sir are without a doubt one of the official SLIMEBALLS of Free Republic. I have observed from the sidelines how repugnant you are both in word and in spirit for months now. RETCH!!!!!

So xcrew off then. Don't message me any more.

We'll both be the better for it.

[Leto]

Re #88, therin lies to problem. Is a picture of a child in a bathing suit (for example taken by a parent or grandparent) not porn if there is no sexual arousal (grandma thinks the child is cute)?

Trying to legislate intent is very tricky. If you have a picture of a child being sexually assulted by an adult, then arresting the producer, and consumer of such materials is clear cut. The problem here is pictures that are innocent to a 'normal' adult which may be stimulating to a perverted sick individual.

If a child is forced to pose naked or in a sexual situation then clear harm has been done to the child, and can and should be prosecuted. If on the other hand a picture is taken of a child in a public place (a beach for example) clothed in a bathing suit, even if a sick individual were to get aroused from the sight, it would be hard to prove harm to the child, they wouldn't be aware they were even photographed.

It is tough to legislate against 'impure' thoughts, and possibly dangerous. It is better to legislate (and enforce) against harm done to people.

[biblewonk]

they wouldn't be aware they were even photographed.

There's another potential slippery slope. Suppose child porn of some greater degree than swimming were produced without the child knowing there was a camera there? This issue has about a thousand different slippery slopes involved. There is the "What about 17.9 year olds?" or "What about 16 yearolds with 16 yearolds, which is legal?" or "What about swimming suits" etc etc etc.

[Lazamataz]

I would have preferred if you had asterisked out a few of the letters on that thar cuss word, brother Apppy. Kinda jarring to read that.

[Leto]

I agree, there are lots of slippery slopes. There is (unfortunatly) more than enough to the really heinous stuff going on that unambigiously explotation/assult kids. We should focus on enforcing existing laws and prosecuting pedophiles, rather than trying to legislate and enforce on the basis of infered intent.

My wife and I find the Child Beauty pagents replusive, but I don't know how you would legally seperate the sickos out from the parents who think it is cute.

[biblewonk]

My wife and I find the Child Beauty pagents replusive, but I don't know how you would legally seperate the sickos out from the parents who think it is cute.

Even worse is the family nudist camps.

[Demidog]

He's not selling the underwear, he's selling the kids.

Let me get this straight. If a guy takes pictures from the sears catalogue and puts them on a website and charges for access, he is selling the kids, yet Sears is not exploiting kies (nor the parents apparently).

And these sites, which are purported to be created to gain popularity and entrance into the child modeling arena, are to be considered child porn even though it isn't any normal person who would view the pictures and think of having sex with a child.

[AppyPappy]

Sears is selling underwear. The pedophiles are selling the kids.

We aren't talking about normal people. We are talking about pedophiles.

[Demidog]

Sears is selling underwear. The pedophiles are selling the kids.

This is a distinction that will be discarded as soon as a prosecutor decides he needs to do so.

We aren't talking about normal people. We are talking about pedophiles.

Exactly. Which is why outlawing pictures of teenagers or children is absurd. Normal people vastly exceed the number of pedophiles.

Normal people who visit the teen modeling sites are not pedophiles. What you and others are assuming is that the only visitors to those web sites are pedophiles. That is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. None.