Unbelievable! Foley Introduced Bill Banning Teen Model Websites

On March 8, 2005, Republican Mark Foley introduced H.R. 1142, the "Child Modelling Exploitation Prevention Act", which would ban internet sites that depict models age 16 and under for purposes other than selling a product.

March 09, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A Florida Republican congressman introduced a bill Wednesday to prohibit so-called online "child modeling" websites that he says are "nothing more than a fix for *pedophiles.*"

"They don't sell products, they don't sell services - all they serve are young children on a platter for America's most depraved. These sites sell child erotica and they should be banned," said Rep. Mark Foley, co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, in a statement.

The websites cause "immense psychological damage to the children" as well as placing them in "physical danger when contact is made with the people who visit their sites."

More below the fold...

The article goes on to note: "[Foley] said pedophiles who pay to see photos and video clips of the children in sexually suggestive poses send the children provocative clothing and bathing suits to 'model' and talk to them via email. In extreme cases, 'parties' have been held in hotel rooms where pedophiles can meet the children they've been viewing online in person."

OK -- here's something to ponder.  It seems more than a little likely that Rep. Foley did a little, shall we say, research on this topic.  How much do you want to bet he was caught and had to cook up this piece of legislation as a cover?  I bet there are records of the websites he visited -- and perhaps even hotel rooms?    

•  We're going to have to invent a new word...

  because 'hubris' just doesn't cut it any more.

  Please support Barack Obama.

  by DaveV on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:58:25 PM PDT

  •  and HYPOCRITE is insufficient n/t

    by polecat on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:00:47 PM PDT

    •  re

      HYPOHUBRIS!

      by cookiesandmilk on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:02:09 PM PDT

      •  I call it - SELF INVOLVED

        It really is all about him.

        by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:05:52 PM PDT

      •  Actually, that is, very good.

        It employs two Greek words, and essentially would mean, "beyond overweening pride."

        by DCDemocrat on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:13:46 PM PDT

        •  Hubocrisy

          by The Termite on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:20:04 PM PDT

      •  HYPERHUBRIS, more like.

        n/t

        by mxwing on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:18:14 PM PDT

  •  Foley could become a verb

    in a van, down by the river.

    by pacified on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:04:55 PM PDT

  •  snarly farfofism

    by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:08:29 PM PDT

•  Foley's lawyer has spoken .

  Reading his statement, "I am not a pedophile".  

  Haven't we already seen this movie?

  Isn't the part with the blue dress coming up next?

  by crystal eyes on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:02:14 PM PDT

  •  Karma's a bitch...

    and a wheel...  hmm... Karma's a bitch on wheels!

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:03:30 PM PDT

  •  more like the blue AOL account

    by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:09:09 PM PDT

  •  wel, of course the lawyer

    isn't a pedophile, but what about Foley???

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:53:24 PM PDT

  •  TEST HIS COMPUTERS FOR 'DNA'

    Sieze all of his computers RIGHT NOW and test them for DNA, i.e. semen.  

    Take the damn things apart, the keyboards, monitors, and so on, for traces of semen that might have gotten into places that couldn't be wiped clean.

    I'll bet that pervert whacked off when he was online with those kids.  And in that case, it's very likely he got semen on his hands and then put his hands on the computer.  Or he ...God!, what's the proper way to say this?... ejaculated on his keyboard, mouse, trackball, or monitor.  Either way, there ought to be traces of it, even years later.  Check the carpet, the underside of the desk, the whole area.  No doubt there will be traces somewhere that prove the case.

    For that matter, go after ALL of his internet records.  ISPs are supposed to store that information for law enforcement.  Where did he go, what sites did he visit, what was he looking at?   Probably kiddie porn.  Probably little or no adult porn i.e. consenting adult pictures.  

    Someone needs to get search warrants ASAP and confiscate all of that stuff, and go through his house or apartment or whatever with a fine-toothed comb.  

    I see the tip of a really sickening iceberg here.

    by G2geek on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:53:49 PM PDT

  •  no no...

    ...this is where she shakes peace signs at reporters as he boards airforce one.

    by DawnG on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:09:26 PM PDT

•  I'd love to see

  the Congressman's browser logs, wouldn't you?

  by kismet on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:03:43 PM PDT

  •  subpoena the lot of 'em

    That information is supposed to be kept by the ISPs precisely for cases of this type.  

    No doubt in my mind he was probably looking at kiddie porn.  

    And as I said above, take his computer apart and test for traces of semen.  And test the entire area: underside of desk, carpet, chair, etc.  

    by G2geek on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:55:50 PM PDT

•  Legislating to limit his own compulsions.

  These people really are so profoundly self-serving it is amazing.

  by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:04:28 PM PDT

  •  That's an interesting way to put it...

    Seriously, these cats are so fucked up -- this may have been his way to "atone" for his sins.  Ugh.  Ugh...

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:08:43 PM PDT

    •  How else does one explain people like

      Jerry Fallwell looking at at children's character like Tinky Winky that the rest of us just view as a childrens character while Fallwell is screaming "scary gay!"  I mean really.  What kind of person is so hyper-sexualized in their world view that they can find sex in a program designed for two-year olds.

      Listen to Foley's statements "if you are an online predator you WILL go to jail!"  The guy is talking to himself.  Totally self involved and without the slightest notion of the rest of the world's existence.  It is all about him.

      by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:13:11 PM PDT

      •  How could anyone find the teletubbies sexual?

        They're shaped like toddlers, for chrissakes!  Seems to me like Falwell is projecting, big time!

        Please support Barack Obama.

        by DaveV on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:17:13 PM PDT

        •  That is what I've always wondered.

          Everyone else got all upset because he was attacking gay people (which I have a problem with too), but my first reaction was "What kind of sicko sees a Teletubbie as a sexual object?"  I wish I had had a television interview to say that far and wide.  It would have sent that trollish, homophobic pervert back under his bridge pretty quickly if anyone attacked his statements that way.

          by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:21:37 PM PDT

          •  There's lots of times

            I wish you had a television interview, inclusiveheart.  You're one of the best commenters on DKos.

            Please support Barack Obama.

            by DaveV on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:23:25 PM PDT

            •  You are far too kind sir.

              Thank you.

              by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:25:47 PM PDT

  •  He probably just introduced this

    so he could meet lots of "child models" when they testified at the bill's hearing.

    ("Here's my email address if you want to discuss this further.")

    by thebes on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:13:36 PM PDT

    •  Well yeah - he was always going to be

      working on "child protection" issues because again, it is all about him - his access - his compulsion - his shame/guilt.  It is all about him.

      by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:18:27 PM PDT

•  You know, I was about to say...

  jeez, the only thing I haven't heard about this guy that wasn't TEXTBOOK was that he was a Boy Scout leader.

  So I google....

  Fuck.  So to speak.

  The Congress and Scouting

  For the past 18 congressional sessions, the Boy Scouts of America has surveyed the members of the House and Senate regarding their participation in Scouting. The Marketing & Communications Division compiled the following information concerning the 109th Congress.

  Nearly 60 percent of congressional members participated in Scouting....

  Scouting Participation

  Note: Scout denoted by "S"; adult volunteer leader denoted by "L"; Scout and leader denoted by "S&L."

  [snip to state]

  Florida
     Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R), S&L
     Rep. Allen Boyd Jr. (D), S
     Rep. Jim Davis (D), S
     Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R), S
     Rep. Mark Foley (R), S&L
     Rep. John Mica (R), S
     Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R), S&L
     Rep. Cliff Stearns (R), S
     Rep. David Weldon (R), S
     Rep. Robert I. Wexler (D), S
     Rep. C. W. Bill Young (R), S

  by mem from somerville on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:05:44 PM PDT

  •  EXCELLENT find! Make sure it gets to...

    ...the press and the FBI and whatever other agencies might be involved in prosecuting this.   And the DNC and opposition candidates to be sure someone can keep pushing to make sure it gets dealt with.  

    And someone ought to go look up all those Boy Scouts who Foley might have had any contact with whatsoever, and interview them in detail.  

    by G2geek on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:00:11 PM PDT

    •  Enough to make me sick

      I would like to know how Mr Walsh(America's most Wanted} is feeling about this.Foley was on his program spewing his BS.

      by mint julep on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:39:27 PM PDT

  •  oh man....

    ...I think I'm going to be sick.

    I have a question, I don't know much about Foley personally.  But I assume he wasn't "out" as a homosexual (much less a pedophile).  Does he have a wife?  children?  Curious.

    by DawnG on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:12:32 PM PDT

    •  Single

      He is listed as "single" in official documents.  In my google search I came across some stuff with a "partner" but I wouldn't go there.  

      It seems to have been an open secret that he was gay, both in DC and around Florida.

      by mem from somerville on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:55:15 PM PDT

•  simply unbelievable

  Soooo...
  how do you think THIS will get spun?  Foley enters treatment at "Teen Models Anonymous"?

  by bstaihr on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:06:26 PM PDT

•  This from the man who...

  asked for a "pic" of a 16-yr old Congressional page and fantasized about the "great bod" of another page.  I agree with your premise that it's quite possible the bill was cooked up as cover.  

  Here's a prediction:  when authorities do find a history of browsing pedophile sites on any of Foley's computers (or on any of his fellow party members' computers), the defense will be that it was being done as "research".  

  Though realistically, I think Foley will plea bargain and no evidence (or defense) will ever get presented in a court.

  by Rudyard on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:08:23 PM PDT

  •  If true, would mean even more Repubs covered up

    This should be looked into.  Investigative journalism anyone?

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:11:20 PM PDT

•  Here's another instance...

  From NPR Interview With Foley in 2002

  CONAN: You were quoted in The New York Times today as saying the Supreme Court quote, "sided with pedophiles over children." Why do you think that?

  Rep. FOLEY: Well, I think what we've done here is allowed people to get away, if you will, whether it's virtual reality or live children, exploiting them for sexual gratification. I think we're entering a very, very dangerous period. I'm not a prude. I have no problem with adult pornography. People are entitled to read it, watch it, see it in their homes or in public accommodations. Where I have to draw the line is using children for the excitement of those more mature people who should know the difference and know better. So I was troubled by the court's rendering.

  by dharmafarmer on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:11:45 PM PDT

•  All part of his plan

  Perverts need cover and camouflage. Simple.

  by bumblebums on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:13:46 PM PDT

•  Foley had to have been molested

  he knew the effect it had on him and tried to help others but the damage was done and he could not escape his urges.
  the cover up, effort to minimize, blame the victim, not remember...what parent would think the mildest of these emails would be ok?
  public exposure of these enablers is the only answer

  by felixelf on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:16:57 PM PDT

  •  Email content VS IM content

    I've been thinking about the issue of the - shall we say - content differences between the email and IM convos.  

    It's apparent that Foley thought the IM conversations were more ephemral than they actually are.  And that the emails would seem, as everyone said, overly friendly.  

    Hey, give the guy break!  He is in the same party as Ted "Tubes Not A Truck!" Stevens.  He just doesn't really understand the Internets too well yet...

    by weirdmusic657 on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:21:41 PM PDT

•  Can I make a crazy comment?

  Apart from Mark Foley's signature, does anyone have any problem with this bill? I mean, the guy is a sexual predator, we should focus on that. But this bill is a good one and probably had strong bipartisan support.

  by rafaelh on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:21:41 PM PDT

  •  I absolutely agree with the idea

    of the bill.  Would be very tough to enforce (defining the 'exploitive' part would be very hard).  But kids shouldn't be sexualized, period.

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:25:57 PM PDT

  •  so we all agree then?

    Mark Foley - good legislator, ummmmmmm not so good male mentor.

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:56:42 PM PDT

  •  actually I disagree.

    Here is the problem with the bill: it does not do what it says it does, and it does something else that's not good.  

    First of all, by only banning modeling "for purposes other than selling a product," it creates a loophole big enough to drive a truckload of kiddie porn through.  The perverts will simply create sites that are "for the purpose of selling products."  

    Second, it legitimizes using kids in sexy poses to sell products.  That is just plain disgusting.  

    And third, by dictating purpose, it creates yet another precedent where government can intrude on speech.  You can show kids in sexy poses to sell something, but not for other purposes.  You can say X for purpose Y but not for purpose Z.  Sorry folks, that fails the 1st Amendment sniff test.  Government has no business dictating the purposes of speech.  Either the speech is OK, or if the reason is truly compelling, it's not.

    We don't say "you can threaten the life of a public official if it's only for purposes of a joke."  

    We do not say "you can shout Fire in a crowded theatre if it's only for the purposes of testing the theatre's fire exits."  

    Either the speech is OK or it's not.  

    Thus, what we should have instead is, prohibit the use of kids in sexually suggestive pictures of any kind for any purpose.  Prohibit modeling agencies from showing pictures of kids in suggestive poses or circumstances.  

    Though, that gets into a slippery slope of the worst kind, because "suggestive" is in the mind of the beholder, and that gets very subjective and can be used in all kinds of invidious ways.  Look, that Democratic candidate's campaign ad showing him smiling at a mom and her kids, the girl in the ad is making a suggestive pose!

    Better to just focus on prosecuting adults who say or do bad things to actual kids.  If some sicko wants to whack off to a JC Penny's sale brochure, that's their problem.  If they get anywhere near an actual kid, then lock them up and throw away the key.  

    by G2geek on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:16:23 PM PDT

•  This could also be a classic Rovian tactic.

  Scream loudly in complaint against someone or something, all the while engaging in exactly the behavior you're complaining about.

  This just happens to have a really sick twist to it.

  by mxwing on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:22:22 PM PDT

•  Well, this is easy to figure out

  with all those 16-year-old boy models out of work, they'd have more time for fun with Mark!!!

  by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:51:14 PM PDT

•  Face it, it's appropriate.

  I mean, Foley would know what was kiddie porn when he saw it.  Who better to tell the rest of us?

  by ogre on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:38:49 PM PDT