Replies

It takes a slightly skewed view to see a kid in a bathing suit and think "PORN!".
+++++
Not when that child is presented in a sexual/adult manner. Kid in a bathing suit, with adult hairstyle and makeup, in a sexually explicit pose is exploitation. 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.

Not when that child is presented in a sexual/adult manner. Kid in a bathing suit, with adult hairstyle and makeup, in a sexually explicit pose is exploitation. 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.

So what are we to legislate against? Sexual arousal? Kids dressing up as adults?

There are sickos who get a charge out of wearing diapers and looking at feet. Do we outlaw Depends undergarments and shoe catalogs, too? You'll never be able to remove everything that gives some weirdo an thrill. Giving government the power to arrest people for posting photos of clothed children is just begging for some serious abuse of official power.

Exactly. Now everybody please go vote for the first choice! Also, just found Foley's press release announcing his bill. He needs to hear from us. His web site is www.house.gov/foley We should all write to him:

FOLEY ANNOUNCES BILL TO BAN SO-CALLED “CHILD MODELING” WEB SITES

--‘These web sites are nothing more than a fix for pedophiles,’ Foley said. --

WASHINGTON, May. 7— Congressman Mark Foley (FL-16), Co-Chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus, today announced he is introducing a bill to ban so-called online “child modeling” web sites.

“These web sites are nothing more than a fix for pedophiles,” Foley said. “They don’t sell products, they don’t sell services – all they serve are young children on a platter for America’s most depraved. These sites sell child erotica and they must be banned immediately.”

Foley, who helped introduce legislation last week reaffirming the 1996 ban on "virtual" child pornography, said "child modeling" web sites that exploit children as young as four, five and six years old, cause immense psychological damage to the children and also put them in physical danger when contact is made with the people who visit their sites.

Contact is made, Foley said, when pedophiles who pay to see photos and video clips of the children in sexually suggestive poses send the children provocative clothing and bathing suits to “model” and converse with them via email.

In more extreme cases, “parties” have been held in hotel rooms where the pedophiles can meet the young children they have been paying to view online face to face.

Specifically, this legislation, that will be co-introduced by Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX), will ban all web sites that charge fees to view models 16 years of age and under that do not promote products or services beyond the child.

“If a child is modeling for Gap or Gucci, it’s legal. If the site is selling nothing else than the child via photos or video clips, it’s illegal,” Foley said.

The legislation will be addressed under Title 18 of the Criminal Code as well as the Fair Labor and Standards Act.