Probably popular with pederasts, but is it child porn?Aug 05 '03 (Updated Nov 02 '03) Write an essay on this topic. The Bottom Line Twelve year-olds in leather, reclined on a bed, hands placed on her crotch...is it art? This editorial is going to tread on material that is bound to offend or at least disgust many out there. You've been warned. As I was listening to a semi-local morning radio show (for those in Sacramento or Reno, the Rob, Arnie and Dawn Show), the parties involved with the program were discussing a particular web site, one which I had previously never known existed. Perhaps I'd been better off not knowing. This web site, www.childsupermodels.com, has an...interesting...concept behind it. Essentially, its a jumping-off point to scores of other websites featuring a variety of "models", between the ages of 7 and 16. These models' websites show the viewer these young ladies in a variety of provocative poses, lying on beds, frolicking in fields, wearing halter tops, lingerie, panties that are cut about as low as possible. The girls elegantly pose in a manner suggestive of getting undressed, or about to masturbate, etc. Really classy stuff. Truthfully, while the concept of a 12 year old girl dressed in some leather-fetish outfit (I'm not joking) is somewhere between disgusting, absurd, and just plain ridiculous, the photography is definitely professional. While no doubt exploitative, the work is at least well done. Therein lies the problem. In this strange foreign land of which I saw a mere peek, these girls (and presumably their families) sincerely believes this is the way to get themselves a career in "real" modeling. This is kinda sad, since the only career this can lead to is stripping and pornography. These girls are fairly apparently being exploited, either by some shady modeling organization or some twisted ring of pedophile fathers trading their girls off for weekends. It really is a repugnant thing. But is it legal? Being the hardcore first amendment advocate I am, this was a tough issue from which to divorce myself. Having vigorously battled the now-deemed unconstitutional "Communications Decency Act" which, among other things, made drawings or written depictions of underaged people engaging in sexual activity, illegal, this puts me in something of a dilemma. Yes, the site's contents are certainly objectionable, and many would doubtless find it disgusting. But wouldn't many of these say the same about some of my CDs, my movies, books, some of my pornography? In thinking of this, I thought of two rather famous incidents involving minors; that of Brooke Shields and Traci Lords. Brooke Shields, during the early days of her acting/modeling career, was involved in some controversy regarding a provocative ad campaign and a film, Pretty Baby. The ad campaign, while doubtless provocative, was rather obviously not illegal; at worst, it was in poor taste. Pretty Baby, however, opens up an entirely different can of worms. The barely teen-aged Brooke Shields portrays a young woman raised in a Louisiana brothel and forced into prostitution. While no explicit sex scenes involving her are in the film, she does appear nude in a couple of scenes. If you're unfamiliar with the film, you might be shocked to hear this. The way law regarding child pornography is written, nudity, in and of itself, is not enough to qualify something as "pornography" or "obscene". Essentially, in order to qualify something as "obscene", it needs to have no essential artistic value and "appeal to the prurient interest". Which basically means, if the only (or at least primarily) purpose of a work is to use it for sexual pleasure, its "obscene", at least in terms of child pornography. As it is, the use of nudity/sexual content in Pretty Baby was deemed "artistic" in nature. A similar decision befell photographer David Hamilton, whose book Age of Innocence (a collection of nude photographs of pre-teen and teen girls) was decided by the courts to have sufficient artistic merit to be considered "art", rather than pornography. Compare all that to Traci Lords. For those unaware, Traci was a porn star at the tender age of 16, performing in a few dozen movies, using fake IDs and other trickery to hide her age. When finally busted under the watchful eye of the Meese pornography commission (one of the members of whom actually voiced in a formal meeting the question of whether sex with your dead spouse was okay), pretty much everybody associated with the porn industry at the time was charged, from the studios and distribution houses to crew members and even a few video stores. While it is doubtless that some of the folks at the studios were lax in demonstrating due resolve in verifying the age of their starlets (Ms. Lords was hardly the first, or only, to deceive them), one must ask how responsible a cameraman is for checking the age of the actors. Fair enough, most all of the parties not directly involved with hiring Ms. Lords were found not guilty, or had their cases dismissed. The point of all this is...I don't know. I have to admit, based on prior judgements, its highly unlikely a D.A. could even open a case against this web site. And, in the long run, I think this is probably a good thing. While what the folks at childsupermodels.com is no doubt offensive to a fairly large number of people, restricting it would leave the same questions open about movies/TV shows portraying underaged people having sex (even off-screen), music with controversial themes, etc. I guess my main thought after all of this, is that the actions of a few stupid parents shouldn't force us to completely re-define child pornography. While I'm sure there are a fair number of pedophiles who could use these photos as masturbation fodder, a JC Penney catalog could be used as well. In short, any efforts to widen the boundaries of obscenity are likely to hurt everyone except the people breaking the law in the first place. Libertarian though it might be, that's how I felt.  |
| Read all comments (22)|Write your own comment |
Write an essay on this topic.
|
Ads by Google
|
