Federal case may redefine child porn

Jeff Pierson is a photographer whose action shots of hopped-up American autos laying waste to the asphalt at Alabama dragways have appeared in racing magazines and commercial advertisements.

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.

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.

Pierson's child pornography indictment arises out of an FBI and U.S. Postal Inspection Service investigation of so-called child modeling sites, which have been the subject of a series of critical congressional hearings and news reports in the last few years. An August article in The New York Times, for instance, called the modeling Web sites "the latest trend in child exploitation."

Jeff Pierson
Credit: Southern Illusions
Jeff Pierson,
photographer

In addition to Pierson, the U.S. attorney also announced indictments against Marc Greenberg, 42, Jeffrey Libman, 39, partners in a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., business called Webe Web, which in turn ran the now-defunct ChildSuperModels.com site. It was one of the larger sites that featured photographs of child models, allegedly from Pierson, and became the target of a report on Florida's NBC6 affiliate suggesting that it was a magnet for pedophiles.

First Amendment scholars interviewed Wednesday raised questions about the Justice Department's attack on Internet child modeling. They warned that any legal precedent might endanger the mainstream use of child models in advertising and suggested that prosecutors' budgets might be better spent investigating actual cases of child molestation.

Amy Adler
Credit: NYU
Amy Adler,
NYU law professor

"I don't know what the DOJ's trying," said Lee Tien, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group. "The best I can say is that it's puzzling that they would devote investigative and law enforcement resources to something (like this). This is a far cry from what folks normally think of as child pornography."

The Web sites that prompted the indictments are now offline. But copies saved in Google's cache and through Archive.org show the photographs in question depicted girls wearing everything from sweaters to, more frequently, swimsuits and midriff-baring attire. Parents appear to have given their consent.

Richard Jaffe, Pierson's attorney, said he could not immediately comment because he was in court on Wednesday. Jill Ellis, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the northern district of Alabama, confirmed to CNET News.com that no nudity was involved. An arraignment for Pierson has been scheduled for December 14 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Armstrong.

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.

Alice Martin
Credit: DOJ
Alice Martin,
U.S. Attorney

When actress and model Brooke Shields was 15 years old, for instance, she appeared in a racy Calvin Klein jean advertisement featuring the memorable line, "Nothing comes between me and my Calvins." Shields also appeared nude at 12 years old in an Oscar-nominated movie called Pretty Baby that was set in a New Orleans brothel. Similarly, 14-year-old Jodie Foster, wearing revealing clothing, played a pre-teen prostitute in Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver.

Sally Mann, named Time magazine's "photographer of the year" in 2001, was attacked by critics for featuring nude images of her own children in a book called Immediate Family. Famed photographer Jock Sturges' photos often feature nude boys and girls on the beaches of California and France--images that are far more revealing than those of swimsuit-clad youths.

CONTINUED: A subjective distinction...
Page 1 | 2
More from News.com on this story's topics

Web sites

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Lawsuits

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Censorship

RSS feed

See more CNET content tagged:
indictment, nudity, Alabama, First Amendment, attorney

Add a Comment (Log in or register) 88 comments (Page 1 of 3)
the line
by sadchild November 30, 2006 5:44 AM PST
here's the line | | here are desperate people trying to make money dancing on that line 0-<| 0-<| what can i get away with and still make millions of dollars from the pervs out there?
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
And people wonder why there is resistance to current anti-child porn laws
by umbrae November 30, 2006 6:19 AM PST
I am sure many people will take this article at face value considering that you cannot find many of the pictures in question. People have been using children model in all types of media for longer than anyone can remember. What next? Can parents no longer take pictures of their children? If the head is facing this direction, and the arm held just so... *poof* pornography! Has any of the people in the Bush administration actually see what kids where these day. Maybe we need to bring in all the clothes manufacturers on pornography charges as well. Its not pornography if the kid is not naked or involved in sex. Unless the child feels exploited or the parents were not involved; these kids are just making a living. Once you allow obscure laws to be passed, you lose control on how they are interpreted. Honestly, any photos like this could be your innocent family photos. How many people put those on the web? Its not pornography because someone gets off on it. If that is the case then no one should leave their houses in the morning. I guess I should start suing every women in a short skirt for public displays of pornography...
Reply to this comment View all 5 replies
Pretty Baby
by SamPJackson November 30, 2006 6:25 AM PST
I have always felt that Brooke Shields' performance in Pretty Baby was kiddie porn. According to some accounts, her father agreed, and Brooke's divorced parents are not on good terms.
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
Parents??
by jltnol November 30, 2006 7:20 AM PST
And just where are the parents of these "exploited" children? Do they bear no responsibiity for allowing their children to so photographed? I'm sorry, but really, someone needs to let folks know that parenting is a FULL TIME JOB. If you don't / won't / can't assume responsibility for you child's welfare, then perhaps you shouldn't have children.
Reply to this comment View all 5 replies
Now let's get this straight
by Terry Murphy November 30, 2006 7:26 AM PST
You have to wonder about the Justice department's priorities (not to mention sincerity) when they choose to spend time and resources to investigate and prosecute a case as absurd as this and yet show virtually no interest in prosecuting former congressman Tom Foley
Reply to this comment
googling at the jury pool of indecent exposure
by vampares November 30, 2006 7:38 AM PST
America's legal system will not be raped. Voting is the only decision jurors make.
Reply to this comment
Old anecdote.
by Philips November 30, 2006 8:13 AM PST
> Rather, they argue, his models struck poses that were illegally provocative. That reminds me old anecdote. A person with problem comes to a doctor: he can't stop thinking about sex. After few questions, doctor decided to conduct simple test. He shows a picture with black circle on white background. "Oh! I see!! That's pond, there is couple in it and they are doing it!!!" replies promptly visitor. Intrigued doctor shows next picture with black square on it. The visitor reacts quickly: "That's bedroom window and the couple in there are doing it!!". Completely confused doctor shows him last picture with black triangle on it. Visitor doesn't think twice: "That's camping tent and couple inside are doing it!!!". Now totally lost doctor stops for a moment to think what to do next. Suddenly, his visitor's face becomes suspicious: "Doctor, where did you got such dirty pictures???". Lopata. IOW, I think the prosecutors - not the photographer - needs to be checked.
Reply to this comment View reply
Your tax dolars at work
by Hep Cat November 30, 2006 8:27 AM PST
I'm glad Abu Gonzales' Justice Department is hard at work nabbing people who take pictures of fully clothed kids in poses their parents ordered. It's not like there's anything else to work on. Except maybe terrorism. Or illegal business pratcies. Or any one of a zillion other things that are far more injurious to the public.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
YAY For Bush's MORAL SQUAD!
by SeizeCTRL November 30, 2006 9:09 AM PST
One step closer to 1984. Seriously though... ***? So if I was a 15 yr old girl, in a bikini, laying on the beach with my legs spread open and some one happened to glance my way... could they be arrested for the same BS crap as this? This is way to far... next thing you know, Sears will be indicted for taking pics of girls in their underwear for their catalogs. This administration has just spiraled out of control...
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Embarassing
by Dmitry1969 November 30, 2006 9:22 AM PST
My wife is from Ukraine, I'm from America. I was looking at our photo scrapbook of our kids growing up and I saw my wife had some photo's in their of our kids nude, as babies. That struck me as odd, because I would have never have taken such a photo. She thought that was ridiculous. I have to agree, it is absurd. I've lived with it my whole life, so I don't know how absurd it is... What if a perv does get off at looking at pictures of fully clothed children. I feel sorry for that guy... as for going after people who take photographs of fully clothed children...thats absurd. We must, as a country, stop going after people for the thoughts that occur in other people's head. If some weirdo gets off on looking at an old Buick, that doesn't mean I have to park my car in the garage! As far as kids go, if they are clothed, and the parents have agreed, and the kids aren't forced or harmed... well, I say, this is a waste. At the very least, don't try to take vaguely worded legislation and make it apply. Write laws that are specific, and then if someone violates them, you'll have my support in going after the lawbreaker.
Reply to this comment View reply
1 | 2 | 3 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News.com to your homepage or feedreader.
Google
Yahoo
MSN
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Today's Top Stories
EU official concerned about Google imagery
Who doesn't Microsoft have a patent deal with?
Amazon to collect N.Y. sales tax
Fisker files counterattack in Tesla lawsuit
Alienware: Game PCs need more than fast chips
Most Popular Stories
Gates: Every surface to be a computer
What is blocking Vista users from recording NBC shows?
Intel Germany executive reportedly confirms Atom-based iPhone
Images: Microsoft telescope puts universe on your desktop
Photos: Microsoft previews 2008 Xbox games
Resource center from News.com sponsors
You can do more when your phone runs Windows®
Windows Mobile

See it all at StartDoingMore.com Start Doing More

Start doing more
Get More Done with Windows Mobile

There's so much more you can do when your phone runs Windows. StartDoingMore.com>

Familiar Microsoft Software and Services

With a Windows Mobile phone, your easy-to-use Microsoft software go wherever you go.

Choose the perfect phone for you

Side, flip, qwerty, touchscreen? See More>

Markets

Market news, charts, SEC filings, and more

Related quotes

Dow Jones Industrials (0.23%) 29.63 12,928.01
S&P 500 (0.36%) 5.07 1,413.73
NASDAQ (0.99%) 24.65 2,521.35
CNET TECH (0.86%) 15.11 1,767.34
  Symbol Lookup
Detroit auto show
Detroit auto show

Detroit auto show
advertisement
On MovieTome: Your first look at the new JAMES BOND
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: