Children loved non-nude solo modeling, were traumatized by federal government child porn hysteria: "Photo sessions were the highlight of my life"!

"We were not victims.  The only people that ever victimized me was the federal government themselves" (sic) 5:54

Child porn "victims" decided to speak up: ."I loved modeling.  It was the highlight of my life" 1.00  The models were best friends with the photographer, were profoundly scarred by the photographer’s arrest and the judgmental panic hysteria of neighbors, friends and school mates. The life of the photographer, his children and family were ruined by long prison sentences.

Around 2003, the US repressed, with heavy prison sentences, child modeling sites with non-nude children and with adolescents dressed in light clothes like swimsuits and lingerie. These sites were careful to stay legal, to have no nudity, semi-nudity nor sexual behavior. To no avail. The harmless fairly innocent photos were determined to be child pornography.

Of course, such expanded child pornography definitions can criminalize department store child swimsuit catalogues (so much that Human-Stupidity thought it wiser NOT to even repost catalogue photos) or parent’s nude baby photos in the bath tub 


jeff-piersonTuscaloosa County photographer sentenced to federal prison in child modeling porn case

A Tuscaloosa County photographer was sentenced today to serve five years and seven months in federal prison on child pornography charges for providing pictures of underage Birmingham area girls in provocative clothing and sexually suggestive poses to a child modeling website.

After his release from prison Jeff Pierson, 47, also will have to serve 10 years on supervised release by the U.S. Probation Office and register as a sex offender, U.S. District Judge Scott Coogler ordered at today’s hearing. Coogler ordered Pierson to report to prison on March 9. […]

A few of the girls who had their photos taken by Pierson were at today’s hearing. Coogler offered them a chance to make a statement in the courtroom but they declined.

Now the girls are making statements.  Several of the 16 "victims" speak out in a campaign to clarify they enjoyed the photo sessions and were in no way traumatized. Or rather, how they were severely traumatized by the hysteria in press and the police prosecution.

I understand. That’s why I can’t get some models to join our campaign. They agree with us and support us but they don’t want this to be a part of their lives anymore, and I don’t blame them. But I will do everything I can to set the record straight and any webe models (even if they weren’t my dad’s) who want to join this campaign are more than welcome. 4


Speak out campaign: former child erotica models declare
they enjoyed the modeling and were in no way traumatized.

 

Video: A girl and her family, victims of child porn hysteria.

Normal department store child lingerie photos can become child porn, when collected in ways that indicate that the interest is not in the clothing (See Copine scale, also Knox vs. USA). The children do not get victimized by millions of viewers of their newspaper ad. But according to the voodoo theory they get victimized when the same photos are being watched by a photo collector with potential prurient interest.  Remember, Dr. Milton Diamond has proven the opposite, that availability of child erotica and child porn reduces actual child abuse crimes.

You can see some of the  webeweb photos in question (at your own risk to potentially pollute your computer cache with child porn)  by doing a Google image search for webeweb. Human-Stupidity will not risk posting these photos or even linking to them. Google is better equipped to fend off malicious prosecution.

Video Playlist: Speak Up: WebeWeb – Child Erotica – Sandy Models:
Child porn hysteria victims speak up

 

 

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Children loved non-nude solo modeling, were traumatized by federal government child porn hysteria: "Photo sessions were the highlight of my life"!” »
Children loved non-nude solo modeling, were traumatized by federal… » continues here »

Share

Copine/ Sap Scales, Dost Test: Severity of child porn

The COPINE scale was originally developed for therapeutic psychological purposes. More specifically, it is used to distinguish between child erotica and child pornography. […]

In the late 1990s, the COPINE project ("Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe") at the University of Cork, in cooperation with the Paedophile Unit of the London Metropolitan Police, developed a typology to categorize child abuse images for use in both research and law enforcement.[4] The ten-level typology was based on analysis of images available on websites and internet newsgroups. Other researchers have adopted similar ten-level scales. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale

http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF215-Kitty_Photographer.jpg

Is the child victimized by the photographer? or is the photographer victimized by the child porn law?

 

SAP scale

In 2002, the sentencing advisory panel (SAP) of England and Wales devised the SAP scale, condensing the different levels of child porn from 10 to 5 It dropped the Copine levels 1 to 3 completely.  The SAP levels indicate increased seriousness of the crime, and are also considered indications of the dangerousness of the offender (which is problematic).  See Sexual deviance: theory, assessment, and treatment.

Dost Test

In order to better determine whether a visual depiction of a minor constitutes a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A), the court developed six criteria. […]

1) Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitalia or pubic area.

Harmless photos might become child pornography, when cropped in a way that they emphasize clothed genital areas. Cropping a photo (with emphasis on the genital areas) turns it from a legal mainstream newspaper child swimsuit photo into a heinous child porn photo. It is hard to understand how the child in the photo can be victimized by cropping the photo.

Concerning the lascivious display of clothed genitalia, the Department of Justice described use of the Dost test in child pornography and 2257 documentation regulations in a 2008 rule, writing that the precedent United States v. Knox, 32 F.3d 733 (3d Cir. 1994) did not prohibit ordinary swim team or underwear model photographs, but "although the genitals were clothed in that case, they were covered by thin, opaque clothing with an obvious purpose to draw attention to them, were displayed by models who spread or extended their legs to make the pubic and genital region entirely visible to the viewer, and were displayed by models who danced or gyrated in a way indicative of adult sexual relations." […]

The test was criticized by NYU Law professor Amy Adler as forcing members of the public to look at pictures of children as a pedophile would in order to determine whether they are considered inappropriate. "As everything becomes child pornography in the eyes of the law—clothed children, coy children, children in settings where children are found—perhaps children themselves become pornographic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test

Everything becomes child pornography. 

You will see in the Copine scale analysis below, that any department store adolescent lingerie catalog can become child pornography, when collected by a man that might get excited by the photos.

Human-Stupidity Analysis

The Copine scale (and the derived Sap scale) is a good attempt to rate child pornography on one dimension, by its "seriousness".

It totally fails to consider 2 other important dimensions

  1. age:  penetrative sex with a toddler or with a 17 year old have the same rating (Copine 9 out of 10). The first causes serious injuries and is surely unnatural. The second is perfectly legal in Europe where the age of consent is 16, a natural legal act between adolescent lovers, still it is one of the most serious levels of child porn. An adolescent couple can legally have sex, but they cannot photograph themselves doing it. Otherwise they get victimized by themselves (?). Human-Stupidity believes they get victimized by the insane laws.
  2. consent vs. non-consent: consensual S/M spanking play of adolescent minors or kidnapping torture are the same (Copine 10, the highest rating)

The Copine scale

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Copine/ Sap Scales, Dost Test: Severity of child porn” »
Copine/ Sap Scales, Dost Test: Severity of child porn » continues here »

Share