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?
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.
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.
If the text q
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.
Just wanted to say I found this part of the article darkly amusing:
Heh. Bloody hypocrite.
That is actually ok as long as you don’t have actual children posing.
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.
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.
What about bestiality? I thought that was illegal too.
That depends on the state.
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.
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
I tried to access the site and my browser insisted it doesn’t exist! Who the hell is censoring me??
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.
I agree with you. Beautiful children are one thing; makeup and miniature women’s clothing are quite another.