Legality Of Child Modeling Sites On The Internet

[Dramamine]

So, a site resembling an expanded version the kids section of the Sears summer catalog is some kind of porn? I'd really hate to live in your world. It sound much too scary to me

[blueeagle]

So, a site resembling an expanded version the kids section of the Sears summer catalog is some kind of porn? I'd really hate to live in your world. It sound much too scary to me

Well, it ain't right no way. You get that? Nothin' good would ever come out of these "child model" sites.

[Dramamine]

I'd call it a wash, the kids may get to do something for their local Wal-Mart Sunday circular and feel good about that. The bad part comes when someone refers to the Sunday circular as porn and starts threatening Wal-mart and the local paper.

The people who just like looking at kids, for whatever reason, can't be helped in most cases. Plus then it gets into an Orwellian thought police kind of thing and we really don't want to go there.

[souperdave]

Well, it ain't right no way. You get that? Nothin' good would ever come out of these "child model" sites.

Ya got that right!!! Any "ad" that draws upon any sort of purient interest, or response, is far from legit to begin with! I did find the "expanded Sears catalog" comment a bit silly. I have yet to see a catalog that even comes close to being construed as kiddie porn. Well, maybe the "Abercrombie&Fitch" one a few years back, but that was about it.

There always will be a world of difference between a Sunday circular and pics that'll get ya three to five. To think otherwise is to have a pretty loose grip on reality. IMHO!

[blueeagle]

Ya got that right!!! Any "ad" that draws upon any sort of purient interest, or response, is far from legit to begin with! I did find the "expanded Sears catalog" comment a bit silly. I have yet to see a catalog that even comes close to being construed as kiddie porn. Well, maybe the "Abercrombie&Fitch" one a few years back, but that was about it.

There always will be a world of difference between a Sunday circular and pics that'll get ya three to five. To think otherwise is to have a pretty loose grip on reality. IMHO!

Yee haw!!!! You might not be a Texan (we're not all perfect), but you know them there molesters ain't good. How about this, we get all them offenders together and have us a good Texas hangin'? We can start with my town. I'll bring the the cold beer, you bring the BBQ, and Gigirle can bring the rope. We need to keep BOR away though. He might show up with a copy of the "bill of right". We don't want them offenders thinkin' it applies to them.

[souperdave]

I do like your style! And BOR should be welcome.......I'm always up for a bit o' debate before a good ol' fashion lynchin'!

How 'bout we meet up for the shindig in the piney woods near Tyler? That way we'd give them chainsaw mutants somethin' to do after we leave!

Gotta be supportive of the locals.

[gigirle]

Again, sorry to be dragging up old threads, but this type of blanket reaction bothers me. While I'm not aware of most of the webeweb stuff, I gather that the guys running it aren't or weren't exactly nice guys, and that many of the photos were not tastefully done to say the least. However, this does not mean that there shouldn't be sites out there legitimately trying to further the careers of those kids who actually want to be models.

Industry is actually harmed by statements like this as it may put the fear of prosecution on the minds of retailers of children's clothing. Retailers who would like to have models wearing the clothes that they sell in order to give parents a better idea of how the clothes, especially swim wear, will look on their child before they buy it. As many people order online these days, retail websites really do need to have these sorts of photos on their site. It would be nice if they didn't have to worry about the possibility of being charged with a crime by some overzealous prosecutor.

No, the industry is harmed when someone who knows little about the issue/site in question and then connects it with the Sunday newspaper and an overzealous prosecutor!

The industry you speak of is harmed by these sites NOT overzealous prosecutors. It's about the kids not the money.

Personally, IMHO, there shouldn't be swimsuit "models" unless they are adults. I have 3 daughters and they have all shopped for swim wear based on what it looked like ON THEM not on some random model. And if they are looking at the model its to judge HIS appearance and not the clothes his is wearing. Proving the point that it's for exploitation purposes.

Kids should want to play not work for a living and any parent who pushes their kid into this industry should also be charged.

[Dramamine]

Good grief! I cannot believe the draconian, puritanical views of those who have responded. All I was saying with my earlier comment is that these sites can be professionally done in good taste and look much more like a summer catalog than some site for perverts.

[gigirle]

Good grief! I cannot believe the draconian, puritanical views of those who have responded. All I was saying with my earlier comment is that these sites can be professionally done in good taste and look much more like a summer catalog than some site for perverts.

The sites refered to in the OP have been shut down many times in the states. They are not anything close to the Sears catalog it is by american standards kiddie porn. The sites you say can be professionally done yes, I agree and thats part of the problem. They clean up a little and get up and running again. I'm sure if you had visited a few of them you would understand why some of us are so compasionate about them being shut down. These are by all accounts innocent children.

[Dramamine]

I understand the need to protect these kids, and I'm all for it. However, I am not willing to protect them to such an extent that they are essentially banned from participating in what should be an innocent and fun activity for them. Yes, we should watch the producers of these sites, and monitor their content closely. The problem with knowing when they cross the line legally is that nobody is really sure where the legal line is. The legal definition of child porn is so vague that it's a wonder that it can be enforced in cases where no overt sexual activity is taking place. To simply express your opinion that images that personally cause you great discomfort are child porn is easy. Proving it is legally child porn is much more difficult. I think there may be a case for exploitation of minors for some of these sites, but outright child porn may be to difficult to prove from a legal standpoint.