Common Sense

I found this NY Times article while reading Luke’s site today. It’s about “modeling” sites that skirt the edge of illegality by showing sexually-suggestive images of really underage kids… but their fully clothed.

Well, not fully clothed.

Based on the images and wording from online advertisements, the sites show toddlers wearing tight thongs, and slightly older children posing evocatively while wearing makeup and feather boas. There is even a site that offers images of girls and boys who appear to be 5 or 6 years old, wearing just diapers.

The Times is doing a series of articles after the arrest of John Mark Karr who has had previous dealings with law enforcement because of child porn allegations. These sites claim to be 100% legal because the girls aren’t nude. The Times points out that two federal cases have ruled that just because images of kids are nude doesn’t mean they are pornographic and just because the kids are clothed doesn’t mean they are legal. It’s hard to believe, but there is a fine line with First Amendment worries in there somewhere.

I shouldn’t go to jail for posting that really embarrassing picture of my cousin David of him when he was 2 and taking a bath. Or any of the many, many, many pictures of Sailor Moon naked and climbing into different cabinets and buckets (he still does that, gets naked and crawls into the kitchen cabinets in his house). It’s a jerk ass thing to do, but it shouldn’t be illegal. The only way to tell is to have a court look at the pictures and make individual rulings.

The Times also points out that Congress has hopped on board several cases involving child pornography to get things done, and they’ve tried to pass legislation with no success. I think a law that says girls under the age of 18 shouldn’t have pictures of them in thongs on the Interweb wouldn’t be too overreaching. Maybe add something about calling them hot or sexy, too, just to be sure. What’s wrong with that plan?

The reporter who wrote this story reported what he found to the Justice Dept., but the truth is that there is still a lot of this sort of stuff out there. Even if they get rid of this one portal site mentioned in the article, PlayToy Entertainment, there are still thousands of other sites and portals with thousands more pictures.

I found this NY Times article while reading Luke’s site today. It’s about “modeling” sites that skirt the edge of illegality by showing sexually-suggestive images of really underage kids… but their fully clothed.

Well, not fully clothed.

Based on the images and wording from online advertisements, the sites show toddlers wearing tight thongs, and slightly older children posing evocatively while wearing makeup and feather boas. There is even a site that offers images of girls and boys who appear to be 5 or 6 years old, wearing just diapers.

The Times is doing a series of articles after the arrest of John Mark Karr who has had previous dealings with law enforcement because of child porn allegations. These sites claim to be 100% legal because the girls aren’t nude. The Times points out that two federal cases have ruled that just because images of kids are nude doesn’t mean they are pornographic and just because the kids are clothed doesn’t mean they are legal. It’s hard to believe, but there is a fine line with First Amendment worries in there somewhere.

I shouldn’t go to jail for posting that really embarrassing picture of my cousin David of him when he was 2 and taking a bath. Or any of the many, many, many pictures of Sailor Moon naked and climbing into different cabinets and buckets (he still does that, gets naked and crawls into the kitchen cabinets in his house). It’s a jerk ass thing to do, but it shouldn’t be illegal. The only way to tell is to have a court look at the pictures and make individual rulings.

The Times also points out that Congress has hopped on board several cases involving child pornography to get things done, and they’ve tried to pass legislation with no success. I think a law that says girls under the age of 18 shouldn’t have pictures of them in thongs on the Interweb wouldn’t be too overreaching. Maybe add something about calling them hot or sexy, too, just to be sure. What’s wrong with that plan?

The reporter who wrote this story reported what he found to the Justice Dept., but the truth is that there is still a lot of this sort of stuff out there. Even if they get rid of this one portal site mentioned in the article, PlayToy Entertainment, there are still thousands of other sites and portals with thousands more pictures.