Should Child Model sites be legal

[Maxima Lover]

I can honestly say I've looked at this site (childsupermodel.com) and sites like these when I was younger (minor-not that it matters) and I wasn't looking to hire a model. Some of these pictures showed female features thru clothing and was really wrong. If everyone saw these pictures, the intent would be very clear.

I just checked and I still have some of the pictures on my computer. I'm not sure if I should post a link to them, but if I did, you would see they are for more than just modeling.

[Spiritof]

I can honestly say I've looked at this site (childsupermodel.com) and sites like these... I'm not sure if I should post a link to them...

Best not to, in case they are judged to be illegal, in which case you may get in trouble for it.
Are you sure they are Webe Web model pictures though? ...because their models were more conservative than most of the others that were around. What are the model names? (Note: Model names are not usually their real names.)

Edit: Did you actually join any sites or did you get the pictures elsewhere?

[seniorjudge]

Best not to, in case they are judged to be illegal, in which case you may get in trouble for it.
Are you sure they are Webe Web model pictures though? ...because their models were more conservative than most of the others that were around. What are the model names? (Note: Model names are not usually their real names.)

Edit: Did you actually join any sites or did you get the pictures elsewhere?

Aaron, is this a plea for info on child sites?

[Spiritof]

Aaron, is this a plea for info on child sites?

It's a yes or no question. What's your point?

Edit: If I'd wanted information just from him I would have used a PM.
I'm trying to add to the information in discussion (unlike you).

[Maxima Lover]

Best not to, in case they are judged to be illegal, in which case you may get in trouble for it.
Are you sure they are Webe Web model pictures though? ...because their models were more conservative than most of the others that were around. What are the model names? (Note: Model names are not usually their real names.)

Edit: Did you actually join any sites or did you get the pictures elsewhere?

You're right, I won't link them.

Yes, they are from the Webe Web models. Some of the model names included Allison, Amelia, Dawn, Cloey, Cute Cousins, Lil Amber, Marie, Marlee, Sheila, Sherri, Sissy.

The Webe Web ones were the worst I had actually seen. I never joined any sites, just looked at the previews. I think they showed one picture from each new gallery. Most would put up a new picture about every 2 weeks if I remember right.

[DumbTurkey]

Some of these pictures showed female features thru clothing and was really wrong. If everyone saw these pictures, the intent would be very clear.

What do you mean by "wrong"? This is largely a cultural issue. As a culture we have collectively generated a system of moral values that currently lean against the type of picture you have described. Is that what you mean by "wrong"?

To me there are two completely different debates happening in this thread. One is legal and technical, the other is moral and highly subjective. I'm interested in both and appreciate all the diverse opinions expressed thus far, other than the predictable "This thread is creeping me out" that contributed nil to the discussion.

I have nothing to contribute to the legal side as a layman, but I'm very interested in debating the manner in which morality collides with civil rights and the welfare of children and other vulnerable populations. I remain of the opinion that more harm is done to child models by people who get hysterical about the pictures than is done by the process of generating and distributing the photographs. The only reason these kids will ever feel ashamed of what they have done is because they will be told by those opposed to child modeling sites that they were exploited and it was shameful and all the rest of garbage that will be laid upon them.

Having said that, I've just made an argument for outlawing such websites, haven't I? It doesn't matter what the source of the harm is, what matters is the welfare of the child. If we know the child will be shamed and feel bad about having been on such a website, then we know that it would be in the best interest of the child to not be on such a site unless they live in a culture where they're not shamed. This raises the question of whether it should be legal to distribute pictures, taken in a more-tolerant culture, in a culture that isn't tolerant. I'm confused. Someone bail me out.

[deadlock]

What do you mean by "wrong"? This is largely a cultural issue. As a culture we have collectively generated a system of moral values that currently lean against the type of picture you have described. Is that what you mean by "wrong"?

To me there are two completely different debates happening in this thread. One is legal and technical, the other is moral and highly subjective. I'm interested in both and appreciate all the diverse opinions expressed thus far,

I remain of the opinion that more harm is done to child models by people who get hysterical about the pictures than is done by the process of generating and distributing the photographs. The only reason these kids will ever feel ashamed of what they have done is because they will be told by those opposed to child modeling sites that they were exploited and it was shameful and all the rest of garbage that will be laid upon them.

Having said that, I've just made an argument for outlawing such websites, haven't I? It doesn't matter what the source of the harm is, what matters is the welfare of the child. If we know the child will be shamed and feel bad about having been on such a website, then we know that it would be in the best interest of the child to not be on such a site unless they live in a culture where they're not shamed. This raises the question of whether it should be legal to distribute pictures, taken in a more-tolerant culture, in a culture that isn't tolerant. I'm confused. Someone bail me out.

What do you think is harmful to a child who is used in these cases discussed as pornographic pictures? (Please don't bring up Shirley Temple or Britany S. again because you're going off in a direction that is not the issue.)

I ask because you said this previously-

DumbTurkey
The tricky question about the child modeling issue is not whether pedo's look at the pics (they do) --- the question, rather, is "Will this harm the children who are being photographed?"

It depends on where they live. In some countries they willl grow up being honored and it won't affect them. It might help them. But in our Puritanical society, the models will potentially be scorned and shamed by those who supposedly care about their well-being. Ironic much? The process of being photographed and admired doesn't hurt children.

[Eric Cartman]

I have nothing to contribute to the legal side as a layman, but I'm very interested in debating the manner in which morality collides with civil rights and the welfare of children and other vulnerable populations. I remain of the opinion that more harm is done to child models by people who get hysterical about the pictures than is done by the process of generating and distributing the photographs. The only reason these kids will ever feel ashamed of what they have done is because they will be told by those opposed to child modeling sites that they were exploited and it was shameful and all the rest of garbage that will be laid upon them.

Having said that, I've just made an argument for outlawing such websites, haven't I? It doesn't matter what the source of the harm is, what matters is the welfare of the child. If we know the child will be shamed and feel bad about having been on such a website, then we know that it would be in the best interest of the child to not be on such a site unless they live in a culture where they're not shamed. This raises the question of whether it should be legal to distribute pictures, taken in a more-tolerant culture, in a culture that isn't tolerant.

Do you also think someone like myself should not be allowed to teach my children my political & religious beliefs, since the same could be said for expressing political & religious views that differ from the intolerant, immoral, unethical people in this country such as those who belong to hate groups like the Republican party & monotheistic churches?

[Eric Cartman]

What do you think is harmful to a child who is used in these cases discussed as pornographic pictures? (Please don't bring up Shirley Temple or Britany S. again because you're going off in a direction that is not the issue.)

So you believe your concept of child pornography only applies to small companies? If it's distributed to a large enough audience, it's no longer child porn?

[Eric Cartman]

"The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. The government 'cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts.' Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566 (1969). First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."

"The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct."

"The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter. The Constitution requires the reverse. 'The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted.' Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S., at 612. The over-breadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process."

Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition,the majority opinion.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html

"My opinion it is saying a perceived possible reaction of some viewers is not constitutional grounds to forbid speech. If the modeling images are not sexually explicit, by the definitions of the law and case judgments of what is permitted definitions, the effect upon the viewer or society in total is not justified grounds to forbid speech that is of itself constitutionally protected."