Pre-teen modeling site is raising an ...

Pre-teen modeling site is raising an uproar

There are 243 comments on the WTSP Tampa Bay story from Aug 12, 2007, titled Pre-teen modeling site is raising an uproar. In it, WTSP Tampa Bay reports that:

Investigators say there is nothing they can do to stop a central Florida man from putting pictures of scantily clad, pre-teen models on a website.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WTSP Tampa Bay.

luvspreteens

Springfield, MA

#140 Nov 14, 2009
gotta love those preteen cameltoes!!!

“I'm real”

Since: Jun 09

A-town

#141 Nov 15, 2009
Dude that's sick bro.

It should be illegal to purposely exploit young children that way.
what

Albuquerque, NM

#142 Nov 16, 2009
this needs to be stopped asap this encourages pedophelia these children are way to young to know what there parents are having them do is wrong in many ways lets get chris hansen on the job

“I'm real”

Since: Jun 09

A-town

#143 Nov 17, 2009
Exactly...i've read up on the legality of it, and since no nudity is shown, and it adheres to a certain legal code on child porn, it isn't technically illegal...but honestly...why would you need underwear models for children? Their parents are the ones selecting the underwear, and what 8 year old is wearing thongs in real life?

They are hiding behind a legal code, so lets get that code changed.
commenter

Buffalo, NY

#144 Nov 17, 2009
You have the exact correct idea jpcyz. Time to get that legal code changed and NOW. It should have been changed the very first year that this trash began to be produced by the creep-bast@#ds producing it. And those kids should have been TAKEN FROM their parents and their parents charged with NEGLIGENCE. Let's get the laws changed NOW. It starts by getting legislators to look at the wording of the existing law and getting them to change the wording in a bill that is put up for a vote.

We have to draw up a list of actual steps to take this from being talked about to being done. The first step is for there to be an organization dedicated to changing these laws. When I have a chance, I will research to see if such an organization already exists or not. When you have a chance, do the same and we'll report back here on this posting board. If an organization exists we can join them and work on this and get other people to join. If such an organization does not exist, we will start one online.

I live in the northeast and I am going to see if this trash is legal here. But I've only heard of it being produced in Florida. Do you know if it is only legal in certain states? When you have a chance, research it. When I have a chance, I will research it also and report back here on this posting board. Then we need to see how the existing laws are written and how the wording of those laws would need to be changed to stop this. The new wording of new laws has to be put together by a legislator with legal help and then a legislator must sponsor a bill to pass that law.

That's how we get things like this done in our democracy and that's how it's done all the time. It just takes follow-through. We should never, ever just throw up our hands and say "well, what can we do? We can't do anything." Of course we can do something. We can put a STOP to it with our laws. Hurray for people who think like you do jpcyz. Hurray for all of us in this world who actually do what it takes to follow through and get things changed for the better in our world. I will do the research I mentioned above when I have a chance and will report what I found back here on this posting board. It might not be til after the holidays, but I will do my part. We WILL get this done and we WILL see the day when those parents have their children taken from them and they are prosecuted in court for child neglect and child endangerment and corrupting the morals of a minor. And we WILL see the day when those photographers are looking at the world through the bars of a prison cell rather than through a camera lens.

“I'm real”

Since: Jun 09

A-town

#145 Nov 17, 2009
well here is a little info from a Fox News site:
"The sites post these suggestive poses with a disclaimer that apparently fits perfectly through a loophole in our laws. Each site has the identical disclaimer: All models on this site have their parents consent to appear on this site and have signed authorization and Model release papers. NO NUDE or sexual oriented pictures inside. Only art images you will find here. But aren’t these legal “pre-teen model” sites effectively getting away with child pornography-lite, and at the children’s expense? And of course I had to wonder, aren’t there laws to protect us from this sort of thing?

There are federal laws and state laws that protect our children from this industry. The Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 is a federal law that prohibits the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” of a child, and can include “non-nude depictions.” The problem with prosecuting many of these Web sites under this Federal Act, however, is that prosecutors would have to prove “lascivious intent” on the part of the Web site owners or parents in order to have a valid claim — and this is is not an easy task given that the Web sites classify these young children as “models” and include the “art form” disclaimer.

State law may be an easier win, depending on whether a particular state has granted more protection. State statutes vary, but “reckless endangerment” of a child may be a potential legal remedy. That only requires a prosecutor show that posing for the Web site subjected the child to a “substantial risk of harm.” Arguably, the pre-teen modeling Web sites present both potential physical harm from a pedophile stalker and potential psychological problems from being exploited. A prosecutor would have to show concrete risks to children from working with these pre-teen modeling sites though, rather than just the hypothetical about the potential dangers —which may be hard to do.

And shutting down these Web sites presents the question of freedom of expression under the First Amendment. We tolerate many disturbing things in the name of our First Amendment, and the bad and the ugly come with the good! The President of the National Center for Missing and Exploited teens, Dr. Ernie Allen, expressed the organization’s position on child “model” sites:“Outrageous! Our view is that they clearly exploit children and take advantage of the fine legal distinction between illegal child pornography and child erotica. The overwhelming motive and intended purpose is to whet the appetite of child predators and pedophiles.”

Some members of Congress seem to have taken on a similar outlook. The “Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act of 2002” would have prohibited employing or displaying a minor under the age of 17 in “exploitive child modeling,” which was defined as “the display of a minor without a direct or indirect purpose of marketing a product or service other than the minor.” The bill was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce in 2002, and the Committee on the Judiciary. It never became law though.

And that’s the closest we’ve gotten to closing this legal loophole. So is the war over, or has it just begun? I guess only time will tell. I just hope these pre-teen "models" aren’t the ones to pay the price for our dragging our collective heels."
Rebas

Coquitlam, Canada

#146 Nov 17, 2009
Wow! These are some real hotties!! Nothing better than a coquettish 11 year old in lil' panties!! Bet jpcyz has a stable of 'em!

“I'm real”

Since: Jun 09

A-town

#147 Nov 17, 2009
Title 18: Pt 1 :Chapter 110 :
§ 2256. Definitions for chapter
How Current is This?
For the purposes of this chapter, the term—
(1)“minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B),“sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B)[1] of this section,“sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(3)“producing” means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(4)“organization” means a person other than an individual;
(5)“visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and data which is capable of conversion into a visual image that has been transmitted by any means, whether or not stored in a permanent format;
(6)“computer” has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;
(7)“custody or control” includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;
(8)“child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(9)“identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.
(10)“graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and
(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

This is the law that these people use to hide behind...basically because no nudity is involved, and no sexual acts are being simulated, it isn't child pornography.

This comes from CorNell University's site.

“I'm real”

Since: Jun 09

A-town

#148 Nov 17, 2009
http://www.adultweblaw.com/laws/childporn.htm

here's an interesting site detailing the law.
commenter

Buffalo, NY

#149 Nov 19, 2009
Rebas is a weiro. Whoever you are 'Rebas' here's a newsflash for you: let me inform you of something you are obviously too ignorant or evil to know: There actually are tons of people - hundreds of millions of people just in the America/Canada area alone - who do not have ANY sexual thoughts or urges WHATSOEVER towards children. Shock you? Ignorant, ill-informed people like you have the idea that everyone DOES have those urges. You probably think anyone who says they don't is just not being honest. Get a brain. People who do NOT want there to be laws to force people to use seatbelts will not fight FOR laws to force people to use seatbelts. Unless a person actually is a politician in government and wants to get re-elected - a person does not stand up and argue for laws AGAINST something if they actually want to be allowed to DO that something. It's common sense.

People like jpcyz and myself just make people like you feel inferior because you have sexual thoughts and urges towards children and we don't. That's why you try to - UNSUCCESSFULLY - claim that we do the very thing that we are fighting against. It ridiculously makes you feel better about yourself. Don't fool yourself. MOST people are like jpcyz and myself on this issue (and all the other people on this posting board who understand the things we understand). WE are NORMAL, civilized, wise, educated people. YOU are not.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION JPCYZ: THE WAR HAS JUST BEGUN. It's just a matter of keeping up with the creeps. Like the U.S. government periodically has to change the way our dollar bills are made in order to stop producers of counterfeit money in their tracks, we simply have to keep up with the ways these child 'model' photographers use loopholes and then re-create the laws accordingly. In the end we will get a law that is worded sufficiently. BRAVO to you jpcyz for the research you did and for reporting it here. Men like you are REAL men.

“I'm real”

Since: Jun 09

A-town

#150 Nov 19, 2009
Now we need to think of some ways that we can change the law, to include this type of medium for exploitation as Child Porn.
Chad

Columbia, MO

#151 Nov 22, 2009
This is sickening and taking pictures of children should be outlawed. That is away to close the loopholes that allow these sickos to post online pictures of kids.

“I'm real”

Since: Jun 09

A-town

#152 Nov 23, 2009
So my idea on closing the loophole would have to involve a list of angles that attempt to stimulate the sexual lobes of the brain. These angles would be defined through psychological tests, which would subject test subjects to varying non-sexual images of women, bents and placed in different positions. The ones taht are defined as sexually stimulating would therefore be illegal to take of children, and garments that don't cover a certain Percentage/ length of a child should be illegal to take pictures in.
commenter

Niagara Falls, NY

#153 Nov 23, 2009
That is genius! jpcyz we need you in this effort!

I think an additional good idea would be this: the law would look at all of the photo and video and business activities of photographers, videographers and business-people creating these images. If ANY other area of their money-making activities is of a sexual nature at all, THAT IS A TIP-OFF RIGHT THERE - and the law would require that they DO NOT have ANY image-producing contact with children. Please let me know what you think of this idea.

“I'm real”

Since: Jun 09

A-town

#154 Nov 23, 2009
Not a bad idea commenter...so you are saying that if you have a history of nude photography or sexualized photography, you are automatically withheld from child photography? I think it would work as long as you state that the only way you can have any child photos taken by a photographer of this nature is with the following stipulations:

1) Must have a legal contract, with both parent's/guardian's consent.
2) All clothing must cover a certain percentage, and be loose, as to not stimulate sexual deviants.
commenter

Buffalo, NY

#155 Nov 24, 2009
Actually, no. Someone who is in the business of pornography would automatically be prevented by law from doing ANY photography or videography of children.(The only thing that would have to be worked out would be the question of how to write the law regarding their own kids.) Pornographers and creators of 'erotic' images would automatically be disallowed from having anything to do whatsoever in an image-making capacity with children. I do not care WHATSOEVER whether they would like that or not. WHO CARES what the photographers/videographers would think or feel about that? It's not about them. It's about being proactive to protect kids, which is obviously necessary. A pornographer has no business creating images of kids. Period. I support civil liberties but, when it comes to protecting kids, the rights of kids to be protected must trump the 'rights' of adults to their 'expression' or money-making activies. Period.
commenter

Buffalo, NY

#156 Nov 24, 2009
I understand what you were trying to say about the parents consenting, but the problem with that is that with the pre-teen and teen 'modeling' we're talking about the parents already do consent to that. But those kinds of 'parents' (and/or 'guardians') are a huge part of the problem themselves.
max

Maywood, IL

#157 Dec 11, 2009
there is a site top non nude per teens and one is naturalposes magazine and it is on right there r grils on there posing in bad way it is sickingand disgustingthat young as 6 years old r exposedlike porn stars there needs to be a law to stop them
max

Maywood, IL

#158 Dec 11, 2009
can u report site like that to the police there r little girls as young as 6 posing like porn stars in site like perteen no nude site it is sicking and digusting the site was (top madels no nude) and it had 25 site one was naturalposes magazines
commenter

Buffalo, NY

#159 Dec 12, 2009
Call your congressmember and ask what they are doing to end this stuff. Ask for specifics. You can also email your congressmember. International laws and law enforcement need to be strengthened. The U.S. has clout to weild. The U.S. needs to put sanctions on countries that do not do as much as they can to stop children from being treated like that.

Children's time should be spent in studying academics and doing homework and then in simply playing with other children and spending regular time with their family - not being put in skimpy 'clothing' and posed. They are being used. They are also being taught wrong things in the process. It is like pornography training school.

Obviously laws are not strong enough internationally, but they are also not strong enough in the U.S. There needs to be a strong-enough FEDERAL law governing all 50 states and D.C., etc. Call your congressmember's office and ask for specifics on what they are doing - if anything - to change laws that allow this in the U.S. Then ask what they are doing to strengthen international laws. Do not take their word for it if they make it sound like they are doing enough. Politicians have a way of making themselves sound great no matter what. Look online for agencies that fight things like this and see if any of them have a 'report card' for members of congress regarding whether your congressmember does enough to stop this. The kind of organizations that come to mind are 'The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,' and 'Shared Hope International,' etc. Also look above at the research of 'jpcyz' and begin to educate yourself about what the current laws are and how they would need to change. Congressmembers usually only pay attention to issues that voters express an interest in. If you call them about an issue then they know that you are serious about it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min sonicfilter 1,457,536
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 27 min Basil Fomeen 62,297
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 4 hr zazz 98,268
News If ex-felons pay their dues to society, let's g... (Jun '08) 6 hr Your stupid pro-e... 1,167
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 8 hr Murphey_Law 512,860
News The 10 commandments of cancer prevention (May '09) Thu Trying to be hopeful 36
News Should men wear pantyhose for warmth? It's not ... (Jan '09) Thu Troup54 233

Orlando Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages