The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-01-2006, 01:27 PM
astro astro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Non-nude "suggestive" kiddie posing sites being prosecuted as porn- Slippery slope?

It's pretty obvious that the sites like "Lil-Amber" are mainly for those with pedophile type tastes. According to the article the site has been fairly scrupulous about no-nude photos and sticks mainly to underwear, bathing suit, and pajama shots.

Is stretching the boundaries of porn to suggestive, non-nude posing going to have any ramifications on how "porn" (of all types) can be defined and prosecuted in the future?

Quote:
“The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine,” U.S. Attorney Alice H. Martin said in a statement announcing the indictments and the closure of all the Webe Web sites. “Here lewd has met lucrative, and exploitation of a child’s innocence equals profits.”

In an e-mail interview, Martin told MSNBC.com that prosecutors will press charges against the defendants for photos showing the young girls scantily clothed but not nude under a federal statute that deems images that “show lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” to be child pornography.

No nudity, but ‘sexually suggestive poses’
“There are no semi-nude or nude images,” she said. “The children are dressed in underwear, adult lingerie, high heels, etc., and placed in sexually suggestive poses which focus the viewer's attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity.”

If convicted of all charges, Greenberg and Libman could be sent to prison for up to 20 years and fined up to $250,000 for each count. They also face forfeiture of all proceeds from the Web sites.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 12-01-2006, 01:44 PM
fessie fessie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Maybe not, because from the way they operated these men clearly weren't running a legitimate modeling agency. Parents who have those aspirations for their children really need to do their homework; actually, in this day and age, we have an obligation to check out anyone and everyone to whom we hand over our children, whether it's a photographer, basketball coach or local priest.

In terms of the photographs themselves, follow the money. It's possible to take even nude photographs of children that aren't pornographic, but they wouldn't be marketed to online pervs. Putting kids in fishnet stockings, and then posting it online --- what other purpose could that be serving?

The sad thing is, there are plenty of parents who won't post pictures of their kids under any circumstances, out of fear that it'll be wank material for some asshole.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-01-2006, 03:21 PM
divemaster divemaster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Gainesville, VA
Posts: 3,036
Isn't there a definiton of pornography that does not require images or descriptions of a sexual or lacivious nature? I've heard phrases such as "the violence depicted in the film was so intense, it crossed over into the pornographic." If the word can be defined apart from sex, then maybe it could be applied to something otherwise disturbing (which this website seems to be).

Failing that, is there a means by which someone could be prosecuted for "exploitation of children" withough being engaged in child pornography? Kids being used to gratify the desires of men is exploitative in my book. That might cast a wider net for some of these sleazy dealings.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-01-2006, 03:49 PM
Oakminster Oakminster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
BLEH...I hit the wrong button and caused the incomplete post above. Would someone please report it for deletion?

If the text quoted in the OP accurately reflects the federal law--then it does appear fairly applied to this website. I don't see this as a slippery slope. I don't see an innocent explanation for a "membership" site for pictures of kids as described in the linked article. A legitimate modeling agency would probably make portfolios of it's clients available to potential advertisers free of charge. With kids involved, I also think it is reasonable to expect the modeling agency to take some precautions to protect the children from perverts--verification of a legitimate business existing, that kind of thing.

Bottom line, I'm prepared to accept this prosecution at face value. It appears to be a proper effort to enforce a statute intended to protect kids.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-01-2006, 06:41 PM
KGS KGS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Porn Capital USA
Posts: 4,657
Just wanted to say I found this part of the article darkly amusing:

Quote:
The sites also attracted the attention of Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who in 2002 introduced a bill called the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act to attempt to tighten restrictions on the sale of photographs of minors.
Heh. Bloody hypocrite.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-01-2006, 09:10 PM
Lakai Lakai is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 4,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro
It's pretty obvious that the sites like "Lil-Amber" are mainly for those with pedophile type tastes.
That is actually ok as long as you don't have actual children posing.

Quote:
Is stretching the boundaries of porn to suggestive, non-nude posing going to have any ramifications on how "porn" (of all types) can be defined and prosecuted in the future?
Porn is not prosecuted unless it has child actors in it or is displayed publicly. Privately anything but porn with child actors is acceptable.

It seems they are only "stretching" this law because children are involved. I don't know if it will be applied to Victoria Secret ads, but somehow I highly doubt it.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-02-2006, 02:37 AM
Shalmanese Shalmanese is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,119
This is just the continued push by Ashcroft and Co to expand the role of government under the guise of attacking child pornographers because they know that nobody important is going to stand in public and defend them.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-02-2006, 03:58 AM
Rigamarole Rigamarole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakai
Porn is not prosecuted unless it has child actors in it or is displayed publicly. Privately anything but porn with child actors is acceptable.
What about bestiality? I thought that was illegal too.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-02-2006, 03:27 PM
Lakai Lakai is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 4,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigamarole
What about bestiality? I thought that was illegal too.
That depends on the state.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-02-2006, 06:22 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
There's a show on E! right now about these "child erotica" sites.

Quite honestly, I have to question the judgement of anyone who doesn't see it as porn.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-02-2006, 06:54 PM
DocCathode DocCathode is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia
There's a show on E! right now about these "child erotica" sites.

Quite honestly, I have to question the judgement of anyone who doesn't see it as porn.
It's porn. I'm just not sure it's illegal under existing laws. Nobody is saying it isn't sleeze aimed at pedophiles. We're just not sure it's breaking any laws.
__________________
Nothing is impossible if you can imagine it. That's the wonder of being a scientist!
Prof Hubert Farnsworth, Futurama
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-02-2006, 07:57 PM
Zebra Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Basically, I would have to see the photos. I'm not going to just take the prosecutor's word on it. That is, of course, why we have jury trials.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-02-2006, 08:47 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra
Basically, I would have to see the photos. I'm not going to just take the prosecutor's word on it. That is, of course, why we have jury trials.
I saw some on E!, with the faces blurred out. I think a while ago, Salon.com or some other site ran an article about them-with like pictures. Basically, you had little girls posing in very suggestive poses, in skimpy outfits like leopard bikinis and thongs. It was positively nauseating.

*shudder*
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-02-2006, 09:12 PM
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 12,758
I tried to access the site and my browser insisted it doesn't exist! Who the hell is censoring me??
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-03-2006, 08:25 AM
Napier Napier is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posts: 8,031
Whether these things are porn depends on how you define porn. I don't think the Brooke Shields movie "Pretty Baby" was porn, at least not by most people's standards, but it probably is by some people's standards, and it is certainly somewhere near the grey area. I also think the news photos of Jon Benet Ramsey look creepy and inappropriate and that she has a somewhat suggestive expression and presentation (makeup, hair style, and so forth). I think she looks like "a model trying to sell her sexual availability but who has a strangely misproportioned skull - unless - my god, that's a child!"

By my understanding, Sports Illustrated is porn. Their "swimsuit issue" outsells all the other issues combined. Therefore, most of their magazine sales are of scantily clad, attractive women. Just to add to the unsavory atmosphere around all this, while we do talk about "porn", most of us would probably feel uncomfortable talking about "publications for men to look at while masturbating". But numerically it seems pretty clear most of Sports Illustrated's sales are of publications men look at while masturbating.

I guess probably some men looked at Jon Benet news photos in this fashion. For me, child beauty contests are creepily close to child porn.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-03-2006, 12:30 PM
fessie fessie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napier
I guess probably some men looked at Jon Benet news photos in this fashion. For me, child beauty contests are creepily close to child porn.
I agree with you. Beautiful children are one thing; makeup and miniature women's clothing are quite another.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.