Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act of 2002

The Library of Congress ^ | MAY 7, 2002 | Mr. FOLEY

[jgrubbs]

HR 4667 IH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4667

To protect children from exploitive child modeling, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 7, 2002

Mr. FOLEY (for himself, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. REYES, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. WAMP, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. CAMP, Mr. WICKER, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. DELAY, and Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

---

A BILL

To protect children from exploitive child modeling, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act of 2002'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The use of children in the production of exploitive child modeling, including on Internet websites, in photographs, films, videos, and other visual depictions, is a form of child abuse that can result in physical and psychological harm to the children involved.

(2) Exploitive child modeling is different from other, legitimate, child modeling because exploitive child modeling involves marketing the child himself or herself in lascivious positions and acts, rather than actually marketing products to average American consumers.

(3) The purpose of exploitive child modeling is to satisfy the demand of pedophiles.

(4) Unlike legitimate child modeling, exploitive child modeling may involve a direct and personal interaction between the child model and the pedophile. The pedophile often knows the child's name and has a way of communicating with the child.

(5) The interaction between the exploited child model and the pedophile can lead the child to trust pedophiles and to believe that it is acceptable and safe to meet with pedophiles in private.

(6) Over 70 percent of convicted pedophiles have used child pornography or exploitive child modeling depictions to whet their sexual appetites. Because children are used in its production, exploitive child modeling can place the child in danger of being abducted, abused, or murdered by the pedophiles who view such depictions.

(7) These exploitive exhibitions of children are unacceptable by social standards and lead to a direct harm to the children involved.

SEC. 3. EMPLOYMENT IN EXPLOITIVE CHILD MODELING.

(a) PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT- Section 12 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 212) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(e)(1) No employer may employ a minor under 17 years old to work in exploitive child modeling.

`(2) Notwithstanding section 16(a), whoever violates paragraph (1) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

`(3) In this subsection, the term `exploitive child modeling' means the display of a minor (through any medium) without a direct or indirect purpose of marketing a product or service other than the minor.'.

(b) OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR- Section 3(l) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 203(l)) is amended--

(1) by striking `(1) any' and inserting `(A) any';

(2) by striking `(2) any' and inserting `(B) any';

(3) by inserting `(1)' after `(l)'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(2) Such term includes employment of a minor in violation of section 12(e)(1).'.

SEC. 4. EXPLOITIVE CHILD MODELING OFFENSE.

(a) IN GENERAL- 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2252A the following:

`Sec. 2252B. Exploitive child modeling

`Whoever displays, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, the image of a child who has not attained the age of 17 years, with the intent to make a financial gain thereby, or offers, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to provide an image of such a child with the intent to make a financial gain thereby, without a purpose of marketing a product or service other than an image of a child model, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2252A the following:

`2252B. Exploitive child modeling.'.

END

[jgrubbs]

Parents Exposing Kids On Soft-Porn Web Sites

[Phantom Lord]

without a purpose of marketing a product or service

Offer widgets for sale and you are in compliance with the law.

[El Sordo]

While I'm for the idea, the way this law is written seems rather open-ended and easy to abuse, and does not seem difficult to circumvent.

[codebreaker]

Here comes the ACLU-Libertarian faction..batten down the hatches!

[OBAFGKM]

Wouldn't this criminalize the children's pageant circuit?

[Dimensio]

Actually, an interesting question would be whether or not the activities of Fortune 500 companies that you mentioned would be covered under the law. If so, I'm sure they would simply buy their way out of it or have authorities look the other way.

Another issue is how do you determine when something is intentionally exploitative. I've no doubt that quite a bit of the material may well be obvious to spot, but I'd not be surprised if there were a few cases where the authorities called something exploitative when there was no such intent.

[jgrubbs]

I did some investigation into these "modeling" sites. Most are not ran by mom and dad, but by the same companies that run Adult Porn Web sites. They charge a membership fee to see the pictures of these children in erotic poses wearing swimsuits, underwear, and lingere .

I think they are sick, it's only a matter of time before they have the kids posing in the new Abercrombie and Fitch Thongs for Kids

I wrote my congressman and asked him to co-sponsor this bill.

[AppyPappy]

What adults do is up to them. But children can't make the decision so we have to protect them. Even if their parents think it is wonderful.

[jgrubbs]

teenmodeldirectory.com list many of these children modeling sites. I noticed that teenmodeldirectory.com and many of the sites on the list are all ran by TAPACT in Maryland.

TAPACT (I7295-OR) tapact@hotmail.com
TAPACT
PO Box 3732
FREDERICK, MD 21705
US
301 573 2180 fax: 123 123 1234

TAPACT is an Adult Industry Internet company.

Troy Stegner (TAPACT-DOM)
8765 Treasure Ave
Walkersville, MD 21793
US

Domain Name: TAPACT.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Potter, Angela (AP6768) tapact@HOTMAIL.COM
8765 Treasure Ave
Walkersville , MD 21793
301 898 3636

[gdani]

What an idiot law. I love how people always think there should be new exceptions to the First Amendment.

If the people supporting this law are serious in their contentions then why shouldn't all the Sunday newspaper ads featuring girls in training bras and underwear be outlawed? Or the Sears catalog? Or websites that feature juvenile cheerleaders? Can't pedophiles use those to whet their appetite?

[jgrubbs]

If you actually read the law you would see that it doesn't affect "Sunday newspaper ads or the Sears catalog". It is targeting the Adult industry who is using little girls in provocative and erotic poses to charge memberships to their Web site. These are pornographers who are profiting from pedophiles.

If that is what you support, that is your choice, just don't choose it anywhere near me, I'm also support the NRA.

[gdani]

If you actually read the law you would see that it doesn't affect "Sunday newspaper ads or the Sears catalog". It is targeting the Adult industry who is using little girls in provocative and erotic poses to charge memberships to their Web site.

Uh, perhaps you (obviously) didn't get my point. The point is that there are any number of things that pedophiles can use to be turned on. It makes no sense to outlaw, say, child model websites when someone can still pick up a Target circular and see an 11-year-old in a training bra or watch the Olson twins run around in bikinis in some movie.

Not to mention that the law will/would be quickly struck down on First Amendment grounds - as if that's ever stopped Congress from pasing stupid laws before.

[ravingnutter]

so long as Texas housewives and amateur photographers don't try to get in on the action.

LOL, reminds me of this weekend at my 3 y/o grandson's birthday party at the local Transportation Museum. He had to go to the bathroom so he just pulled down his pants and went to the bathroom off of the end of one of the train cabooses on display there (it was outside). I thought about taking a picture because it was so funny, but was afraid of what would happen when I had the pictures developed.

[eno_]

Before we decide if this is good or bad, would anyone care to step up and offer a case for the constitutionality of this being a federal law?

[pragmatic]

Can't they charge the parents with corruption of a minor, or such? That seems like a pretty quick way to end these sites.