"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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The indictment alleges that these defendants conspired to produce pornographic images of under-aged girls posing in lascivious positions for profit, under the pretense of offering professional modeling services,” said Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division. “The Department of Justice is committed to the protection of our children from those who violate the law and sexually exploit minors for commercial gain.”

“The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine. Here lewd has met lucrative, and exploitation of a child’s innocence equals profits,” said U.S. Attorney Alice H. Martin. 3

Isn’t it interesting that the majority of the exploited children were ecstatic ane very joyful about the modeling sessions. So much that they now decided to start a campaign of speaking up in public! This will not save the poor men that are being abused in prison by the honest criminals that despise and cruelly punish child abusers.

Greenberg and Webe Web admitted that the web sites pertaining to 16 different children contained illegal images of child pornography. In some of the photos, the victims, all girls aged 8 to 15, were wearing underwear, lingerie, bathing suits and other revealing outfits, and were posed in positions that constituted child pornography. [...]

According to court documents, the photographs of the 16 victims in this case were taken by Jeff Pierson, a former photographer based in the Birmingham, Alabama area. Pierson pleaded guilty in January 2007 to conspiracy to transport child pornography and transportation of child pornography.

Corporation pleads guilty to transportation, production of child pornography

 

Video: Girl allegedly traumatized for by photographing provocatively dressed

The above girl was probably educated in very religious or sex hysteric ways. Or she was further reinforced by mom’s panic. We suppose that "child erotica" trauma is socially constructed.

It would have been wiser if the photographer got explicit prior consent from both mom and model, showing exactly the type of photos to be made. Other parents were sitting inside, watching the sessions. More about Bailey: Feds crack down on teen, preteen ‘model’ sites

No nudity, no semi nudity. No Sex. But it is child porn.

WHEN CLOTHED SHOTS ARE PROSECUTED AS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (A Lawyer’s legal opinion)

March 21, 2007- Remember, so-called crotch shots can expose a person to a child pornography prosecution and conviction.

One person who learned this the hard way is Jeff Pierson, who has been prosecuted federally for allegedly taking "too sexual" clothed shots of children whose parents hired him to take the photos. An article addressing the First Amendment concerns in Mr. Pierson’s case (and I think the First Amendment prohibits prosecutions for mere possession of child pornography, but the Supreme Court and lower courts do not agree with me) is here. A March 8, 2007, article after Mr. Pierson’s guilty plea is here.

Mr. Pierson’s criminal charging document is here, and his plea agreement is here. Jon Katz.


 

None of the photos showed nudity, but prosecutors say they still meet court-approved definitions of pornography because of the girls’ ages — as young as 7 — and the nature of the pictures, which included children in panties, high heels and adult-looking lingerie.

U.S. Attorney Alice Martin said the pictures — which were billed as images of child models — amount to “soft porn" that’s prohibited by federal law.  Plea deal reached in child-porn case

 

No nudity, but ‘sexually suggestive poses’
“There are no semi-nude or nude images,” she said. “The children are dressed in underwear, adult lingerie, high heels, etc., and placed in sexually suggestive poses which focus the viewer’s attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity.”
Feds crack down on teen, preteen ‘model’ sites

 

 

Pierson’s Web site boasted he has the "most wonderful wife in the world and two fantastic daughters." And until recently, he ran a business called Beautiful Super Models that charged $175 for portraits of aspiring models under 18.

In a federal indictment announced this week, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Pierson, 43, of being a child pornographer–even though even prosecutors acknowledge there’s no evidence he has ever taken a single photograph of an unclothed minor.

The heinous crime is that the girls, allegedly, are striking the wrong pose.  No, not perverted indecent poses. Provocative! Decades of prison for provocative poses. Only plea bargaining kept it under a decade.

Rather, they argue, his models struck poses that were illegally provocative. "The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine," Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama, said in a statement.  [...]

No sex, no nudity
Because no sex or nudity is involved, the prosecutions raise unusual First Amendment concerns that stretch beyond mere modeling-related Web sites: children and teens in various degrees of undress appear in everything from newspaper underwear advertisements to the covers of Seventeen and Vogue
Federal case may redefine child porn

 

Political hypocrites want tougher laws but mess with minors themselves

The sites also attracted the attention of Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who in 2002 introduced a bill called the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act to attempt to tighten restrictions on the sale of photographs of minors. The bill died in committee amid objections from civil libertarians and commercial interests.

Foley resigned from Congress in September after it was reported that he exchanged inappropriate e-mails with a teenage page. Feds crack down on teen, preteen ‘model’ sites

 

 

 

 

Subscribe to Human-Stupidity Blog

Receive an email notification whenever Human-Stupidity.com has a new post.

16 Comments

  1. AB says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I only saw the first video.
    What a sad story.
    Stupidity indeed. And not just stupid, but cruel.

  2. jewamongyou says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    How tragic! The government is, indeed, in the business of breaking up families and destroying the lives of innocent people.

  3. theantifeminist says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Whenever feminists, the MSM, politicians, or whoever, are discussing anti-paedophile, anti-child porn laws and punishments, they never seem to even begin to take into account the undoubted harm to the ‘victims’ they are supposed to be protecting.

    We’re supposed to believe that a young girl making money from posing for photos and videos in bikinis is being exploited and damaged to such an extent that we can force her to go through a traumatic trial in which she is made to give evidence which will destroy the life of somebody who she sees as a friend.

    The people who make these laws and meet out the punishments which are justified on such little argument, evidence, and more likely upon downright lies and base human motivations as jealousy, are without doubt child abusers themselves.

  4. Alan Vaughn says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @theantifeminist
    The girls actually attest to that themselves in their videos – some of them actually say that the only people who have ‘victimized’ them are the State and / or the FBI.
    The TRUE sex-obsessed perverts (i.e the US government and the police, FBI) have totally destroyed their lives and their families for NOTHING!
    American society is now sliding down the slippery-dip, from a police state into a state of full totalitarianism, all based upon the whims of a few jealous, nihilistic and sex-crazed feminist hags and greedy media personalities.

  5. Alan Vaughn says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @human-stupidity (admin)
    Whilst on the topic of the US police state and the FBI, you might also find this fine example of their blatant and gross HYPOCRACY rather ‘interesting’ too:
    http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=150

  6. Alan Vaughn says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @admin,
    You might also want to link the above article to your topic on the ‘voodoo theory’ of how each time a child ‘victim’s’ photo is looked at by a pervert, that child is re-victimized over & over. Well, the child victims are so ‘re-victimized’, at least according to feminist scientific research… Consequently, powerful laws were introduced in order to stem the supply of child-porn, and thus prevent this re-victimization, which is so HEINOUS, it justifies sending a filthy, sick pervert (who has never broken a law in his life) to prison FOREVER with no parole, as in this example:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/us/life-sentence-for-possession-of-child-pornography-spurs-debate.html?_r=1
    The FBI of course, strongly ENFORCE these laws on US citizens, but they are apparently above the law themselves…

  7. Alan Vaughn says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @admin,
    “The above girl was probably educated in very religious or sex hysteric ways. Or she was further reinforced by mom’s panic. We suppose that “child erotica” trauma is socially constructed”.

    Or, more likely: mom or even both mom & Bailey were paid a small fortune by NBC to say what NBC wanted them to say!

  8. Bilbo says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I used to download these models a few years ago before the studios got shut down. I always laughed at the claim that they were being coerced into modelling – you couldn’t fake the smiles these girl had!

  9. Pell says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/arkansas-court-overturns-ban-teacher-student-sex-article-1.1053618

  10. Alan Vaughn says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    And in at least one case – the so called ‘predator’ was the model’s father! They literally destroyed that girl’s family and her whole life. I would say that when she has her own children, she will teach them to NEVER trust the police, the law or the state – she pracdtically told us that in her video anyway.
    What’s needed are more ‘victims’ like her: who are courageous enough to tell the paedo-hysterical witch-hunters how wrong they are and how they have been misinformed.
    The ULTIMATE (although I guess would never be allowed) would be for these girls to do and SAY the same things they said in the above videos on trashy, yet ever popular TV shows such as Oprah Winfrey and that even trashier excuse for entertainment: To Catch a Predator.
    I would pay $1000′s just to see the looks on the faces of those two buffoons, not to mention listening to the sounds of the sighing in desbelief / disappointment of the paedophile lynch-mobs, Winfrey always has in her studio audiences…

  11. Alan Vaughn says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    The girl’s (‘Bailey’) mother makes a ‘scary’ remark about the presence of a ‘gun’ in the video.
    Judging by the numerous oufits that appear to have been worn by the girl models, including: cowboys, police officers and an army or military (camoflague) uniform, I would dare say if she really did see a gun, it would have been a toy one, part of any one of those costume sets.
    Typical of hyped-up feminist generated paedo-hysteria.

  12. Brigadon says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    It’s very simple. ‘child abuse’ hysteria HAS to be raked, or there is no chance of old, ugly feminists achieving their ultimate goal…. legalizing sex only with old, ugly women.

    Raking the coals of hysteria will give the aged cunts the impetus they need to keep people freaking out about ‘child abuse’ and ‘statutory rape’, so when they can finally get laws passed that turn women under 25 into ‘children’ sexually, the overexposed public will just take it with the same lack of discrimination as they took the idiot laws pushing back the age of consent from 15 to 18.

  13. The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you defend child porn and pedophiles | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    [...] Children loved non-nude solo modeling, were traumatized by federal government child porn hysteria: &… [...]

  14. Jenny Williamson says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Some of the first videos have been removed from YouTube, they can be viewed again here:

    http://archive.childerotica.net/webeweb-non-nude-child-modelling.html

  15. Larner says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    They don’t care about the kids, simple as that.

    Those people don’t want to protect kids, the only thing they want is society to somehow give them attention. So they create an issue that doesn’t exist, scare the parents, and push for harsh laws.

    The reason behind all this is that they can be the hero, solving a “terrible” issue while the people have no idea they’re the cause behind all the fear.

  16. Larner says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    yet child pageants are promoted and totally legal?

Leave a Reply

 Subscribe to Human-Stupidity Blog (no spam, unsubscribe at any time) 

Subscribe to Human-Stupidity Blog
Receive an email notification whenever Human-Stupidity.com has a new post.
Email: 
 
Mailing list powered by Google Feedburner. Every email contains an unsubscribe link. You can unsubscribe at any time. Human-Stupidity hates spam as much as you do.

 Subscribe in a reader      Follow us on twitter