My Photo

October 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad

Photo Albums

« MAN DOWN | Main | STAND UP »

July 21, 2006



Dear Mr. Benson:

You might remember me from a few of the blogsites that have been commenting on this matter. Certainly, I've read yours and have been impressed at how you've gotten to the very heart of the issue. Only yesterday, I got your website from another blogger.

I know that we're both equally disgusted over this "Hounddog" thing. Now, after reading the screenplay, I am more saddened and despondent than ever. I can only say "worst fears realized".

There are quite a few people out there who think the same as us. Some are kids and their parents who loved this child and thought her to be a good influence. Others, like myself are simply concerned adults who see the terrible consequences of activities like this if they are allowed to proceed and prosper.

From another poster (it might have been you), I have the email address of the North Carolina Attorney General. I've composed a letter to him. Now, after two weeks of silence from the principals in this sordid affair, the time has obviously come to deliver it. A similar note to Senator Elizabeth Dole seems like a good idea as well.

Have you had any more information or feedback in recent days? Daily, I've been combing the sites, but all I get is a recapitulation of Lloyd Grove's column. There are a lot of people, mainly kids, who are distressed and confused (understandably) over this incident.

If you can furnish me with any more details or if I can be of any assistance, please email me at [email protected] My full name is Steven Mark Pilling and I live in Houston TX. Also: I will be certain to pass along this website to other online aquaintances who are of a like mind as myself.

P.S. I'm a former Army M.P. who was stationed at Fort Bragg for three years. I remember Wilmington well. How terrible that such a thing as this should happen there, of all places. Best wishes.

Ernie Lofthouse

This is just one more step downward for Hollywood. The ones i blame the most are the parents of Fanning who apprently will allow their daughter to do anything for money. this started long ago when the mother of Brooke Shields allowed her to portray a 12 yr old prostitute. Absent from hollywood are any sort of controls on behavior and what they consider allowable. there have been a total lack of good films that do come out of Hollywood. This is another example of the bottom feeders and exploiters that call themselves filmmakers.


Want to hear something even worse? If the budget for this film is as it is reported on the internet, the state of North Carolina MAY BE PAYING for this film. Seriously.


Dear Ogre: Could you elaborate on that statement? Yesterday, I sent a message to the State Attorney General on the subject of this film. If there is a means by which the State of North Carolina can be linked in any way to the production, then that may be important in bringing the state government directly into the "fray". My biggest concern is that the A.G. will be reluctant to take on Hollywood in what might develop into a landmark case.


Go to the North Carolina Film commision website. If it received funding from the state it may be listed there.

Tre Benson

The Governor of North Carolina, Mike Easley just signed into law an incentive program that basically rebates movie production companies that spend more than $250,000 in North Carolina. The rebate or incentive can return as much as 15% of the money spent.

So yes in a way the taxpaying citizens of NC have contributed financially towards the production of this movie.


Law enforcement officials have confirmed with me that this is being investigated for the Felony crime of sexual exploitation of a minor due to the fact that a child was recorded in the portrayal of a simulated sexual act.


I'll give Blueline the benefit of the doubt here and assume everything this blog and Blueline says is true.

Blueline said "According to the script, obtained by the Blue Line back in June, the film opens with the young actress pleading with a young male actor, with the promise of a kiss, to show her his penis." But when I go to the linked page for the script I only see excerpts, and none are the "kiss" scene. Why is that omitted?

On that same page is the an addition by Blueline saying the rape was shot on a lit set. Well, that's how movies are photographed. Effects such as extreme darkness and illumination by lightning are added in post production.

Of course, the ultimate truth of what is or isn't shown and how the scene will be lit will be known when the final cut of the film debuts, and when Dakota discusses it in promotional interviews.

I find it disingenuous of Blueline to post paparazzi photos of Dakota and her mother. These photos were taken without her or her mother's consent or knowledge. They don't put photos like that on the fan run site on principle. They are part of a set of photos that show Dakota sneezing, but it might appear to the casual observer that she's crying next to her mother. How considerate of Blueline to "mosaic" out the Fred Segal logo on the bag her mother is carrying. (sarcasm)

If this film really is being investigated, and according to this article prosecutors in Wilmington, N.C., "are aware" of the controversy. Sounds like the proper authorities are aware, which is good, and they haven't found anything to be in violation of the law, which is also good. Let's hope it stays that way!

Again I'll give Blueline the benefit of the doubt here and assume everything this blog and Blueline says is true. But I have one question:

When this movie is released and if it remains true to the director's notes and the nudity and violence is implied, not shown, what will be Blueline's response? Will it be "we were wrong" or "we were erring on the side of caution, looking out for the child's best interests"?

Tre Benson

Anghus Houvarius spells his name Anghus Houvouras.

The script is legit.

The law states that if there is a recording of a child (or an adult actor portraying a child) that is involved a sexual act, real or not, then that producer of that recorded act can be convicted of a Felony. The charge would be Sexual Exploitation of a Minor.

Federal Law would make it manufactoring child pornography.

A nude child standing in a bathtub is not against the law. A nude child, or a clothed child for that matter, being humped by a man in a simulated sex act is a crime, and it very well may be child pornography.

The omission of the opening scene in the excerpts of the script was an oversight and will be corrected shortly.


I'm not surprised that DakotaandElleFan showed up. She's a moderator on the "" site which, as you've probably guessed, is way to the left socially. Besides trying to nit-pick Blue Line's article to death, she also gives us the same old line about "editing out".

What I tried to get across to her and her cohorts on their own site, I will repeat to her now.

What is in the "finished product" is not the issue. What IS the issue is that a 12 year old girl was led (coerced? pressured?) into filming a scene of nudity and sex. The crime is that it was done in the first place. If the visual evidence is destroyed, so be it... but the crime itself remains.

What you're trying to do is make Dakota Fanning into an icon for the "Anything is Normal" crowd that dominates Hollywood. Well, everything ISN'T normal. The actions portrayed in this film and the very act of those portrayals in themselves constitute a threat to decent society in general and children in particular.

I suggest you go back to your sorry website with all those young European skulls-full-of-mush who think (as you do) that degeneracy and child porn are cool and sophisticated. Others of us, more rational and ethical, will call it down for what it is. Children matter and they deserve protection and moral guidance in their all-important journey to adulthood. It's becoming all too evident that one poor child ,in particular, has been denied this.


My concerns also what in the world happens between 81-84 in the script. What is being left out. 80 starts with her "dad" walking into her room. Why is this part being shown. Are we now also making this kid deal with incest on top of everything else?

Tre Benson

Steve you are a genius! In particular your comment "What you're trying to do is make Dakota Fanning into an icon for the "Anything is Normal" crowd that dominates Hollywood. Well, everything ISN'T normal. The actions portrayed in this film and the very act of those portrayals in themselves constitute a threat to decent society in general and children in particular." is right on the money.

That is why it is so upsetting. Even if there was no law against this there is a more compelling reason to attack it. Because it is wrong!

81. dad cuts hair off. hair falls onto her white lace dress.

82. rat snake crawls in window and slithers up and around her leg and stomach as she sleeps, skin exposed

(lots of snake imagery, hero of the film is a snake charmer, what would Freud think?)

83. she slips into the den and sleeps under her daddy's feet holding a jar of fireflies

84. morning comes to daddy's shack, shot of kudzu and nature

Heard from a friend of mine today and she tells me crew are afraid they will be arrested. The talk was in relationship to what happened in the prisons in Iraq and how the Generals escaped the punishment that was handed down to those who carried out their orders.

It is an interesting thought. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Hopefully they will all be forthcoming with investigators and that their cooperation will be taken into account.


Hi Steve! Yes it me! Your equally fanatical, yet non-violent counterpart. How've you been? I hope I didn't offend you in my first post here by linking to the radically left-leaning site. (more sarcasm)

Again, I can't help but notice your steadfast refusal to address the tenets of my post and your instead opting to attack me. Typical right-wing approach there. Always attack, never defend. Oops, there I go again dragging politics into the discussion. You'd never do that, would you?

I however don't mind defending myself and telling you that you have painted me incorrectly. I too believe that well, everything ISN'T normal. Unlike you, however, I prefer to rely on actual facts, not people's worst fears.

"What is in the 'finished product' is not the issue."

The mind boggles, but OK, I'll go with you on this.

"What IS the issue is that a 12 year old girl was led (coerced? pressured?) into filming a scene of nudity and sex."

Well, I'm glad to see you at least placed some question marks after those words. Perhaps when Dakota explains in interviews how she wanted to do the role we will see you describe her as "brainwashed? in denial?"

The scene does indeed deal with nudity and sex (or rather rape--some would not equate rape with sex), but you are implying there there was actual nudity and real sex on the set. Schindler's List had scenes of nudity and killing of Jews in gas chambers. Some of them were children. Are we to think that actual nude children were really killed to make a movie? Should Spielberg be tried for war crimes against the Jews?

Again, I will side with Blueline's excerpt of the script. Even in their description of the scene (added in red capital letters) they do not mention anything about actual on-set nudity or actual sex. Sorry but phrases like "EXTREMELY GRAPHIC" just don't cut it. Are they afraid to say if she was or wasn't nude? Are they hiding something?

"The crime is that it was done in the first place. If the visual evidence is destroyed, so be it... but the crime itself remains."

If there was indeed a crime committed, by all means I want justice served. I really do.

I would ask "what evidence have you that a crime was committed?" but I realize that you have no need or care for any evidence. You know better.

You already have your consipracy theory ready for the film's debut. When it does not show nudity and only implies the rape, "the visual evidence was destroyed."

Tre Benson

Keep it civil guys, Dakota fan I am tempted to pull your plug so watch it. I am the only one that can attack a poster. I've been a little suspect of a fanatical adult Dakota fan in the first place so don't push me. Guys I won't allow any bashing, well not a lot of it anyways. My blog, my rules.


My children and I have enjoyed the movies Dakota has been in so far, and were looking forward to some of the projects scheduled to be released in the coming months. However, after learning of this movie, I have decided to boycott Dakota Fanning movies for the rest of her career.

The movie Hounddog is a disgusting display of child pornography and should NEVER be released. Everyone involved in making the movie, except the children in it, should be arrested including her parents. The children in the movie should be given extensive counseling.


I have contacted the Wilmington DA's office about this movie. They have responded saying that the FBI Wilmington Branch would have jurisdiction in this case, but the Assistant DA was not aware of an investigation being conducted. I have written to the FBI in Wilmington and to NC Senator Elizabeth Dole. I have yet to receive responses.


Tre, I will be civil. He dished a lot out to me, so I dished some back.

lin marshall

It is indeed a great shame to be associated with people that would allow a movie to be filmed that exploits a child like this,,,and don't kid yourself,,,,it is exactly that..~rape, ~groping, masturbation, for the public to see, and if you don't think that copy cats love this kind of thing then,,please for all our sakes take a trip to the local prisons, or at least talk to some one that works in law enforcement, a correctional officer, WPD, any one!!!
if your not afraid of hearing the truth,,because it will set you closed mind free!!!

Its not N. C. my friends its the people that have pushed this type of filming through in order to line the pockets of some idiots!!!!! i'd e ashamed to think that its all about money!! but what else could it be!!

what the hell is going on here, are we all asleep on the job, at the wheel or behind the camera ,,,when will it end!

we let the developers come in and buy up all the farm land to put Walmart's EVERYWHERE!
Where there was once a MOUNTAIN! there is now a walmart,,I don't know if any of you watched Focus the other night on channel "39" UNC PBS LOCAL broadcasting not cable! it was an eye opener to learn just how much of our once pristine land is being sold out every day to developers, hey what's a little movie incentive.....geeeeeeeeee
seriously its going to take people like you & me to stand up and say ,,,enoughs,,enough,, why do we just keep taking it in the assssssss?? FOR LACK OF A BETTER example..
but, I for one am just about feed up!

oh and leave the deer alone Mark!! :)



p.s. I almost got hit by lightening the other day!! huuuuuuuu


Come on, Sarah. Let's cut the sloganeering, shall we?

First off: I didn't address the "tenets" of your statement because there were none. All I saw was the same old nitpicking and borderline issues. You refuse to address the heart of the matter because you dare not.

Of course, I did not attack you personally, as well you know. Whenever a conservative questions the logic or motivations of a liberal, it automatically becomes "hate-speech" in their book. Conservatives rely on reason and principle; liberals on emotion and agenda. Personal attacks by liberals are thereby commonplace because they have little else to use.

Personal attacks, fearmongering, "playing politics", "facts" that aren't... these are all hallowed liberal tactics. They are also what liberals loudly accuse conservatives of. This is in keeping with a basic tenet of Clintonism: Accuse the other guy of what you yourself are guilty of... and do it first and do it loud.

Does your mind really boggle that the finished product is not the main issue, Sarah? Of course, it isn't. What matters is what actually occured on the set. That's the reality. It's the final cut that's fiction.

What happened in "Schindler's List", "Taxi Driver" or other grim and repellant movies is not any justification for "Hounddog". It only illustrates our point that Hollywood has become ever more depraved with time. And Hollywood is the nexus of all popular (and youthful) culture.

If this film is allowed to go public, it'll be just another step downward into the moral abyss. A giant step, this time. Hollywood will now be targeting the most delightful and innocent segment of the populace for profit and exploitation. Therefore we, as decent citizens, must take a stand.

Like you, I often defended Dakota from detractors in the past because I believed her to be a force for good with other young people. I hope and pray (literally) that she can escape the evil influences around her and become that once again. If "Hounddog" is released, though, her good name, her future as a decent adult and all the good she was once capable of among those of her emerging generation will be cast down forever.

P.S. Tre, thanks for the kind words. Father of 2: Please keep us updated. If Senator Dole responds affirmatively, then I'll see what I can do with Senators Cornyn and Hutchinson here in Texas. God Bless.


My name is not Sarah. You are confusing me with someone else. I go strictly by my screen name in public forums. Nice fact checking, there.

And since I'm here:
"The production coordinator for "Hounddog" says Dakota fanning was wearing a body suit during the entire rape scene and there was a child welfare worker on the set, along with Dakota's agent and her mother.
The production coordinator estimates the rape scene will only take up about a minute of the entire feature-length film. She says it's shot above the shoulders, using Dakota's facial expressions to tell the story."
"We have, in the past few days now that we have time, talked more with more crew members and have heard little about nudity. In fact we have now been told with certainty that there was absolutely no nudity on set during the filming of the rape scene."

How Clintonesque it was for Blue Line to use such lawyerspeak as "EXTREMELY GRAPHIC." They now eat crow. Not only was she not nude, but we only see her above the shoulders.

And let's talk about the irony of invoking Bill Clinton. Their latest tack is to say
"People can be involved in a sex act while wearing clothes. Evidence of this was left behind on a blue dress in the Oval Office a few years ago."

"I know the Production Coordinator and her husband and have no reason to doubt she said what was reported."

Holy cow! All along they have personally known a perfectly good source of information yet for reasons of politics, neglect, or wanting to milk the controversy as much as possible, they either have not asked their source to clear up any questions of wrongdoing on the set, or are just withholding that information.

Is Bill Clinton writing their material now? How can anyone take them seriously at this point?

It's also painfully obvious to me that Blue Line Radio is politically motivated, as they never miss an opportunity to call attention about a bill that they admit they are opposed to. Combine that with their comparing Dakota to Jenna Jameson and it's it's clear they are not thinking of the children here.


Dear DEF:

Forgive me for confusing you with your collegue on "Enchanting Starz". Honest mistake.

Now; as to whether we can trust the word of the production coordinator of Full Moon Films, a company notorious even in Hollywood for its cheap, pandering, walking-the-line-of-legality filmmaking... well, we'll see. Hopefully, it's true. Even then, however, it does not resolve the prime issues of contention.

They are these:
1. What occured on the set and during the filming of "Hounddog" in regards to what was required of the child actors, Dakota Fanning in particular?
2. What will be the social and moral consequences of this film for children and the American public and culture should this film and others like it be allowed to screen?

As usual, you skirt around these issues and try to sidetrack them.

It is irrelevant, once again, how much nudity, violence and sex is shown in the final cut of the film. Get that through your head. What is important is the reality of what happened on the set during the filming. What is important is the depictions of these events that DO occur in the film and are central to it's entire obscene premise: The repeated sexual degradation of a little girl by her father and a depraved teenager, culminating in the murder of the father by the child.

They may cut it every which way to keep it just within the bounds of legality, but to have filmed those scenes in the first place required Dakota Fanning to appear nude or semi-nude on set in a blatantly sexual context. It also required that a twelve year old girl understand that context and exactly what it meant.

You can't film something like this and insulate a child from what it all means. You can't erase a child's memory afterwards about what she's done and what was done to her and why. It will haunt her the rest of her life and color her actions from now on.

That's what the law is supposed to protect children against. I'm speaking here not only of the child actors involved, but of the children who WILL see this film because their favorite little actress is in it. That's why those of us who really DO care for children on principle, not pretending it to forward a perverse social agenda, are standing up against this film.

The impressions from the film: The nude dancing for a concert ticket, a brutal molestation, a little hand pressing into a nail until it bleeds, the cries of a little girl in the ultimate torment, the semi-nude posing in the mirror, the child lying on a bed in her underwear while her father makes sexual advances and speaks of past violations and, finally, his virtual murder by the little girl, who walks away as he dies in agony...

And you say THIS is not graphic? I think even Jenna Jameson (who I assume to be an "adult" film actress) would recoil at this. Even Clinton, for that matter. He has a daughter, too. Nobody who has any parential caring or even the smallest spark of decency can help but be repelled by this. What is your problem?

The point here boils down to two contending philosophies, as I mentioned. Those who are motivated by reason and principle (us) versus those of you motivated by emotion (mainly hate) and political agenda (your relegion).

To those of us who truely love our children and want for them to lead normal, healthy lives and walk innocently in the Grace of God, the rights and wrongs of this matter could not be more stark and dramatic.

Tre Benson

Email me again Steve I want to get your email to ask you something.

"I know the Production Coordinator and her husband and have no reason to doubt she said what was reported." My words

Fan's words:
Holy cow! All along they have personally known a perfectly good source of information yet for reasons of politics, neglect, or wanting to milk the controversy as much as possible, they either have not asked their source to clear up any questions of wrongdoing on the set, or are just withholding that information.

I know a good number of people Fan including the Production Coordinator, I've worked with her husband Steve and think he is one of the best Leadmen in the business. He and his wife are parents of triplets and have done a courageous job at raising them. But why should I impose myself onto others who may or may not be comfortable discussing this with me. Early on I made my views public about this, prior perhaps to when Ms. Peterman or any other crew person came on board. The script made it's rounds early on during the hiring phase. I work as an Art Director it is conceivable that I received a copy prior to an interview along with all the others who were approached to fill various positions. Certainly word of it did and those that chose to work the job were more trusting than others and may, as a result, have bitterness over the betrayal of production's assurance the film would be professionally done. "Professionally" is the critical keyword in most all of the crew's disappointment. Most will quickly tell you how unprofessional the director and producers were, but beyond that you enter a gray zone of paranoia and maybe a little guilt.

I believe everyone I have talked with including those whose stories have differed with one another's. Whether or not I have talked with everyone or not is moot at this point, the job is done. But I can assure you those that I have talked to will be protected and I will never hold any of them responsible for any of this mess. They are professionals and no one would expect any of them to do any differently. It is only a job to most of them. The rest are the kind of people that will give anyone a chance. Including me.

Hopefully to squash a rumor very quickly about my politics, my supposed right wing philosophies and my supposed lack of the understanding of art you'd have to know me. So very quickly I will try to give a synopsis on who I am.

Educated Duke and Carolina

Great grandfather lost hand in brick mill and with the disability worked hard to create the Nello Teer Company, a construction company with projects around the world.

Father was painter in New York. Friends included Jasper Johns, Frank Stella, John Cage, Merce Cunningham, LaMonte Young, Terry Riley. John Lennon gave me unreleased albums for my 18th birthday. Went to my first Andy Warhol party at Philip Johnson's glass house to introduce the Velvet Underground's first record.

I was a club kid, prior to there being a Studio 54, at Max Kansas City and Denton's at 79th and Lexington Ave.

Worked for Sidney Janis after being thrown out of prep school in Connecticut

Made a bunch of money in my late twenties and early thirties marketing real estate such as Bald Head Island and Landfall, sold my ad agency and started work in the film business.

Worked my way up the ladder to the position of art director/prop guy on national and regional TV commercials.

Been doing it for 18 years.

Escaped many things early on in life.

Faced many more later on successfully.

Against the war in Iraq

For capital punishment

Ran for political office in Wilmington, lost

Wrote for two years for one of the South's oldest family owned African American Newspapers.

Began radio show 2 and a half years ago with brother to cover crime issues

Have a 4 month old son, my first.

Do not go to church but believe in Christmas



Been known to hang around those that work hard and play harder

Like to fish

Do not hunt

Do not gamble

Speaking of which lost two fortunes

Drive an old car

Drink cheap beer

Love my Mom and family

Married a wonderful woman

Did I say I had a son?

Well, that's me in a nutshell.

Not what you thought. Not a Christian right wing wacko. Just a regular kind of wacko.

Sorry to bore the rest of you!


Dear Tre: I guess my remarks from yesterday got lost! Feel free to contact me at "[email protected]". Best wishes.


North Carolina > Child Advocates groups and sexual abuse survivors are appalled by the movie Hounddog. We have fought (and still are)long and hard for Jessica Law to be made law in all states.. Hopefully it will become National. The Movie Hounddog is child porn of the worst kind. Besides the children involved it can harm children and survivors every where. Child sexual abuse and violence breeds more abuse. sexual abuse leaves deep scars and many never recover or heal. Those soul scares follow some to their grave. Have you ever thought the word survivor means maybe not left dead?

My hat is off to bluelineradio for taking a stand for what is right and attempting to give protection to our children. This is not a political issue > this is about our children, who are our future. Everyday in the news another raped, abused or dead child .. one hurt child is one to many!!
hear is a article about the new sexual offenders laws in NC. They do not compare well to other states which have implemented Jessica Law.
Can you hear the cries, are you listening?
by Civitas Institute
NC Law Fails to Punish Sex Offenders
August 23, 2006 12:19 PM EST

Recent headlines have demonstrated the presence of sexual predators and child molesters among the general population. With the rise of crimes committed by child predators, especially among multiple offenders, it seems only logical that North Carolina would take drastic measures to prevent future occurrences, right? Wrong.

On August 17, Governor Mike Easley signed House Bill 1896 into law — “an act to amend the sex offender and public protection registration programs. The bill amends several laws already in place by implementing a satellite-based monitoring system to oversee certain sex offenders, expands the definition of 'sexual contact' relating to sexual battery, allows the Department of Correction to study mental health treatment practices of sex offenders, and creates three new felonies related to human trafficking.
Originally entitled North Carolina’s Version of Jessica’s Law, that designation was soon changed. Why? Two reasons seem evident. The first, according to Dennis Rogers, staff writer for Raleigh’s News and Observer, “is that North Carolina's Version of Jessica's Law is being pushed by Republicans.” This is an issue because “anyone who knows how things work in the legislature these days knows that even good Republican-sponsored legislation has a way of getting lost in the Jones Street shuffle”.

The second reason is that when House Bill 1896 is compared with the original Jessica Lunsford Act, it is apparent how far the General Assembly was from enacting a strong law that protects North Carolina minors from sexual predators. For example, the Jessica Lunsford Act stipulates that sexual predators who murder their victims should qualify for the death penalty in capital cases. The new law, however, requires the worst offenders, those considered sexually violent predators, repeat offenders and those convicted of sexual offenses with aggravated circumstances, to be fitted with a satellite or GPS tracking device for life. There is no death penalty provision or long-term imprisonment, no matter how severe the crime. Governor Easley said, when he signed the bill into law, “this legislation ensures that North Carolina has among the toughest laws in the country … to protect our communities from sex offenders and child predators.” Civitas wonders if the governor really knows the difference between the law he signed and the original Jessica’s Law? The July Civitas DecisionMaker Poll found that 77 percent of North Carolina voters thought “the state should increase the penalties for child sex offenders to a mandated minimum sentence of 25 years and a maximum of life in prison for first time child sex offenders.” In the same poll, 88 percent would support a candidate who promised “to make children safer by cracking down on child sex offenders with stronger laws and longer prison terms.” Apparently General Assembly members were not listening to the voters they represent, because they had the opportunity to pass a tough law, but chose not to do so. Instead, they decided that sexual offenders and child molesters should be outfitted with tracking devices. Does anyone really believe that a tracking device will prevent a sexual predator from abusing a child?
Do you agree with Governor Easley that North Carolina’s “Jessica’s Law-Lite” is “tough” on sexual predators and child molesters? Or do you believe the General Assembly should have enacted a law similar to the original Jessica Lunsford Act? Please share your opinions by using the link to the John William Pope Civitas Institute Website.


My rage runs through my entire being feeling the sorrow of Christ as the suffering of the innocent is over-heard by the shouts of defiance by the horned devils who prey upon our children.

The idea that those who have cast lots for the breastmeat of those which once sang hymns and carols at Christmas, the small ones with hopes lifted high with news of the Saviour and who have since failed to thrive because of such perverse gluttony, is a punishment worthy of the damned and yet we seek them out now by sattelite as the visit shopping malls walking past our daughters and sons.

Oh Father hear us.


1 out of 4 girls and 1 out of 6 boys are sexually abused by the age of 18. In seconds, their childhoods are shattered, their innocence stolen forever. Worse still, the effects haunt them for years, increasing the likelihood of drug and alcohol dependency, eating disorders, teen pregnancy, delinquency, violent crime, and debilitating fear.

Child molesters are not strangers. In more than 90% of sexual abuse cases, the child and the child's family know and trust the abuser.

Renee Witgenstein

This whole deal is disgusting. Absolutely sick. I don't really know who's behind all this, and who was the lousy story/scriptwriter who went along with this, but everyone involved needs to be severely punished for even trying to EXCUSE a movie like this. The girl is 12 years old!!! They need to leave her alone! The whole PLOT is disgusting. Not only should these people--including her MOTHER for going along with this--be put in JAIL for child pornography, but here in the south, we say they need to be taken out back and dealt with in very VIOLENT and UNMERCIFUL means--just like the way they treated poor Dakota Fanning in making her do this movie. You can't tell me that a 12 year old girl actually would WANT to play scenes like that.

Melissa  Paredes

I cant believe that Hollywood would go so low as to make a movie like this. Im very upset that a young talented girl like Dakota Faning would even make that movie and her parents let her do it. What is wrong with that picture. This movie wont succeed mark my words.It wont be showen at all.


Help stop the movie Hounddog >Please see on line petition > sigh and support at >

Can you hear the cries of abuse children and are you listening ?

Your voice counts .. Do not forget it .. We must speak for the little one who have no voice.


Dear Ann: I received your email and was proud and pleased to sign your petition. I intend to spread the word around to friends and associates. Thank you for your concern and commitment.

Dear Renee:

Like most people, I'm sure, I've tried to give Dakota's parents every benefit of a doubt. That her agent, Cindy Osbrink, was corrupt... that I was sure of from some of her previous actions. Dakota's parents, however, had no prior connection with Hollywood and, I thought, were probably just as dependent as their daughter on Mz. Osbrink's expertice.

That idea falters with the image of Joy Fanning sitting there on the set, watching the degradation of her little daughter being filmed by strangers for the benefit of other strangers... and for money. For the life of me, I can conceive of no possible circumstance that could excuse such behavior on the part of a "loving" parent. I only wish I could. The idea of children being emmeshed in such a situation is absolutely repellant.


please keep the petition on line information passed on to others. Proud to report currently 259 signatures as of today date.
Help stop the movie Hounddog >Please see on line petition > sign and support at >

Can you hear the cries of abuse children and are you listening ?


We're not just listening, Ann. We're taking action. Even if we fail here, we must keep on taking action. I'm hoping and praying that this could be the start of a nation-wide coalition. For too long, the panderers have enjoyed wealth from their misbegotten efforts sustained by a unity of purpose. If we're going to oppose them effectively, then we must unify as well.

One would think that now, with the rash of nation-wide crimes against children, juristic outrages such probation for child molesters and the fallout from the media circus over John Mark Karr, that this would be an opportune moment to present out case to the American public.

T.J.  Beckman

The mother should be hauled off to jail for abuse of her own child. What kind of loving Mother could allow her daughter to be FILMED this way? Our whole society is sexually perverse and morally sick...this mom is no different than those who threw their children into the fire so the "fire god" would bless their lands and crops. HOGWASH !!!

A good upbringing is that you do not EXPLOIT your own children!!!! So poor Dakota has not had that good upbringing. She's in the middle of a mess. Maybe she'll grow up to be a normal adult.


Dear T.J.: Isn't it amazing that so many seem to have trouble grasping such basic, fundamental points? I guess it just doesn't fit into their "world-view"!


Karr has shown us how 'infamy' works to his advantage. If you cannot be famous, be infamous as the debate here shows. In the negative of infamy the one 'starring has a negative image of the ideals of normal society'. That is the kind of 'ideal family ethos' advocated by 19th century 'childsavers' who took in at risk children who were exploited by men and families. Indeed the state of US started 'penal welfarism' as a way of preventing children being seen as temptresses or temptors to adult men. In some ways the past re-invents itself.

The 'childsavers' movement had such as Karr in it as church led and society led brutal masters in the midst of society. Much like Dennis Rader who he had to have read of in the autopsy report, Karr sought the same fame as Rader in the 'project' dissociation issue.

Karr might have got too close to the flame and listened to someone who had inside information who is now dead. The first port is the parents in research. Karr will be in film as infamy rises in porn associated behaviours. Therefore, the need for children not in the hands of 'childsaver' movements to be protected is more so in light of the very eminent in society, and the 'untouchables' who use the film scripts for a means of legitimising the behaviour. That is what media is about in the modern age. 'Chucky' was blamed for inciting the Bulger killers to kill the two year old in the United Kingdom. It was withdrawn and showed little popularity internationally.

Those who subversively watched such films felt stigmatised and exposed. Pedophiles stopped openly borrowing mixed images and media and performed 'open source' editing of their own content with a fee paying public. THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN HERE. The fiction does not matter, as it is auto suggestion of the act. A sexual act in the mind of the perpetrator is not what normal society think it is.

Normal means consenting adults, not a circus of roles that show a message of torture, abuse and humiliation. Is that the message of the film makers? Of the lust in man that is contrived by the modern day 'Eve' as guardians of the young mind and body? If so, do not voice the Clinton act as it was two consenting adults. One had fame because of her act. Not infamy. Whereas to some degree the infamy of Clinton takes over the famous humantarian acts he achieved in Office.

In contrast, the pedophile, producer and guardian are tied with infamy as they are specially named persons. That is sought after fame at the expense of child who could be stalked or abused in later adult life. Because of the portrayal some might find this a real scenario. The problem is 'how do we protect the CHILD as an individual in such portrayals of humiliation and abuse'?


Dying of abuse
Data show parents, caregivers killing more N.C. kids

This should make you mad -- and sad. Last year, the number of N.C. children killed at the hands of someone else jumped by about 40 percent. Parents and other caregivers abusing these kids accounted for close to half the number.

You got that? We'll repeat. The people children trust the most are abusing and killing -- and at a record pace. Last year, the number of child abuse cases reached their highest level since 1996.

These grim statistics come from N.C. child welfare officials and advocates. There is some good news. The state's overall child death rate dipped slightly -- by less than 1 percent -- as deaths from vehicle crashes dropped by 20 percent to 77, according to the N.C. Child Fatality Task Force. But such deaths are still the leading cause of death among 15- to 17-year-olds.

For younger children, the statistics highlight the dangerous conditions in which too many N.C. children live. The findings show child abuse was the leading cause of death for children under 4, and more than half who died had been battered more than once. Of the at least 78 children killed by someone else -- officials say the number could rise as more cases are reviewed -- 37 were the result of abuse by a caregiver.

Sixty-one deaths were gun-related, a whopping increase over the 39 in 2004.

The gun-related deaths bolster the concerns advocacy groups expressed earlier this month about safe storage of firearms. Though North Carolina passed a law in 1995 requiring the safe storage of guns in homes where children live, many residents still don't take it seriously enough. It is estimated that at least 6.8 percent of N.C. households have unloaded, unlocked guns.

Public officials and citizens must do more to help children. Last year, 1,614 N.C. children died, most from birth-related conditions. Preventing infant mortality by improving prenatal conditions and after-birth care should be a priority.

But the rise in abuse and gun deaths of N.C. children is a call-to-arms to all of us. We must provide better education and assistance to families to prevent child abuse and child deaths. We must pay more attention to children we know or come in contact with, and report suspicions of abuse to authorities. We must prosecute vigorously those who do harm to children.

Keeping N.C. children safe is the responsibility of everyone. These latest statistics should prod more of us to act on their behalf.

The above was from the aabove URL sorry forgot to include.

Petition now has 576 signatures .. more .. more is needed, help get the word out.


'We must provide better education and assistance to families to prevent child abuse and child deaths'.

Better education and assistance does not stop abuse. It is reprogramming from a generic background of abuse that is passed on in all socio economic families.

Abuse is often power gone wrong when tempers fray as old standards of parenting continue in corporal punishment of children. This is not a thing of choice in the child. The children are prisoners in the abuse cycle. Grand parents and families need to show that what they did in 'their' time was wrong.

Smacking, like birching/caning, strapping, slapping is wrong. So is shouting, swearing,demonizing,criticizing,ridiculing and bullying a child. So is asking or making a child perform acts of pleasure sought as controls that an adult to adult might share. So is making children fear. Making children subversive and in fear of the person who they either share a home with as a detention centre of abuse, or a place where advocacy is granted to a person who is covertly grooming or abusing because he or she is either out of control, or unstable as unseen in society. These persons have many overt faces of respectability. That is how they continue the abuse cycle over generations. Kids will become either victims or perpetuate this in society inside and outside as has been seen on cctv clips of caregivers using force in children.

They do so as hidden attackers of the vulnerable, and because of their own inadequacies and even knowing what they do will not stop them.. What will is addressing what is 'normal'.

So too is the excuse of sexual training as incest and deception by male partners inside domestic units in normality. It leads to deaths as the child rebels or is fataly injured. The object of such abusive power is taken away as a child dies, andtakes away the power of authoritarion regimes hidden inside families at all levels.

Teaching leads to more covert methods as families and individuals seek positions and roles to silence children.

Result: More 'accidental deaths', more child suicides and more injuries not reported.

'We must pay more attention to children we know or come in contact with, and report suspicions of abuse to authorities. We must prosecute vigorously those who do harm to children'.

Very well in knowing who is abusing, be it mental cruelty, sexual and physical abuse, or some other form of torture to the children in the power of caregivers as parent, extended family, or neighbour -paid or unpaid to supervise a child.

The answer is not teaching - as children will still fear and remain tools of power after school or in school as home schooled. Parents will still submit control to a partner and sleep in lover over a child.

It is both 'needs' addressed in the adult and not the child, plus it is financial.

The old world stipulated women and girls as receivers of care from male 'breadwinners'. In doing so an economic unit depends and depended on the power of male wage earners. Sex is high up there on the return of such security exchange even with kids being used as payment subversively, and knowingly.

How do we change what is historical idealism of families when women are stigmatised for being single parents and seek to make at any cost a unit with male heads and of comfort zones, and even their own abuse seen by children.

The answer is the state must make better needs for a new form of family unit that is either festering a neighbourhood of abuse and providing silent continuity, and also it must provide housing, support and care for those who feel that they have to flee from what they know is torture of children.

ABUSE is a word that some do not see as such.

Torture is what abuse is all about. Defining the word is whether a single act of harm, or multiples as summary justice penalties on the children by a judgement that is from either an insane mind, or out of control mind at the time.


Dear Ann and Ten:

Let's stick to the subject at hand, shall we? The world is a dangerous place for kids. It always has been. We do what we can.

Encouraging parents to be responsible and loving to their children is a fine thing. However, this is not a forum on ways to better parenting. And this "cycles of abuse" and anti-spanking talk has, for too long, been just a cover for the "It Takes A Village" crowd who want to socialize child care.

I believe in the family unit. Strongly. When parents abuse or neglect (sometimes by NOT spanking!) or profit from their children's distress, THEN it is the duty of the law to step in and protect. It is not the role of government to be our parents.

What has happened here is the systematic and deliberate sexual exploitation of three children in a motion picture. And, thus far and in spite of a myriad laws on the books, nothing has yet been done. If this situation remains unaltered, the predators will be emboldened. More and worse endeavors than "Hounddog" will be forthcoming, because there are always enough degenerates to make such projects profitable. Thereby, all the children in this country are put in greater risk. Logical progression.

THIS is the issue here. It is a powerful and dangerous one. Let's not lose focus.

Tyler Hord

Has anyone ever seen Pretty Baby it was made in 1978. Brooke Shields was in that movie when she was 12 years old her role in the movie was a young prostitute. In that movie she was nude many times and she had sex in that movie. She also say two adults in the movie have sex. Brooke Shields turend out fine and is not mentaly scard. IT IS JUST A MOVIE TO HELP SHOW THE BAD SIDE OF PEOPLE. Don't get all upset from a movie.


Tyler 2 wrongs don't make it right. Laws are different, times are different, Brooke Shields had been doing nude photo shoots since she was born. She doesn't speak to her mother, and doesnt let her be near her new child.

One thing is certain, Brooke Sheilds never had someone violently rape her in a movie.

Bastard out of Carolina never showed the rape, just the beatings and it came close to never being shown.

But laws are different now and supposedly are more protective.


Dear Nobody:

We all thought that laws were more protective these days for children. It took something like "Hounddog" to make us see how terribly wrong we were.

Yes, there are lots of laws on the books now. Mountains of them! Unfortunately, none of them mean anything unless our legal authorities are willing to uphold them. If doing that means a risk of bad publicity, bucking some well-entrenched special interests or going against a group that traditionally showers your political party with contributions... well, that's a test of integrity that all too many fall short on.

But when they ignore crimes against children for such reasons, that takes THEM to a new level of criminality. That's just one of the legacies of "Hounddog".

Another one (and even worse) is the threat to all children that this poses. If Hollywood succeeds in pushing this film onto the big screen and/or the DVD stores, then there will be more films like it. The sexualization and sexual exploitation of children on film will mushroom, as it will have been proven that the law is a paper tiger when it comes to kids.

So, too, will the attendant crime rate that historically follows every new downward movement in the popular culture. Children will be corrupted at ever earlier ages and crimes against them will increase in frequency. Historically, this has been the case.

Nobody: If you live in New Hannover or Brunswick Counties (where "Hounddog" was filmed), I urge you to contact the local D.A. and media outlets. Maybe someone can shame these people into doing more than talking... which is all they have done for more than two months.


I think it is just a movie that will help some kids come out about an abuse that has happend or is happing. If people take the movie and see that it is ok to go and abuse a kid then that person needs to be put in jail. Over the years there have been movies and TV shows that talk about rape and sexual abuse. One of the shows is Law&Order:SVU. Yes it never showes a girl being raped or nude but in a way it is the same thing. Also over the years there have been many movies that people did not think were going to be good movies but they were ok with them. Again I say IT IS JUST A MOVIE!!!!! People do not need to get mad at the people behind a movie. This movie just showes what was happend in the world. It is helping to bring awarness to every one.


Tyler: You have just repeated three of the classic excuses for cinematic depravity that have been foisted on us for the last 1/3 century!

1. "Everybody does it."
The fact that pornographic films or others that include graphic sex and/or violence with a child directly involved HAVE been made is no excuse. It was as shameful then as it is now.

2. "It's just a movie and not real."
It's NOT just a movie. This was a live-action production with real cameras, real crewmen, real settings, real actors... and REAL children. What may or may not be shown in the final, edited version is of far lesser importance than what DID happen on the set in the film's making. Either way, the sexual exploitation of children occured. THIS is the reality.

3. "It'll raise awareness."
This is the most classic of all excuses for the degeneracy of "art films". The only awareness it will raise is those of every pervert in the country. Once again I say it: Depravity does not cure depravity. If it did, we'd be in Utopia right now! Depravity unchecked only leads to more and greater depravity; both on screen and in life... and the vicious cycle continues.

Tyler: This film is a direct threat to the children of this country. First; it will give the children who see it (and they WILL find a way because "sweet little Dakota" is in it) a warped and twisted view of life in their most impressionable times. Secondly; it will prove to all panderers and pedophilic producers that the child protective laws of this country can be easily circumvented for profit.

No, it's not just a movie. It's a deadly threat. And it's aimed at our children.


How do you know what will happen after the movie comes out. The things you are saying may not even be true. In the seen where the dad is masturbating how do you know that the dad was in the room with her. How do you know Any thing sexual happend infrount of Dakota with out seeing the movie or talking to the people who really made the movie. IT IS JUST A MOVIE ABOUT THING THAT REALLY HAPPEN IN LIFE. GET OVER IT. Steve if you want to you can email me and we can really talk. My email adress in [email protected]


Tyler: All you are doing is restating the same old arguments that I and others have already answered. Also, for the reasons I have previously stated, I don't intend to wait for it's release and I'm certainly not going to "get over it". "Getting over" this sort of thing is the exact kind of public passivity that's allowed cinematic perversity to reach this stage. Somewhere, you have to draw the line. In fact, we need to push that line right back to the starting gate.


Does anyone know how they make movies. In seens like this they use green screen and editing to make the seen look real. I dought that She was watching the dad in the movie masturbate or was really having a guy hump her. You are all stuiped for thinking that. You all need a lesson on how movies are made.


Tyler: For God's sake, this wasn't "Star Wars"! This is a cheap, $4.5 million sex film we're talking about. They didn't use any "green screens" or other special effects. Dreamworks might... but they don't do this kind of film and they have a gigantic capital base compared to a two-bit "indie" outfit. Besides, the witnesses all agreed that those despicable sex scenes were shot as described. No doubt, the producers just edited out just enough to keep them (they think) out of jail. We'll see.


Steve you are the dumbest person in the world to think that a 12 year old girl would be in a movie where she is she sees sex. Have you seen Door in the Floor? Dakotas sister sees her mom and a kid having sex doggy-style.


Steve you do not have to see this movie so site down and be quite.


No, Tyler, I haven't seen "Door in the Floor". What I do know is that Elle Fanning was in no way involved directly in the scenes of sex and extreme violence. Like she said herself: "I probably won't get to see it until I'm, like, forty!"

While I don't at all like the idea of children being involved in such a film to ANY extent, at least it was different from "Hounddog" in that respect. In "Hounddog", Dakota was DIRECTLY involved in nudity, sex and violence. In fact, it all revolved around her! THIS IS THE ISSUE.

I wonder how much of it they'll let Elle see? What does she know about it now? And, more grimly, what have their common handlers got planned for both of them down the road? This is where the legacy of "Hounddog" will start to haunt them professionally. It already has on the personal level... and it can only get worse. Nor will it be confined to them.

That, Tyler, is why I will not "site" down and be "quite".

P.S. Thank you for your amusing emails!

The comments to this entry are closed.