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

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

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

“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.”

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?

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!"

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

	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%

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!!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.