"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

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

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

Related