I want to make one point clear......Childsupermodels.com has no nudity, and has not been called "child porn." It has individual 'Model Sites' with sets of the models in provocative clothing and poses. It would not take any sane person more than five seconds to come to the conclusion that these sites are sexually exploiting these children, even though they have 'parental consent.' The photos speak for themselves and their message is crystal clear. they also offer 'videos' of the "modleing" sessions, and some of the sites make the offer to 'hire' the models for private sessions.


There is the old obscenity line...."I dont know how to define it but i know it when I see it." Take one look at these sites and you will know that you are looking at the sexual exploitation of children. I just have a bad feeling that Mr. Sirkins decision to defend this content will come back to bite the adult industry. Yes, everyone is entitled to legal representation, but Mr. Sirkin should have used better judgement than to take on this case.