Holy shit, what the fuck is that ?
 

http://www.childsupermodels.com/

:eek7

:repuke

wow, didn't realize there were so many of those sites still in operation

:uhoh

the pedophile's best friend

..and I thought that I was scum...

:ak47: to those who keep this site online.....sickos! may they come down with the worst for of SARS there is.

I swear I saw your banner of there...! :warning

damn, what kind of parents would let their kids model for this ?

... you sexy girl.

:Graucho

asacp...

The Ramseys

http://reversespeech.com/ramsey.shtml


The second one is some haunting shit.

Dunno if they can do anything about this. Maybe now that the new laws have passed (?) they have more power over this crap?

Disturbing stuff. What's the legality on this?

half of these domains are similar, i.e.

www.[a_girl's_name]-model.com

have the same button templates,

and the credit cards payment page source link shows their "secure server":

https://secure1.webeweb.net/blahblahblah

Although people with these types of sites could not become ASACP members, it is not illegal.

ASACP addressed this topic in a PR last month. A short segment is below, you can read the complete PR at
http://www.asacp.org/press/press0203a.html

Confusion Exists: ?What Is Child Pornography??

...When it comes to child pornography, it is always best to err on the side of caution. It may be legal, but you are asking for scrutiny by the government.

...Why isn't a picture of a naked seven-year-old child considered child pornography and why doesn't ASACP report this to the F.B.I.?

...Under the current Child Pornography Laws nudity does not always equal child pornography. If a child is nude, partially nude or fully clothed is not the determining factor; what the child is doing and/or having done to him/her is. If the image is lewd, sexual in nature or the picture focuses on the genitals, then chances are - it is child pornography.

Please help support the ASACP Mission by becoming an Approved Member![B][SIZE=3][COLOR=purple]

Are they all US sites?..... there must besome abuse issue

Surely a social worker or similar is allowed some "personal judgement" in a case like this....

Can it realy be a case of "we all know it is CP" but because they are bending some laws and not breaking them we can do nothing?

Its similar to "how hard can you smack a child before it become a beating?".... the social worker has to make a judgement call...

If not, I vote we just round and break the parents legs!

I cant beleive that poeple can actually use inncent kids like that.. Fucken pisses me off. TABERNAC!!!

For me porn is for mature and consent people.

:ak47: :ak47: Thats what they deserve!!!

Or.. it may be that you'll see more and more of these type of sites popping up because now the new bill has included specifics.. so all anyone needs to do is not satisfy any of the items within the bill and they are legal.

mailto:[email protected]


:glugglug

Didnt the government just shut down some of these sites?

I'll search for the link

That's WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! :feels-hot

I really hope those mother fuckers die :ak47:

be sure you see their parents head completely in fron of the shot gun before firing.

Dooh :disgust

Joan is quite correct in this statement.

However, I'm very glad to see so many posts against this type of content. Epoch does not and will not process for these types of sites.

We can all do our part to support the efforts against CP by becoming members of ASACP. It's the right thing to do.



http://www.epochsystems.com/sales/asacp.gif

I would hope that mere nudity never becomes the standard. Classical paintings and sculpture, fine photography, etc., have long featured nude children and cherubs.

The equation of nudity with pornography is part of the sexual schizophrenia of our society. Out of one side of its mouth, our culture espouses the idea that the body is beauiful; out of the other it seems to say that there is something wrong with observing this beauty.

If the goal is to deny pedophiles any images they might appreciate, stop a minute and remember that J-Lo and Brittany Spears and Cindy Crawford are all still sexually attractive with their clothes on. To reach that goal, you'd have to eliminate ALL images of children which is just insane.

As Bertrand Russell observed (I have to paraphrase, not having the original quote with me, but this is close enough): "If you forbade anyone to look at trains, and a committee cut images of trains out of books and magazines, and shrouded paintings of trains, would this decrease people's interest in trains? No, it would have the opposite effect: It would create a morbid curiosity about trains."

Just look at the effect that attempting to prevent teens from having cigarettes has had. All teens have recognized the wisdom of not smoking, right?

Right...

wtf..

Yes. Well said.

It's good to remember this to avoid the slippery slope of censorship and to maintain the objectives of fighting the real crimes.

That being said, (and this is striclty my own opinion) I still think those kiddie modeling sites are just wrong. They have obviously, it seems to me, taken their cues from the adult industry and exploitation is still exploitation wether it is pornographic or not.

My :2 cents:

That's child porn??? I didn't click the links but it looks like the same type of girls you see modeling bathing suits and shorts in a department store catalogue.

If that qualifies as child porn every retailer in America has child porn in their catalogues.