Parents selling photos of young girls on Instagram. WTF?

The BBQ Pit
1

A NYT piece about parents (primarily mothers) selling photos of their young pre-teen daughters to pedophiles at $10 a pop. They apparently see nothing wrong with this practice. I’m not talking about girls in sun dresses here: it’s scantily clad children. And there is apparently no law to address the practice, as the people involved are not specifically stating that they are targeting pedophiles, but that is certainly the audience.

It’s wrong on so many levels, I’m not even sure where to begin. The damage to these girls by being exploited by a parent is incalculable. Once posted, it lives forever. Not to mention it just encourages child molesters to act on their impulses.

The researchers had this to say:

"Some parents are the driving force behind the sale of photos, exclusive chat sessions and even the girls’ worn leotards and cheer outfits to mostly unknown followers. The most devoted customers spend thousands of dollars nurturing the underage relationships. …

Interacting with the men opens the door to abuse. Some flatter, bully and blackmail girls and their parents to get racier and racier images. The Times monitored separate exchanges on Telegram, the messaging app, where men openly fantasize about sexually abusing the children they follow on Instagram and extol the platform for making the images so readily available."

2

That doesn’t make sense, that child pornography laws rely on someone openly admitting that they are selling to pedophiles. IANAL but surely there are other ways to prove it.

3

I agree, but there is apparently enough of a gray area to where prosecution doesn’t happen.

4

Well sure, as in every criminal case you need to have enough evidence to get a conviction, and an admission of guilt and/or clear evidence of intent goes a long way toward proving the crime.

That in no way validates the suggestion that “there is apparently no law to address the practice, as the people involved are not specifically stating that they are targeting pedophiles”. That would be like saying there is no law to address fencing stolen goods as the people involved aren’t specifically stating that the goods are stolen. It’s absurd on its face.

Now, if you were to say that this makes prosecution more difficult, I’m sure it does, as it does in any crime where those involved are taking care to conceal what they’re doing.

5

It was just shorthand, but nitpick away my friend. I’m not an attorney.

6

Me neither!

Nitpicking is the most cherished tradition of the Straight Dope Message Board. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Though my main point is, I’m sure that these people aren’t “safe” and there has to be someone in law enforcement investigating this if it has made it all the way to the pages of the NYT. Whether anything will come of it, who knows. I hope so, this kind of thing makes me sick. I have two daughters and the idea of anyone exploiting kids (any kids) like this is infuriating.

7

These aren’t naked pictures of kids are they? I thought it was teen girls in bikinis and the like. Not illegal, these are kids being influencers with their peers. Obviously this will attract the attention of undesirables but any website for girls clothing would do the same. This is more problematic because these influencers are selling things and talking to their fans who they want to be their teenage peers but just as easily could be pedophiles.

The worst part is parents support these activities. Their children are making money, but also taking big risks. It’s not just young women either I’m sure. This is part of the suicide pact we’ve made by allowing anonymous communication.

8

It’s part of the homicide (gynecide?) deal our society has made with the men in charge. Girls and women are fair game for predatory men if they exist in public.

I can’t see a way to prevent parents from putting children’s images online or to keep predators from viewing them that would still allow for them to post that adorable (and innocent) photo of little Sally at the pool for Grandma to show all her friends at the Home. California has some pretty strict laws about parents exploiting their actor children for financial gain, and maybe that could be extended to online performers.

Parents who aren’t trying to exploit their own children should be educated about ways to limit their Facebook or Instagram accounts so that strangers can’t view them, and that’s where the social media companies should be stepping up.

9

Well, technically, the “Well technically” / Hair-splitting efforts are the most cherished tradtion of the Straight Dope Message Board, IMHO.

:wink:

I eagerly await the next nitpicker, hair-splitter, grammer nazi, or other advocates of our cherished traditions to chime in!

Back to the OP, IMHO (I stress this) American society (can’t speak for others) has been increasing the sexualization of near-adolescent and adolescent children (say 10+) for years now. Some of the halloween costumes especially seem to go right past cute into disturbingly sexy as an example. Now some of it may be driven by kids (and thus those selling to them) wanting to hurry up and look like adults, but it still weirds me out.

But as being far removed from that age group, I can’t tell if it’s self-reinforcing trend, or something more sinister. As for the scenario of the OP, that’s flat out creepy. I wonder if there’s a way to go after it by using some of the current (or planned) laws that protect the children’s right to profit by their own efforts and image.

Semi-related link:

So, using a similar example, if parents are selling images at $10 a pop, then they’re documenting said income in taxes and setting it aside (minus a fee of course :roll_eyes: ) in trust for the child? Of course, if they’re not declaring the income, that’s yet another way of the authorities coming after them.

Note - IANAL, and I know the cite I used is in regards to CA specific laws, just wondering if a more informed member knows of any existing or pending legislation that might apply in a similar way to constraint such efforts, or at least make sure the child being exploited benefits in some way.

Oh, and since it’s the Pit, FUCK those parents anyway if proven correct.

10

As a pervert- this is sick and nauseating and wrong!

11

Hell, I’ve been seeing “found photos” of children for sale on eBay for years so clearly there’s some sort of market for this stuff.

They turn up when I’m searching for other things. This is the first time I went looking for them specifically and the link goes to completed listings.

12

It’s not that you need an admission to prosecute for child pornography - the issue is that these sorts of photos aren’t pornographic. If they were nudes, sure, no problem. But it’s not illegal to take a picture of a minor in a bathing suit, or to sell pictures of children in bathing suits. If they were going around selling them with the pitch, “Hey, pedos! Wanna see my underage daughter in a bikini?” you could probably hang a grooming charge on them, but if they’re selling them as “modelling photos,” it’s harder to prove that they’re deliberately selling them to people for the purposes of sexual gratification.

13

I don’t question any of that. I would still maintain that the law does address this behavior, but I’m sure it’s more difficult or impossible to prove the criminal behavior if nobody tips their hand.

Just as a complete hypothetical, let’s say a parent has a child that has posed for photographs in skimpy clothing. It’s not clearly pornographic, there is nothing particular provocative about the pose or the setting in the photo. It might even be something innocuous if the photo were indeed used as part of a portfolio if the child were pursuing a career as a performing artist or model. But the parent hears of a place where such photos can be put up for sale and people will buy them. The parent has to know that nobody would pay these kinds of prices for anything other than sexual gratification, but there is no direct communication between buyer and seller, nothing on the web site explicitly advertising pornographic services. Just a place where photos are bought and sold.

I wonder if a jury might conclude that “a reasonable person” should know that such images could only sell for high prices if they are being used by pedophiles, and therefore it is possible to indict someone for selling them. But I’m not any kind of legal expert.

I’ll also note that I have a personal connection to this sort of thing, in that I have a young child who is a stage performer (she’s a dancer) and she has photographs that are not exactly “skimpy” clothes, but you know how dancers often have to dress to perform. Skin-tight clothes, tights, etc. Even a standard ballet outfit is more revealing than regular street clothes. This isn’t something I ever think about and it would probably drive me crazy if I dwelled on it too much. She has had photos published one place or another, I’m sure just about any performer has at some point. There’s not really anything you can do to control who has access to that sort of thing.

14

This is indeed the challenge for law enforcement. States could legislatively broaden the definition of “pornography” to include such images, but that could be problematic in that it could also apply to retail ads for clothing, among other things. It could also run into constitutionality questions.

There may be child abuse/endangerment charges that could be enforced against the parents. If not criminally, perhaps through chid protective service agencies.

15

Who are we to criticize their culture? It is ethnocentric, or at least provincial to suggest our societal norms are somehow “better”.

16

Whose culture do you think you’re talking about? This one is ours, and as a member of it, it’s my right to try to change it.

17

All cultures are equal, just part of the rich tapestry of the human experience

18

[clears throat]

“…grammar.”

[/clears throat]

19

I sympathize. I was visiting my youngest son last weekend. His youngest daughter (9 years old), who is into gymnastics and who was dressed for her class, wanted to show me her moves on the at-home bar they have. Since my wife couldn’t make it, I took a photo of the girl on the bar. My first thought was “Oh, I could put this on FB.” My immediate second thought was “No, that wouldn’t be appropriate.”

I know it’s a different world that we live in, but the sort of behavior described in that article just seems callously amoral. “Hey look! Money!”

20

I thought he did on purpose.