New Law Focuses on Website Featuring Underage Girls

[gonzo]

TAMPA, Fla. - TrueTeenBabes.com, a website based in the Pinellas County Bay area, has been targeted by a new law because it features 13- to 17-year-old girls in lingerie and G-strings.

The law makes it a third-degree felony for teen-modeling agencies to "distribute on the Internet pictures of minors in provocative circumstances."

Gov. Charlie Crist signed the law into effect Wednesday.

Lawmakers say TrueTeenBabes.com's photos are "borderline pornography," but the operators of the website say the pictures are "glamour photographs" and parents have to sign an agreement before payment - up to $100 an hour.

Sen. Mike Fasano, R-Fla., was instrumental in forging the new law.

"True Teen Babes: That was the one that was brought to our attention," Fasano said. "We have an obligation to protect those children if their parents aren't going to."

The state attorney's office was looking into charging the photographer but was unable to locate any current law violations, Fasano said. This was the genesis for Fasano's support of the bill.

"Taking pictures of a 13-year-old girl in a bathing suit or less than a bathing suit and broadcasting that picture on a website where it's downloaded and purchased by sick pedophiles, then I believe that is against our community standards," Fasano said, adding that the photographer should be "prosecuted to the fullest."

Fasano said he believes that a federal court would agree. Apparently, the photographer for True Teen Babes thinks the same and plans to leave Florida.

Michael Allen, a constitutional-law professor at Stetson University, said he doesn't think the new law will stand up in federal court because it "infringes on the First Amendment right to freedom of expression" and is "too broad and vague."

Fasano disagreed, saying he believes the photos violate the community's obscenity standards.

http://www.avn.com/internet/articles/31093.html

[softball]

"Bordering on pornography"????? I would think it either is or it isn't. I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor trying to defend this law.
However, having been through two years of legal hell, I have learned something. You can do anything you like until someone challenges it in court. Usually at great expense. Just to stand up to a poorly written by law or law. Then the government, who has all the money, changes the wording, and does it all again. They have deep pockets. It sucks but it is the way it works.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

"Bordering on pornography"????? I would think it either is or it isn't. I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor trying to defend this law.
However, having been through two years of legal hell, I have learned something. You can do anything you like until someone challenges it in court. Usually at great expense. Just to stand up to a poorly written by law or law. Then the government, who has all the money, changes the wording, and does it all again. They have deep pockets. It sucks but it is the way it works.

You got to look at that site.
I would be uncomfortable standing behind that in a court of law.
Hell I was uncomfortable looking at it.

12 year olds in lingere?

[softball]

I just had a look. I wouldn't want to defend it myself. Did you notice they do webcams?

[softball]

I also question their age. They look older to me. It could be a pandora's box to prosecute.

[ali25extreme]

Took a peek at the site and that is just wrong! If I were in the presence of thier parents I would slap the shit out of them! Yuck! I did not enter the site ..I saw enough on the front page..kinda fucked up!

[RawAlex]

Ali, I am with you on that... it gets to a real question about child endangerment, amoungst other things. Then again, the entire fashion industry would be up shits creek if that is the case, half the models start well below 18, and they often appear wearing very skimpy outfits.

Perhaps the state can go after those horrible little miss pageants as well. Those things are fucking disgusting, I can't help but thinking that half the audience is the parents, and the other half is guys in raincoats.

[ali25extreme]

I think I am going to be sick Alex..you are so correct on that. It just freaks me out! It makes me wonder what frame of mind some of the parents have putting thier kids in some sick shit like that. Have you seen the movie "little miss sunshine"? That is some pretty funny shit and so true when it comes to the pageants..it is just so creepy!

[Hell Puppy]

All the "non-nude" sites with girls that illegal but practicing brinksmanship teasing are canaries.

[RawAlex]

HP, the only good news these days is that there are very few of those sites out there anymore with processing. back in the day they all got processing, now it's pretty much a waste land for them. non-nude is still actually a pretty strong market, and most of the smart ones just don't discuss age at all (even though the girls are often well into their 20s).

[ali25extreme]

I am not caring if they are in thier 20s and look young..it is an age factor for me! 14 is just sick!

[DannyCox]

As a few here know, we've never promoted any "Teen" sites, even if the girls were 18 or 19. That's just too young to get involved in this industry and just feeds the CP guys. But, I tend to just shut up about it these days as the hypocrites in this industry think it's just fine to throat-gag a girl on her 18th birthday when the day before they were too young. Never knew that a single day in a life brings about a new maturity!

I used to think it was funny when Helmy used to promote seventeen.nl from his ASACP page! His defense....well it's legal over there. I know 18 is legal, but I just don't find it acceptable.

[Hell Puppy]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

HP, the only good news these days is that there are very few of those sites out there anymore with processing. back in the day they all got processing, now it's pretty much a waste land for them. non-nude is still actually a pretty strong market, and most of the smart ones just don't discuss age at all (even though the girls are often well into their 20s).

Yup, the bigger names have graduated to showing some actually nudity and cashed in on audiences they built as non-nudes.

Verotel was still processing this crap last I looked.

[Hell Puppy]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

As a few here know, we've never promoted any "Teen" sites, even if the girls were 18 or 19. That's just too young to get involved in this industry and just feeds the CP guys. But, I tend to just shut up about it these days as the hypocrites in this industry think it's just fine to throat-gag a girl on her 18th birthday when the day before they were too young. Never knew that a single day in a life brings about a new maturity!

I used to think it was funny when Helmy used to promote seventeen.nl from his ASACP page! His defense....well it's legal over there. I know 18 is legal, but I just don't find it acceptable.

This is one of those really tough gray areas. The law on this side of the Atlantic is black and white, 18 is the line that is drawn. 17 years plus 364 days is too young. One extra day makes it "legal". The gray area is "right and wrong" or morality.

Some think a 14 year old in a bikini is perfectly acceptable, others think a 19 year old that looks 16 is NOT acceptable. Although the law is pretty clear, certainly anyone pushing either of these is more likely to catch heat and get visits from men in dark suits wanting to see 2257 docs. Like many things in this business, ultimately everyone decides what their risk tolerance is.

Again, I'm one of those guys who has left a lot of money on the table over the years because I wont compromise my own sense of what's right and what's wrong. I'm always fully aware that there are many out there whose morals I offend by merely posting naked pics on the internet, but ultimately it's about what I can do and still sleep well at night.

Dating all the way back to the BBS era, I've always had what I call a "no pigtails" rule. By that, I mean if you're doing anything that in my mind appeals to the pedos out there, I wont touch it. 21 year old in pig tails and a lollipop aint working for me.

That said, I dont have a hard and fast rule on age. I do like some of the teens out there simply because they are smoking hot with nice smooth skin, firm tight bods, etc. But I know "ripe" when I see it. I cant really document it or even describe it. But if she looks like a "little girl", I wont touch it. If she's a "hot young lady", I'm ok with that....if she's at least 18.

It gets more complex if I'm personally involved with shooting it. I wont shoot anyone who I think is too immature to grasp what they are doing or if I feel they are doing it totally out of desperation for cash or whatever. I've shot 18 year olds, I've turned down 25 year olds.

I sleep well.

[RawAlex]

HP, one of the nice things about a hard and fast 18 rule is that you don't have to apply moral judgements to the deal, you check the ID and go from there. 18 is good, 17 and 364 is bad and there you go.

What most of us don't realize is that pedos aren't all that interesting in 16 or 17 year olds anyway, they are too old. Pedos are looking for the under 14 girls, not "almost legal" but "nowhere near legal".

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...002117,00.html

Hard-core pedophilia is a different and more intractable problem, and, according to Tim Smith, a Seattle treatment specialist who works with sex offenders, it may affect fewer than 10% of the child abusers in the U.S. The true pedophile is drawn to children not merely incidentally but exclusively. Most pedophiles target kids in the threshold years before puberty, but some look further down the age spectrum, seeking out even toddlers. Pedophiles who prefer preadolescents often court them with the ardor of a suitor, lavishing attention, praise and gifts on the child they have chosen. Typically they tell themselves that the relationship is a mutually beneficial one--something they believe until the child reaches puberty, and the abuser suddenly loses interest.

It is what makes these "molly model" style sites so dangerous, because they are playing exactly to the pedos' desire. A 21 year old in pigtails with a lollipop ain't going to do it for them.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Hell Puppy

...I've always had what I call a "no pigtails" rule. By that, I mean if you're doing anything that in my mind appeals to the pedos out there, I wont touch it. 21 year old in pig tails and a lollipop aint working for me...

I had to smile as I read that. I have a similar unwritten "no pigtails" policy when reviewing submitted galleries. Fortunately I don't see much of it in the fetish niches.

I also have a written policy in my submit rules that addresses the issue.

9. No galleries with content implying underage status of models will be listed. This includes, but is not limited to, sites that target a 'borderline underage' audience. If the models appear to be too young or are marketed to be too young for porn then your gallery will not get listed. This includes legal non-nude under-eighteen models. This type of content is not welcome here. Do not submit these types of sites.

Not only is it of no interest to my target audience, I don't want it anywhere on my sites.

[ali25extreme]

Originally Posted by Toby

I had to smile as I read that. I have a similar unwritten "no pigtails" policy when reviewing submitted galleries. Fortunately I don't see much of it in the fetish niches.

I also have a written policy in my submit rules that addresses the issue.
Not only is it of no interest to my target audience, I don't want it anywhere on my sites.

Glad to hear that!

[Hammer]

Anyone that puts a 13 year old in a sexy outfit and takes pictures for any reason is either a pedophile or attempting to appeal to pedophiles. I can see no logical reason for doing it otherwise and since girls that age are naturally wishing they could grow up faster and will go out and wear clothing like that in public endangers the girls and any company that does stuff like this to appeal to a young girl's desire to be more grown up knowing the possible consequences should be held responsible.

What possible reason could a company have for glamorizing young teen girls by having them wearing lingerie? It says these girl are 13 and I believe it. http://www.trueteenbabes.com/10144.html and http://www.trueteenbabes.com/10143.html

When my 11 year old daughter is fully made up for a ballet production she could easily pass for 14 or 15. If you saw that girl without all the makeup and in person I'll bet they'd look 13.

And the point here is not making a young girl look grown up by dressing her in a business suit, these girls are wearing lingerie and unzipped jeans and what kind of person wants to see 13 year olds in lingerie or with their jeans proactively unzipped?

[ali25extreme]

sick O's hammer...that is who wants to see them!

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Toby

I had to smile as I read that. I have a similar unwritten "no pigtails" policy when reviewing submitted galleries. Fortunately I don't see much of it in the fetish niches.

I also have a written policy in my submit rules that addresses the issue.
Not only is it of no interest to my target audience, I don't want it anywhere on my sites.

In reality, you would do better to have a ban on short, small breasted girls with shaved pussies and undeveloped hips. A 20 year old with pigtails and a lollipop doesn't appeal to the pedos.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

In reality, you would do better to have a ban on short, small breasted girls with shaved pussies and undeveloped hips...

I think "If the models appear to be too young" pretty much covers all that and then some.

[pornlaw]

Okay I am going to play devil's advocate here for a moment... before I do I just wanna go on the record and say that site boarders on CP but here's the problem I have...

"Taking pictures of a 13-year-old girl in a bathing suit or less than a bathing suit and broadcasting that picture on a website where it's downloaded and purchased by sick pedophiles, then I believe that is against our community standards," Fasano said, adding that the photographer should be "prosecuted to the fullest."

What if my family (hypothetical family has 2 girls aged 11 and 13) are nudists and we go to the nudist colony for a vacation with all the other nudist families we have been friends with for years and I take pictures of all the families hanging out - pun intended -- and post them on a Picasso type of hosting site...

Should I go to jail ? Is it CP ? It is something I can even be prosecuted for in Florida under this new law?

Would it be okay if my daughters were 2 and 3 years old ? When do I have to tell them to cover up for the pics ? When they start to have their periods ? When they develop breasts ?

I agree with the law professors, this one is going to be tough to find constitutional. But I think sites like TrueTeenBabes really end up causing legal adult content problems.

[softball]

what kind of person wants to see 13 year olds in lingerie or with their jeans proactively unzipped?

hmm......a fifteen year old boy?

[cheeky_chappie]

i know i've not been a member of this board long so apologies if i either p1ss poeple off or say something that upsets, but if we (as in everybody in society) are being honest with ourselves there would be / is / was a huge market for 'modeling' sites featuring <18 girls, to me that says something about society i.e. there's a wider debate to be had.

i remember seeing a tv programme a few years back about the guy who started a very infamous cp site, okay cp is going another rung down the sickness ladder compared to the non nude 'modeling' sites but it still made for interesting watching.

seemingly the guy (this was in the states, think he called the site wonderland or something) tried a standard >18 porn site and got a few members, as in just a few. he moved to cp and within weeks or months i think he had 100's or 1000's of members and made over a million $ ... then he got caught.

the point i'm making is if you start a >18 porn site and a <18 porn site, what one will generate more $ / £ and what does this in turn say about society?

why is the school / college outfit so popular with adult fancy dress? why is it more than common for eastern porn to feature the models / actresses dressed as a school girl? how many of us have seen the guy driving in front of us trying to sneak a look at a teen girl walking along the street without moving his head? etc etc etc

i'm not saying it's right, i'm not saying it's ethical in any way, but if there was no market these sites wouldn't exist, the legal and illegal ones.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Okay I am going to play devil's advocate here for a moment... before I do I just wanna go on the record and say that site boarders on CP but here's the problem I have...



What if my family (hypothetical family has 2 girls aged 11 and 13) are nudists and we go to the nudist colony for a vacation with all the other nudist families we have been friends with for years and I take pictures of all the families hanging out - pun intended -- and post them on a Picasso type of hosting site...

Should I go to jail ? Is it CP ? It is something I can even be prosecuted for in Florida under this new law?

Would it be okay if my daughters were 2 and 3 years old ? When do I have to tell them to cover up for the pics ? When they start to have their periods ? When they develop breasts ?

I agree with the law professors, this one is going to be tough to find constitutional. But I think sites like TrueTeenBabes really end up causing legal adult content problems.

First off, nudists aren't immune to the laws. If so called nudists make a living by posting nude pictures of thier children online and charging a membership fee for it, well.. they aren't any different from any other pedos (except that they have found a good excuse to get the kids naked that doesn't involve candy or looking for a lost puppy).

I would say that it is very likely that no sane hosting company would tolerate nude pictures of children even from a nudist group. The reality is putting something on the net is publication, and it really raises issues all around.

The specific model sites in mind don't show nudity (but they do come pretty close at times, it seems). I don't think this is any different from the modified requirements of 2256 / 2257, nor does it seem to differ much from the case where non-nude pictures of children that dwelled on their privates was considered porn, regardless of what they were wearing.

I think legally where it gets more into trouble is the question of modeling altogether. It isn't unusual to see 16 or 17 year old models at major fashion shows, often wearing very revealing clothes or see thru tops. Unless the US decides to pass laws to specifically regulate all uses of models under 18, these sorts of laws are doomed to fail only because they are too general in nature.

We all know what these guys are doing, but there is sadly few ways to write laws that would single their business models out without hurting others.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by cheeky_chappie

i know i've not been a member of this board long so apologies if i either p1ss poeple off or say something that upsets, but if we (as in everybody in society) are being honest with ourselves there would be / is / was a huge market for 'modeling' sites featuring <18 girls, to me that says something about society i.e. there's a wider debate to be had.

i remember seeing a tv programme a few years back about the guy who started a very infamous cp site, okay cp is going another rung down the sickness ladder compared to the non nude 'modeling' sites but it still made for interesting watching.

seemingly the guy (this was in the states, think he called the site wonderland or something) tried a standard >18 porn site and got a few members, as in just a few. he moved to cp and within weeks or months i think he had 100's or 1000's of members and made over a million $ ... then he got caught.

the point i'm making is if you start a >18 porn site and a <18 porn site, what one will generate more $ / £ and what does this in turn say about society?

why is the school / college outfit so popular with adult fancy dress? why is it more than common for eastern porn to feature the models / actresses dressed as a school girl? how many of us have seen the guy driving in front of us trying to sneak a look at a teen girl walking along the street without moving his head? etc etc etc

i'm not saying it's right, i'm not saying it's ethical in any way, but if there was no market these sites wouldn't exist, the legal and illegal ones.

Non nude sites are a hard sell unless you target the pedophile crowd.

[ali25extreme]

Nudist do not go around selling the pics of thier children and at a nudest resort the minor has an option to wear or not wear clothing till the age of 18...it is a choice. As far as pics go I would like to believe that the family would wrap a towel around the minor...Most minors do not mind and swim free and nude. yes some places have creeps at them but no more than the kiddie water parks. As far as young run way models go they are not selling memberships to adults for porn sites..they are wearing clothes and walking down a runway promoting the material they wear and selling glam..

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

hmm......a fifteen year old boy?

True but I was referring to the paying variety of person.

[Hammer]

I agree with Ali, Pornlaw and I think your analogy doesn't really work. There's a big difference between a guy posting family photos and a commercial website posting provocative photos of children.

However, to continue with your question, what if the photos the father posted depicted his children in poses that were obviously provocative in the opinion of the average person. There are other things that going into a decision of what is cp and what isn't. Obviously if my mom were to post a photo of me running around the house naked when I was 3 she wouldn't be guilty of posting cp. At least I hope not or I better tell her to take that photo off of her family photo site.

[pornlaw]

My point is that it is a slippery slope and I dont think commercial vs. non-commercial gets you there. CP is much different than nude pics. They do not mean the same thing. If so, Joe Francis would have been in jail for CP since several of his models that flashed were under 18. Pic hosting sites do make money so it is a commercial venture even if the poster does not.

Try to find a law stating it is against the law to take a naked pic of your child in any state. Or as Hammer points out, his mom and most of our moms would be in jail. Almost everyone has the obligatory "kid in the tub" pic in their family album.

I see this law getting overruled as unconstitutional.

[DannyCox]

There was a case a few years ago that made the news. A guy put film in to get developed. On it were pictures of his young children running around naked. The store called the police, and the man was actually charged. I never heard what happened in that case, but I would hope the prosecutors threw it out as soon as it was filed.

Carol and I have been Naturists (Nudists) for over 20 years. We've been to many Naturist camps and resorts across the US and Canada, all of which were family oriented. It was very common for people to take pictures of their kids running around and playing as it's really no different than if they were dressed. Due to the amount of CP on the Internet these days, and the paranoia that followed, many people just won't take those innocent pictures anymore for fear of being labeled as something. Just another unfortunate byproduct of all this.

[ali25extreme]

I have pics of my son naked and in the tub or running around but I keep them in an album..those are for us to laugh at when he gets older..I do not post them nor do I believe that others should either. I have a digital camera so family only views his cute baby butt!
I have no fear of spanking my child, taking a pic of his butt, or yelling at him when he gets out of line. The world does not raise my child I do..if you think you can do better have your own ..that is what I would tell anyone if they told me what I was doing was wrong..the one thing in this world that I am sure of is "I am a great mom" I make mistakes and am not perfect but I live my life for my child to have a great one.
I dare the asshole to slap some stupid title on me about an innocent pic of my babe.

[MRock]

That website would not have come under scrutiny if they had not been shooting the pics/vids at the Seabird Sanctuary, a registered tax free organization. THAT is what started the whole investigation by the local news channel ... and no, I do not agree with the sites choice of material. Just for the record.

On the other hand ... I did see some Mylie Cyrus pics the other day on national publications both print and video ...

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Okay I am going to play devil's advocate here for a moment... before I do I just wanna go on the record and say that site boarders on CP but here's the problem I have...



What if my family (hypothetical family has 2 girls aged 11 and 13) are nudists and we go to the nudist colony for a vacation with all the other nudist families we have been friends with for years and I take pictures of all the families hanging out - pun intended -- and post them on a Picasso type of hosting site...

Should I go to jail ? Is it CP ? It is something I can even be prosecuted for in Florida under this new law?

Would it be okay if my daughters were 2 and 3 years old ? When do I have to tell them to cover up for the pics ? When they start to have their periods ? When they develop breasts ?

I agree with the law professors, this one is going to be tough to find constitutional. But I think sites like TrueTeenBabes really end up causing legal adult content problems.

When I owned a 30 minute Photo processing lab, (1992-94) we were always concerned about pix of kids in bathtubs, baby blanket photos, etc.
We were expected to make a judgment call. Of course that was pre-net era, but not pre BBS.