Child Models and Child Erotica Sites
Julia Scheeres explores the questionable business of "child erotica" sites, which charge subscription fees to view photographs of naked pubescent and prepubescent kids. The sites skirt child pornography laws by calling the pictures "art" and avoiding "lascivious" poses. Government crackdowns on child pornography have focused on hardcore, leaving this softcore genre a relatively unchallenged gray area. In a related piece, Scheeres interviews the owner of one such site via email.
Wired (May 2002)
The FBI is investigating the Florida-based website ChildSupermodels.com, which features adolescent and preadolescent girls in skimpy outfits and provocative poses. Critics call the sites borderline child porn. The owner of ChildSupermodels.com insists, "We're not catering to pedophiles; we're catering to people who will pay money to see pictures of child models."
WPBF (Feb 2002)
Two US congressmen have introduced a bill to outlaw "child modeling" websites that depict children wearing bikinis, leotards and other suggestive outfits. The bill would ban websites that charge money to view pictures or videos of children under 17 years old without promoting any other products or services.
Ledger-Enquirer (May 2002)
Declan McCullagh reports on problems with the congressional bill designed to outlaw child modeling sites. The bill is worded so broadly that it would effectively outlaw nearly all commercial photography of minors. "In addition to prohibiting commercial photography of anyone under 17 years old, their bill would make it a federal felony for stock photo houses like Corbis or Getty Images to license images of minors from their catalogs -- a billion-dollar industry -- or for news photographers to sell images of minors. . . . Nobody believes that Reps. Foley and Lampson are intentionally trying to wreak havoc on the photojournalism, fine art photography, and stock photography industries. Rather, it appears that CMEPA is simply sloppily written and rife with unintended consequences." But an aide to one of the bill's authors dismisses First Amendment and industry concerns as unwarranted and "really off-the-wall." Where do they find these imbeciles?
Wired (May 2002)
Prosecutors in Arkansas, Missouri and Colorado have filed charges against operators of "child model" sites, which charge subscribers to view non-nude photos and videos of under-18 girls. Mike Brunker at MSNBC reports, "Some in the fledgling 'non-nude' niche are hopeful that the criminal cases will provide clear signals where the legal boundaries lie as they seek a degree of legitimacy for what one operator compared to the 'pin-up' calendars of his youth. . . . But it is likely that any line drawn by the courts will be blurred, given the differing circumstances and venues of the three cases to be decided in the coming months." (Jul 2002)
Arkansas parents who operated a suggestive but non-nude "modeling site" for their 12-year-old daughter have been convicted of child pornography charges. The conviction resulted not from the provocative photos of the young girl they posted on the Web, but from three homemade videotapes showing her nude that were found during a search of the couple’s home. The couple and daughter insisted those videotapes were just modeling practice sessions, but authorities believe they intended to sell them. (Aug 2002)
Congressperson Mark Foley has authored a bill, now before the House Judiciary Committee, which would outlaw "exploitive child modeling," defined as "marketing the child himself or herself in lascivious positions and acts, rather than actually marketing products." The bill is designed primarily to shut down the many subscription websites that show under-18 girls posing in bikinis, leotards and such. This article quotes a civil libertarian calling the bill unconstitutional and a child abuse expert calling it unnecessary. (Sep 2002)
