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

« STAND UP | Main | IT'S UP TO YOU »

August 21, 2006



i dont know if i wanted to know these things or not. i am stunned. to imagine there are men out there doing these things with children is a harsh reality but i never really cared or feared because there didnt seem to be one of these preditors in every town of america. it seems like it happens every now and then.

but oh my god if this is right, there i a perv on every street.

these are children. i can understand if they were women with breasts. but these are children.

that dakota child is in a big mess. she was used big time.

my my my

makes me want to hide all the children


Obviously, we can't hide away our children. What we CAN do is go on the offensive every time we see a case or a trend in that direction. If it means taking down a perverted mother, fine. If it's Hollywood, so much the better, because that's where the focal point of this evil lies in the final analysis. What we need is good prosecutors on all levels who aren't afraid to do battle with the film industry and all the vast resources it commands. That's probably asking a lot, but ask we must... and demand.


Please view Paul Petersens take on "Hounddog".
My own child is in the indrustry and I am shocked at many of the current auditions taking place that are just plain sick. For example we nee a girl 8 to 12 to audition for our movie,she get's "gang raped"!!! GROSS!!!

Tre Benson

Paul Petersen, I remember him from the Donna Reed Show. Didn't he also have some hit song back way way long ago?

I would suspect that he has a pretty good idea on how the business works with children.

I hope to find a way to contact him.

Thank you for passing this along.


Contact him by fax I lost his phone number. I had his cell and home but lost both.

A Minor Consideration
14530 Denker Ave
Gardena CA. 90247

FAX: 310 523-3691

It would be cool if you could interview him.


Dear Tre and Jeannie: You can email him by hitting the "feedback" icon on the top of the page. Mr. Petersen was one of several former child actors featured in a panel of commentators on an A&E documentary. It's still being run on occasion. Check for it in the TV listings. It's worth watching.


Oh, by the way: If you see that documentary, note these two quotes I copied down from it. They're very relevant.

Paul Petersen: "I was earning three times what my father was at the age of twelve. Guess who's wants took precedence in the family?"

Lukas Haas: "How can you do your job and say your lines without knowing what's going on?"

You might remember Haas as the child actor who portrayed the hunted Amish boy in "Witness". He's a young man in his twenties now and still acting.


Why does Petersen think the crew of Hound Dog was non-union?

Why does Petersen think the state of North Carolina doesn't have any child labor laws?

Tre Benson

Both the Director and the First AD are not DGA.

Perhaps 491 has a contract/agreement with them in regards to local crew. I did see a good number of names on the call sheet that I know are members of 491. But then again it is a right to work state, or so they tell me.

The Child Labor Laws in North Carolina are suspended to accommodate the movie industry.

Hope this has been helpful.


It's not unusual for essentially first-time directors not to be in the DGA. Quentin Tarantino was non-DGA for his first few films. Robert Rodriguez is not in the DGA. There are many other examples, particularly in lower budget situations. If the show doesn't use a DGA director, they HAVE to use a non-DGA First AD. The DGA won't allow a DGA First AD to work with a non-DGA director.

Hound Dog did have a contract with IATSE for the production, as did SAG. And teamsters were paid benefits.

AS the show was a SAG show, SAG Child Labor laws were in place for the production. As SAG Rules are stronger than individual state labor laws in the case of film production they usually take precedence, as was the case with Hound Dog and virtually every other SAG show ever filmed in NC. Which is why North Carolina is able to "suspend" its child labor laws in the case of film production without worry of abuses of that sort occurring.

So it's not like because, as was implied in Petersen's article, NC's Child Labor laws weren't in practice that films shot in North Carolina aren't subject to any Child Labor laws at all. They are. And they're subject to more strident laws than are present under North Carolina legislation.

And, of course, a representative of SAG Child Labor rules, in the form of Dakota Fanning's tutor, was present for the filming of all the scenes in question here as well, to oversee filming conditions and make sure all guidelines were met.


By the way, this was Petersen's comment:

[quote]What message was the non-union crew sending when it walked off the set during Dakota's rape scene?[/quote]

That's what I was referring to. By saying the film was non-DGA, did you mean to imply that the director herself walked off the set during the filming of this scene?

I'm sure you didn't.

But Petersen is wrong when he assumes that just because North Carolina is a Right to Work state, that Hound Dog or in fact most productions here are non-union. Just as he is wrong to imply that North Carolina is like some kind of lawless wild-west state in which any kind of rogue production can get away film practices or legal indiscretions that fall below industry or legal standards for other states.

Look, I don't mind Petersen attacking Hound Dog. It may end up to be the worst film ever produced and may never see the light of day - I don't care. But I don't appreciate efforts by him and others to impugn the entire state of North Carolina and its hard-working crewbase, of which you are a member, in the process.

And if he or you or anyone else is gonna take Hound Dog to task, they should at least make sure they've got all the facts straight before they start slinging mud, or else they end up undermining their own arguments through their own ignorance. There are plenty of valid reasons to attack Hound Dog without having to fabricate non-existent ones.

Tre Benson

Thank you for your information. However SAG rules are not State laws. IATSE has a rule that we all eat within six hours of general call. What happens when the AD calls for grace? The rule is temporarily waved. Same thing with turnarounds, travel, medic onset, 6th day, etc. What you can't call grace for is the Law. And in this show that is an important piece of what argument I think Petersen addresses when talking about the potential for negligence when it comes to the protection of a child's well being. I don't want to speak for him, he will do plenty of that on our show this Saturday, but there is a major difference between SAG rules and State Law. I've most likely worked 30- 50 SAG jobs. I have seen my fair share of leaving a decision up to the actor, as he faces two producers, a UPM and an AD about an issue that will save production a buck or two. SAG rules get waved all the time on set, usually by an actor under the gun.

In the IASTE by-laws are union members allowed to work a nonunion film production jobs? If they are allowed that then do they have to pay the local for that nonunion work out of their own pocket?

You and I both know the law was suspended because of money. I remember Petersen argued this with Harry Payne the NC State Labor Commissioner way back when.

I hope you see my point. Rules are not laws. Rules can be bent, Laws cannot.

A word about the lack of DGA membership. When you have a troop leader that does not understand the LAWS, much less the RULES you have the potential for a critical disaster on your hands. I believe if you were on the crew that was extremely evident throughout the entire shoot. Exactly how many rules were bent to accommodate this serious lack of experience and poor judgement?

Thanks for your comments.

Go Duke!


SAG rules are based on and draw their power from state law.

The California Certified Studio Teacher, whose presence is mandated for the protection of a minor working three or more consecutive days on any SAG signatory production worldwide, is there not just to see that the production conforms to SAG Rules, but also to the Child Labor Laws of the State of California, which as I've stated previously, are among the most strident in the country, moreso than North Carolina's.

That teacher is essentially a welfare worker for the rights of the child on set.

According to California employment law, the studio teacher “must be aware of such factors as working conditions, physical surroundings, signs of the child’s mental and physical fatigue, and demands placed upon the child.” Further, a studio teacher “may refuse to allow a child to continue working on a set or location if the teacher deems that conditions present a danger to the health, safety, and morals of the minors.”

So regardless of the director's union affiliation or ignorance of the law, the California Certified Studio Teacher was on set at all times to see that those laws weren't violated. If he or she is later found to have allowed that child's safety or morals to have been endangered or breached, they are subject to investigation and immediate dismissal from their duties. It is my experience that tutors more often than not err on the side of the child rather than on the side of production and are sticklers about the rules and the law being followd to the letter.

And if you don't want me to post anymore, just say so. No need to bring DOOK into the conversation!


If you want a good look at exactly what those laws are, look here:

The Entertainment Industry section begins on page 35.

And note the following:

"California employers who employ resident minors outside of California under contractual arrangements made within California, must comply with all California child labor laws and regulations. [8 CCR 11756]"

The contractual arrangement here is a SAG contract, of which Hound Dog was a signatory.

Tre Benson

"California employers who employ resident minors outside of California under contractual arrangements made within California, must comply with all California child labor laws and regulations. [8 CCR 11756]"

I don't believe California law has any authority in North Carolina or any other State. Same with SAG rules and some teacher charged with enforcing those rules.

I did read and no where in there was there any mention of a requirement to have knowledge of the law. And no where in the PDF you gave me is there anything addressing that issue. And no where in either was there any mention of any training required to understand legal boundaries much less an understanding of a community's sense of morality. Also I did not find a requirement to have a degree in social work or child psychology. Just a teacher's certificate, not even a requirement to have experience.

How many of these California Certified Studio Teachers were there working Hound Dog?

What was the great actor John Wayne's nickname?

Briefly, a “California Studio Teacher” functions as both a teacher and a child welfare worker for child performers on entertainment industry sets. A studio teacher must hold dual teaching certification in California: a California Multiple Subject credential (elementary school) and a Single Subject credential (high school). In addition, the studio teacher must hold a Studio Teacher Credential issued by the California Department of Labor. This credential denotes a thorough knowledge of California child labor laws, including the rules governing the number of hours child actors can be on-set and how that time can be spent.

A written examination will be required of the studio teacher by the Labor Commissioner at the time of certification or renewal. Such examination shall be designed to ascertain the studio teacher’s knowledge of the labor laws and regulations of the State of California as they apply to the employment of minors in the entertainment industry. In addition, each studio teacher applicant will be required to successfully complete a twelve-hour course of instruction designed by the Labor Commissioner to instruct the applicant in the duties and responsibilities of the studio teacher. Every studio teacher, as a condition of renewal of certification by the Labor Commissioner, must complete three hours of instruction in a class designed by the Labor Commissioner to ensure that the studio teacher remains abreast of any changes in the laws and regulations and duties and responsibilities of the studio teacher.


And it is as obvious to me that this California teacher has no authority in NC. Also has no training in social work or child development psychology.

If you are claiming that there is a required course that last 12 hours then WTF? That is less hours of training required to get your drivers license.

Twelve hours on how to be a movie teacher which you are assuming includes some instruction about how to be a social worker too.

Wow what a reach. Can you imagine calling the teacher a nurse too? Social worker and nurse require about the same amount of education. A little more than 12 hours. Just because someone can fish a bandaid out of a box and stick it to a kid's knee does not make the teacher a nurse.

I wonder if you honestly think you made a point.

A point of pissing me off.

Sorry got wound up.


On what other job is there any kind of person at all constantly watching over and making sure the rights of the employees, be they minors or adults, are adhered to? A certified teacher is present every second a minor is working on a film. I can't think of any other job in which what is the case.

What do you think, there's supposed to be a lawyer and a child psychologist on every film set in the country in which a minor is working? Get real.

How much training in law and social work do you guys have? Yet you seem to think you're experts in the law and child welfare.

Tre Benson

First of all Elvis and 4 corners this is not going to be a pissing contest. There are other forums you guys can go to continue with that tone. I am the only one allowed to carry the big hose because this is my forum. If you don't like my tone go somewhere else otherwise be kind and respectful and I will do the same.

Elvis give me a minute or two of sleep then let me handle the flames but on this one you almost got it right and beat me to the punch dang-nabit.


"Every studio teacher, as a condition of renewal of certification by the Labor Commissioner, must complete three hours of instruction in a class designed by the Labor Commissioner to ensure that the studio teacher remains abreast of any changes in the laws and regulations and duties and responsibilities of the studio teacher."


The renewal takes place every three years. A lot changes in three years.

Also the question of how many children were cast for this movie. A teacher/tutor is allowed to handle up to 10 children at once. I am curious if all 10 were on set at once and if not who was watching whom.

Once again I echo that the teacher/tutor is not required to have any experience, is not required to have knowledge of the laws of North Carolina concerning child welfare, is not even a certified teacher in North Carolina (possible but not required when teaching out of California) and lastly is not an employee of the student cast member, the teacher/tutor is employed by the production company.

I only mention these things because so much importance has been brought to the comment "there was a child welfare worker on set" as if the "welfare worker" was from DSS or CPS. Why not say a tutor was on set? That would be more accurate.

And no when someone pushes a teaching certificate in my face claiming that that will protect a child from the exploitive practices of a production company I have to expose the spin of that claim. Just look, as an example, the number of abusive daycare workers, the number of teachers of both sexes abusing children. John Mark Karr former teacher is in the news today. His name sound familiar?

I'm sorry I know you mean well, I am not just addressing you there are many others that have positioned themselves on your side of the fence. No one wants to think a law was broken and certainly no one wants to see Dakota hurt in anyway. Some feel this exposure is hurting her and that she needs defending. Good. I hope you continue to have such a protective heart.


On what other job is there any kind of person at all constantly watching over and making sure the rights of the employees, be they minors or adults, are adhered to? A certified teacher is present every second a minor is working on a film. I can't think of any other job in which what is the case.


How about OSHA or Board of Medical Examiners, the Bar Association, Health Department, law enforcement, Real Estate Commission, FAA, FTC, SEC, FDA, and on and on down to your Riverwatch, Sierra Clubs, and other grassroots organizations.



How much training in law and social work do you guys have? Yet you seem to think you're experts in the law and child welfare.


Since you asked. Marc has 28 years experience in law enforcement. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy, he has arrested over 1,700 people in his career. Testified in over 300 court cases. Voted Law Enforcement Officer of the Year and somehow persuaded over 20,000 people (out of 43,000 total votes cast) to vote for him in the 2002 elections for Sheriff.

Me? I majored in Psychology at Duke, did post grad work in anthropology, specializing in adolescent development at Carolina. Spent my senior year in clinical study. Worked with cases of domestic violence, incest, rape and ritualistic child sex abuse. I have been volunteering for various causes concerning children for over 20 years. I am also a father.

You know I was thinking, I would like to put you into contact with Linnea Smith, Coach Dean Smith's wife. I know she would have some wise words to pass along to you regarding this issue. Be sure to tell her Tre asked you to contact her.

Tre Benson

I told you what would happen if you couldn't play nice.

I have talked with several people that were on set and others that were on the call sheet that were near set. I have read the script, I have a copy of the script if you would like to read it.

I suggest you speak with an attorney and go over the laws regarding the sexual exploitation of a minor and the law concerning child pornography.

Your posts have been deleted because of your tone. Feel free to try again but don't be such a dick next time.


Tone is a matter ot perception and perspective.

From what I gather, you have no issue with publically calling into question and judging the morals and ethics of others. To censure the words of those who might call your tactics and motivations into question reeks of hypocrisy of the highest order.

Sure this forum is yours to govern as you see fit, but if all you want to do is push an agenda and delete the questions and thoughts of those who offer a different point of view, you're never going to approach anything like the truth.


And by the way, I'm not the one who typified another's remarks as "smartass" or called them a "dick", so before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.

Go ahead and delete these posts too.

The truth hurts.


I posted the stuff about Paul Petersen to point out that this guy is not all that he seems to be. He claimed Dakato was NUDE and even you can agree that was a lie. He claims to be an author, of what? A series of books promoting sex, violence, and drugs. What does Marc think about someone that promotes the use of drugs?

I don't appreciate you calling me a "DICK" for pointing out these things.

It doesn't surprise me. You only want to see what you believe to be the truth.

Tre Benson

Paul Peterson is not Tre Benson. If you wish to attack him please do so somewhere else. I find the man honorable and is dedicated to searching out the truth in this.

I said Dakota was nude. I did so because that is what I heard to be the truth. I did not mention this publiclly until I read the same thing in the New York Daily News. To my pea brain that was a confirmation so I ran with it. However I recanted partially when a friend of mine claimed otherwise to some reporters. I still maintain that she appeared to be nude. One of my friends saw her from a distance on set and swears she was nude. I have heard also that she was wearing pasties over her nipples and underpants in several scenes.

My brother Marc was interviewed on TV and claimed Dakota was "not dressed" which is not the same as saying that Dakota was nude.

And you are a Dick for continuing to argue with me.

And lastly

"From what I gather, you have no issue with publically calling into question and judging the morals and ethics of others."


4 corners you are so right. Don't like it get your own microphone. In fact find a microphone for the producers of the movie, or better yet Dakota's mom. Don't fight their battle for them, they are adults. It's not like you are defending the sexual expolitation of a child. Are you?


I told you I'm not defending Hound Dog at all, but rather attempts to misrepresent and smear a crewbase of hard working filmmakers, the State incentive program, state legislators, location owners, studio teachers and so on and so forth in the process of attacking Hound Dog.

It may turn out that what occurred on Hound Dog was illegal, or "stretched" the bounds of what's either legal or morally acceptable.

It may turn out that every thing done was completely above board and legal and according to the strictest of guidelines.

Honestly I've heard from people who witnessed the situation first hand that nothing inappropriate occurred. These are people I know who have been working in the film biz a long time, and whose words I trust. I am trying to get at least one of them to call into your show on Saturday. What time is the interview with Mr. Petersen and will he and you be willing to take calls from people like that, if they're willing to call?

Don't get me wrong. I don't defend folks who have broken the law. I am certainly not an advocate of child pornography, and I think you know that and realize that your attempt to imply that is detestable and bordering on slanderous.

But I also try not to jump to conclusions or prejudge in the absence of all the facts. And I don't think having a copy of the script necessarily informs one of exactly what occurred on the set.

If this forum isn't for the open discussion of opposing points of view, why have a comment section at all?


I don't want to argue with you Tre.

I think it's great you are letting other people voice their opinions. I think it's great you are taking a stand on this issue and making people aware of sexual exploitation. I have no problem with any of that.

Somewhere along the way you let your emmotions takes over even tho your brain I'm sure is telling you something is not right. The film makers in NC have always tried to be proffesional when it comes to sensitive matters like this. Why are you turning your back on them and assuming the worse? I don't doubt they followed the laws or what little laws there are in regard to how the movie was filmed. All these accusations and rumors are getting no where and you being the key player in this drama can put an end to this maddness. For some reason you are not willing to look at the facts that have been presented. I hope a lot of people from the film industry call in to the show this Saturday, in fact I'm going to email as many as possible and suggest they do call in so that the other side of the argument can be heard. Only time will tell but I would put my bet on the argument that nothing illegal happened based on the information that has come forward so far. You can sink with your crusade.

Tre Benson

Hard for me to step out and do something I feel is ahead of the curve when people think my intentions are suspect rather than giving me the flippin 20 mins necessary to find the truth in this.

What good am I, one person, squawking like a mad hen? Who am I to question anything?

I read the script, I talked to people who worked on set. I have my own apparent idea about the seriousness caused by this production and so I opened my big mouth. Over the air no less. To millions, well hundreds of people. But I kept doing it. Why? To hear myself talk?

This may not be the most attention grabbing subject I could have brought up. If we want attention, phones to ring, etc., all we have to do is say one of two things, illegals or traffic. When we do that the phones light up. No one wants to hear about abused children, starving Marvins in Africa or poor homeless people. It's a fact. We have done over 100 shows and when we run out of things to say we just say, "how about that border situation?" or "what's the deal with these stoplight cameras" never fails.

Mention dead babies or 10 million dollar actresses being exploited? Forget it. Zip, zero, zilch.

I have worked with some of the most talented people in the film business. I have worked with maybe half of the crew on Hound Dog. The last thing I want to do is malign any of them for their professional work ethic or their own personal morals.

But this issue is big. I know your minds cannot at this point wrap itself around the idea of what is going on with all this but all I can ask is to be patient. Soon you will see how this is playing out.

While you sit waiting patiently think back to when Brandon Lee was shot and killed onset. The Crow was produced during the peek of Wilmington's film history. Ask some of the old people working that show to tell you about that production company and what a struggle it was to get through everyday working on that one.

Many changes were made after that.

Exploitation of children didn't begin and certainly won't end with Hound Dog. But an example can be made from it to ensure vital changes take place.

The way I go about bringing awareness to this situation is secondary to the way it will be resolved. I am just a nutty guy with a megaphone standing on a soapbox proclaiming that the, "End is Near!"

It sorrows me some that a few of those that know me think I am saying that the "End is Here!"

Someone other than me will bring an end to all this mess. I am just telling you its gonna happen like it or not.

Thanks for being civil this time around.

Please do get people to call in, 332-6390, we are on Saturday from noon - 2. I can tell you this, and anyone who listens in frequently will back me up, we don't take many calls. So work those fingers and don't give up.


Right to work for less?

Exactly what does that mean? Doesn't Petersen realize virtually every job in the state of North Carolina is organized? All except the lowest of the low budget films are subject ot union rates and benefits. Many, many more low budget non-union films are shot in California than are in North Carolina, despite the strength of its unions.

Sure the rates may be lower in North Carolina than they are in California and New York, but so is the cost of living - by a factor of 2 or 3.

Can you define what Petersen means when he says the "right to work for less"?, 'cause if he's gonna talk about raising union minimums, I'm all for it. Otherwise, we all know that if North Carolina wasn't a right to work state, we never would have gotten the film industry here in the first place. So if you work in the film industry, you should be thankful for our right to work status - not resentful of it.

It also allows you to work on a union show without joining or paying dues, with no questions asked, and to still receive representation and benefits, which is a freedom many in California don't have.

I think Petersen's agenda may be as much about shutting down North Carolina film work as protecting anyone's rights. Be careful Tre, I'm not sure this guy is a friend to the film industry in North Carolina - and that is where you draw your livelihood if I'm not mistaken.


Dear Tre:

Batten down the hatches! Ernesto was originally predicted to hit me in Houston. Now, somehow, it's ended up in your back yard. Sorry about that! Might I suggest that the safest place right now on the Cape Fear Peninsula is probably the battleship!

I've been reading Paul Petersen's commentaries on his website as well, as I mentioned before, hisremarks on that A&E program about child stars. I'm sorry I can't listen in to your interview with him this Saturday. I hope you can provide some transcripts of his remarks online. Petersen is well-respected and this kind of affair is made to order for his perspective and expertise.

I can't understand 4Corners' fixation with the state of or consequences to the film industry in North Carolina. How is that in any way important compared to the threat to children that "Hounddog" represents? Indeed, it seems that the vested interests in the state's film concerns constitute the biggest stumbling block to quick legal action.

As I see it, the prime issue on the table is this: Do the child protective laws of the states and the federal government mean anything? If the laws on the books go unenforced, then they are worthless. If they go unenforced because it might impact economic interests- despite the crimes against children that it might entail- then it is a crime against every basic standard of decency.

I don't care if Mr. Petersen is or is not a "friend" to the film industry in any state. I doubt very much if that's even a consideration with him. Certainly, I couldn't care less. I care about three children, one of them being the most popular child actress in the world, who were used by the very adults they should have trusted the most and led to perform in scenes of nudity and sex that many jaded adult actresses would have balked at.

I care about them. I care about other child actors and what this could mean for them and their careers if this sort of thing is allowed. And, most of all, I care about all the children in America who will be left unprotected if "Hounddog" is unchallenged in court, thus effectively nullifying the law.

I hope Ernesto doesn't rain out your program! Best regards from Texas!


My concern is you don't throw an entire industry out the window, an industry that provides thousands of jobs, including Tre's, for the possible infractions of what constitutes .00001% of the industry. That's like closing down Wal-Mart because they sold a gun to a criminal.

Focus your disdain on those who deserve it - not those who have nothing whatsoever to do with the situation at hand.

More pornography and more non-union films are produced in California than anywhere else in the country. What exactly does the "right to work for less" have to do with the exploitation of children in film - here or anywhere else - which is Mr. Petersen's platform? Why does he want to address the right to work laws in North Carolina?

Anyway - if y'all will accept their calls, I think I've arranged for more than one person that worked on the film to call in tomorrow. And one that worked literally 3 feet from the scene in question - who says nothing inappropriate took place.

In the long run this case will most likely result in no action whatsoever taking place, and it will have zero impact on the NC film industry. So I'm not really worried about that - I'm just trying to educate folks on the idea that the film industry and the state incentive program brings much more good to the state than it does harm and there's mo reason to castigate everyone that's involved for the possible abuses of a very, very few.



You are absolutely right that California produces far more of this sort of filth than North Carolina does. It's also true that the foreign film industries make America look like a bastion of Christian decency in comparison.

It's also completely irrelevant. Those places are centers of film production. North Carolina is not. Nor is it of any immediate concern to me about North Carolina's Right To Work Law or it's filmmaking financial incentives, as I am not a citizen of your state. It only matters to me where it impinges on matters of national and moral concerns... as it does here.

Children, 4Corners. Their safety, their welfare, their moral upbringing into civilized adulthood... this is the prime issue. This is why every state in the union has laws upon laws to protect them from sexual exploitation by heartless panderers, whether they be filmmakers, photographers or computer pornographers. There is no higher calling for any adult than his direct involvement in this cause, be it his own children, his neighbors' or any child in the country.

However, those laws are only as good as our willingness to see them enforced. All the statutes and high-sounding words in the world will not protect one child from abuse or exploitation if they are ignored. If the authorities who represent us, elected or otherwise, fail in this duty, then it is the right and responsibility of all decent citizens to prevail upon them to see that it's done.

That this kind of abuse may, as yet, represent a small percentage of the problem (though, I think, a much larger one than you allude to), that even one is allowed to materialize and prosper is enough. It has to stop somewhere. If ignored and dismissed as inconsequential, it merely opens the door for ever more of the same.

And it has. In the last forty years, since pornography was legalized and the Valenti ratings system was introduced in Hollywood to allow it's mainstream marketing, sexual and/or violent crimes have mushroomed in this country where, before, such things were rare events... even during the heights of the Prohibition Era.

But, again, children are the major factor here... as always they must be. Somewhere, somehow; a stand must be taken. If the most innocent and fragile element of the population is allowed to be put in jeopardy, physically and spiritually alike, and if this can be done in YOUR state to three children (one of whom is arguably the most popular and renown child actress in the world) and that it can be done in spite of strictly structured child laws and with the actual support of taxpayer funds (!!), then I'd say you've got a real problem on your hands in the old Tarheel State.

And your problem is the country's problem. It's every decent human being's problem. That this depravity exists beyond your state's boundaries is abundantly true... and no less despicable. Nor is it ever to be ignored or forgotten. Indeed, the sexual exploitation of children must be stood up against wherever it is found.

Right now, the most recent and vile example of it has occured in North Carolina. That's why I'm involved. That's why Mr. Benson and Blue Line Radio, now with the welcome support of Mr. Petersen and his organization, is involved. That's why you should be, too. If the battle is to be joined in earnest, what better place than at the site of the most recent attack on the children of America and, I should mention, the place where other such films, like "Lolita", have found safe haven in the past... Wilmington NC.

Those who are responsible for this film and all that it represents should be more than castigated. They should and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; local, state and federal alike. If that means shutting down every film-related business in your state, in my native Texas (we have some, too) or every rotten, child-pandering business in the country, even if for the sake of ONE child, then so be it.

Children are and must always be the prime concern. Anything that does not contribute to their general welfare is expendible, as children are not. Anything that proves a detriment- much less an actual danger- is to be disposed of as soon as possible.

Joshua Enos

In regards to legal child porn, I would like for you to read this article; and tell me what you think. You can critique this article at my e-mail address; [email protected] .


Dear Josh:

EXCELLENT ARTICLE. Not only have you made all the points I have, but you've added other vital points and with the research to back them up. Rest assured, I will make frequent reference to your comments in the future and encourage others to do the same. Be sure to expand your guestbook, by the way!

On Myth #2, you reference the fact that 70% of molesters are known to the child's family. I've heard as high as 90%! Of course, that probably includes that fact that, all too often, the offender(s) are PART of the family. In any case, it's an eye-opening statistic.

I can't help but think that Dakota would be unsurprised by it. If it's true that her parents and agent allowed her to make this film with full knowledge of what she would endure, then one must ask oneself, "What else?... and what next?"

Maybe she's lying on her bed right now asking herself the same question. Her little sister Elle might well be asking, too. And then they both might ask, "Does anyone care?"

By the way, it's Myth #3 that hits home the most with me. I'm only too aware that children, especially young boys, are reluctant to report such abuse because of fear and shame. This is why they are so often repeat victims. The pervert knows it, too.

It was my involvement with such a case at Fort Bragg (I was the NCO in charge of prisoner reception at the stockade back in 1977) that turned it in to one of those "life-changing" experiences that we all have in life. It was the same sort of circumstance. Long-term sexual abuse by a old, career sergeant for God knows how long. It only stopped when he was at last caught red-handed.

Of course, Myth #4 is the most relevant one to the "Hounddog" issue. Whenever I think of that tiny child being, essentially, "strip-searched" in front of a full stage crew, on a fully-lit set, being subjected to multiple takes of multiple scenes of sex, nudity and violence with and from adult actors and every action being recorded for audiences and available to them from now until doomsday...

Well, it's obvious you've looked on that scenario with all the bitterness and disgust that I have. Talk about the ultimate degradation for a little girl! Remember when she was hailed by some as the child actress who would bring decency back to Hollywood? Seems like a million years ago, now.

Joshua Enos

I have just received word that a site is about to come soon; a site which sexually exploits child actors. It takes vidcaps of nude scenes of underaged actors/actresses and passes them off as child pornography. It is camouflaged with vidcaps of scenes of child actors with their clothes on. The site was up before and it's about to come back; only this time the vidcaps with nudity will have its links highlighted. It's a sight made specifically for pedophiles. Here is's whois information;

Star Galaxy
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447


Administrative Contact :
Hersman, Addy
[email protected]
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
Phone: 570-708-8780

Technical Contact :
Fitzgerald, Jim **
[email protected]
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
Phone: 570-708-8780

Record expires on 03-Jun-2009
Record created on 04-Jun-1996
Database last updated on 04-Apr-2006

I was wondering if somebody can call the sites webmaster and order them to delete. Perhaps you can take this site to Paul Petersen of A Minor Consideration. His website is .


Dear Joshua:

I just got off Petersen's site on my way here. I seriously suggest that you pass that on to him immediately. Here's another organization you might try.

The National Association To Protect Children (
46 Haywood Street, Suite 315
Asheville NC 28801

I learned about it a few days ago on "The O'Reilly Factor". Bill interviewed their chief spokeswoman, former child star Alison Arngrim. (She played the nasty little blonde girl on "Little House on the Prairie") I had noted her comments on the A&E special that I mentioned here before, along with those of her former co-star Melissa Gilbert and of Paul Petersen. What I DIDN'T know then and what I found out on "The Factor", was that she'd been molested herself... at the age of six by a family member! That means that she'd been through that horror before becoming an actress!

You've got to respect her. And, knowing this about her, you've got to believe that she's going to take things like "Hounddog" very seriously.

Dear Tre: You might want to take note of this. If you've got an organization like this right there in North Carolina, then a little networking might be in order. Can't hurt to try.

Joshua Enos


Don't lose track of what my argument is. I am not just against child actors taking part in scenes that involve sexual nudity. I am against children over the age of two taking part in any kind of nudity sexual or "innocent". Just a quick shot of an underaged boys bare-bottom as he is pulling up his underpants or the site of a boy going for a skinny-dip is child sexual exploitation in and of itself in my opinion. The child pornography laws that I am looking for are laws that make it illegal for a child over the age of two to stand anywhere near a movie set or photography studio in a g-stringn any context. Until such a law is passed the current child-pornography laws are one big joke.


Dear Joshua:

I'm not in dispute with you, believe me. Many laws in many areas need to be revamped, repackaged and refocussed into one neat bundle. However, all laws are reduced to ink stains on paper if no one will investigate or prosecute. Right now, we need to enforce the laws already in existance and stop what amounts to a stealth attack on the children of this country.


Voyeurs in society who lasciviate on a childs perceived physiology are not 'child lovers' as pedophile is supposed to mean. The image as we saw with JonBenet Ramsey was to be flirty and fun, but in a role of female temptress aka Shirley Temple in reverse. By that I mean dressing up as Mae West for a child who had not yet menstruated.

I have read the replies on child exploitation by the movie producers and associates and find that there is a market for 'Lolita's' and that sells films. Enough said. It does not ensure that 'street children' in rags are filmed, but a more lascivious image that a perp can cognitively attract to whether clothed in some garment as a ballet stocking, body suit, or dressed in a provocative manner.

The demand from the hidden perps inside homes allows home made movies of children inside abusive environments to a flux. It allows a growth market like trading cards for money and profit. No educational worth on the demise is produced. In legislating criminal acts of delinquents as children the law is more concentrated on quick action of antisocial behaviour.


We have children in foreign countries and home states used for exploitation, child labour, incest, power, and abuse. None of these documentaries are feature films, but where some in the past would lasciviate over Sophia Loren, Liz Taylor, and other well endowed women who were stars we now have the size 0 child demand in both male and female which the pedophiles in high and low social construction want as 'stars'.

That is it. Why any film or media is a success is marketing and any sort of outrage is good publicity. So the more challenging to the ideal of 'normal' and 'respectable' is the more it gets the headlines and people learn of it and crave for it in a certain mind of a perp. They may be just toe dipping which has happened to lawyers, and police caught with images in the past of young persons on computer.

Or they may be none of the respected persons above with a job of watching as occupational. They may be seasoned, grouped, or home abusers who develop a skill for entrapping the young pre-adolescent, or adolescent child. It depends on the highest authority and the Court of International Human Rights of the Child who can and should use its powers to delve into the Articles published as a censorship.

New technology and the moving image is not about teaching, or informing. IT IS PROFIT LED ENTERTAINMENT.

Such successesses in audiences mean more funding for more films. Children are only stars when they are under the limbo stick of morphological characteristics. When they grow into adult characters they are surplus as new 'stock' of innocents are in greedy parents and guardians hands. THINK ABOUT THE BANK BALANCE, NOT THE CHILD AND JONBENET.

Her killers still are free as are audiences that infiltrate the parade of such vulnerables. Who is more culpable? The promoter or the actual persons who ended her life with their bare hands. Think Otero child hanging from the rafters and of the media in recording what Rader as a former public and churchman said of such acts. They were 'projects's. And there endeth the lesson.

A 'project' as a human being without any rights over her or his demise as a vulnerable emotional human being in the stages of growth. Dennis Rader had a global audience who will and have copied him in some art form or other as a 'project'.


Dear Ten:

I think I understand what you're saying, although it's plain that English is not your first language!

What you mean is that children all over the world, not just America, are vulnerable to sexual exploitation in films because the laws and courts are not set up in such a way as to easily identify and prosecute such crimes. Instead, they are more closely geared to prosecuting children who commit violent crimes, not to pursuing the adults who contribute to their deliquency. Additionally, they overlook or ignore the vested financial interests that lie behind the child-sex "industry" and provide them with an illusion of legitimacy plus legal support.

Also, because there's a profit to be made from marketing children like this, either to hard-core pedophiles or occasional indulgents, then a corps of semi-professional panderers has arisen to provide even more for this "market". Money drives them and, as long as there's money to be made, this activity will continue.

All very true, Ten. No dispute from me!

In fact, it's the "occasional indulgents" who are the biggest factor, as they far outnumber the deviants. All of us have a "dark side". Pornography, while it may repel our conscious mind's conception of right and wrong can, ironically, attract us at the same time. How? Because it appeals directly to our basal instincts. Even the most virtuous man, when faced with an open centerfold(!) finds it hard to turn away.

While child-based porn takes this to a whole new (and rock-bottom) level, this is where it's roots lie, in common with all pornography. Even "soft-core" porn, once it takes root and loses it's social stigma, can, by repeated exposure, lead young, unparented and immature minds to it's hidden abysses.

Let no one doubt that movies like "Hounddog" are a part of this ongoing pattern of legitimizing depravity for profit.

And who, you ask, is the most culpable? Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with Dennis Rader or the Otero child, but I think I catch your drift. Who, indeed, is worse; he who promotes or he who commits? The latter, I'd say. However, the promoter is also an "accessory after the fact" in the eyes of the law. In many instances, especially with murder, this is considered a crime of equal severity.


If you want to talk about family values and harming kids and moral decay then lets' explore one of your favorite tv shows. I know this show is meant to be viewed by adults. There's no way that kids would watch something like this, because we all know how much they hate cartoons. Surely they couldn't relate to such complex characters. Like the time Satan is in town to challenge Jesus to a one-on-one showdown of good versus evil on Pay-Per-View, or the time Mrs. Cartman had sex with just about every man in town, or the time Stan discovers just what a 'bris' is: they're going to cut off Ike's penis, or the time chickens at a local farm were molested by a pervert, or the time the boys discover that the school nurse has a dead fetus attached to the side of her head, or the time Cartman joins NAMBLA, or the time the boys tell the police that their parents molested them and soon there are no adults left, and the time society is almost destroyed when a popular television show uses the word S H I T on the air, and the time Chef begins to express an interest in molesting children.

Yep, this is some wholesome family fun here...

I can see your son walking and starting to say his first words, "suck......on.... my...... chocalate...... salty.... balls... come.... and .. put... them... in.. your... mouth... and... suck.. on.. em"

I bet you will be so proud at that moment. Maybe you can dress him up like Kenny and shove him into some woman's vagina. Wouldn't that be fun. Maybe later after your finished with this movie you can maybe say something about how shows like this add to the overall moral decay, you know when you have more time.

Any comments?


John pays his taxes, John goes to church, John supports Bush, John gives money to charity, John is considered a nice guy that is an outstanding member of his community.

John goes to blockbuster and finds a dvd entitled hounddog. John's a big fan of Elvis so he rents the movie. Pops it in the dvd player puts some popcorn in the nuker and sits back in his favorite chair and waits to be entertained. He watches a drama unfold about a young girl being raped. This excites him and he thinks to himself "gee it would be fun to do that to some little girl". He takes the movie back to blockbuster and on the way home he sees a little girl walking along the side of the road and determines that this is as good a time as any to fulfill his desire so he pulls up and grabs the girl and takes her back to his house where she is raped.

How does watching a movie turn a perfectly normal person into a rapist or a pedophile?

In the real world John would have seen the rape and thought to himself this is really sad and I feel sorry for the little girl. How could someone do that. I now know what it's like to see what a small child has to endure and I have no sympathy for anyone that would do something like this. He returns to blockbuster and hands the dvd to the clerk and tells them this is a good movie, it's sad but you should watch it.


Isnt it strange that in good ol america its perfectly normal to make disugsting movies about violence and torture. Its okey to blow peoples heads off just for the jolly fun of it but its not okey to make a REALISTIC movie which concerns a disgusting and important object like child abuse? Why shouldnt people make movies about that? Cause its controversal?

I wish more film makers would have the courage to make such a movie cause its a heartbreaking subject which needs to be explored.

I rather watch movies which concerns real subjects showing real people instead of all these blockbusters with great explosions, loads of big guns and heroes with big biceps who can be shot, hit in the head and almost get overrun by trucks without getting killed or even injured. I´ve seen it to many times and it gets pretty boring after a while.

This movie is not child pornography or real child abuse. Its about child abuse and there is a difference you know.


Back to the Paul Petersen website. It states on his website the following:

"announcement that 12 year-old Dakota Fanning will portray a pre-adolescent rape victim in the movie, "Hound Dog," an independent film alleged to feature Dakota, not yet in her teens, totally naked and actually assaulted on film in a realistic portrait of the rape that spins her into a fantasy world centered on Elvis Presley.

"Dakota Fanning is the latest young actress asked to portray the victim of a sexual assault, but this time around, the rape is filmed graphically and features the fully naked 12 year-old being attacked."

"So, why is it different if you hire a 12 year-old actress, fully nude, to actively participate in a rape scene?"



If he knows for a fact that this is true then he and his source need to come foward and testify in court that they witnessed this taking place.


Angry Elvis:

Maybe I've missed something, but are you trying to infer that because we're concerned about movies like "Hounddog" and their larger ramifications, we're likewise turning a blind eye to television's abuses? I hope that's not what you mean. I think that I and others have made it plain time and again that ALL these are factors in the continuing downward spiral of the popular culture.

I'm not a fan of "South Park"! I've seen a few shows and think that their "satires" go way over the line on a constant basis. It's not alone in this either! However, we can't go after everything at once. Priorities must be set. Which, then, is the greatest potential threat right now?

You may disagree, but I say "Hounddog" is. I and others have given many reasons on many threads and blogsites. The main one, as I see it, is in the virtual immasculation of our child protective laws if "Hounddog" succeeds. There is also the factor of the safety of REAL children versus those nasty (but animated) brats on "South Park".

Your point that television is often a mental cesspool for juveniles is well taken. I agree. But, as I have often said, the nexus of the popular culture is in Hollywood and the film industry. I say; let's strike at the heart of the problem instead of lopping off an odd limb.


"Are you trying to infer that because we're concerned about movies like "Hounddog" and their larger ramifications, we're likewise turning a blind eye to television's abuses?"

Well yes....

You can't turn on the tv without something like this being displayed. The lifetime channel is full of movies about kids in sexual situations and rape. MTV is almost entirely devoted to these reality shows where everyone involved his drinking and having sex. Southpark, Simpsons, American Dad, Family Guy, Drawn Together, and others with sexually suggestive scenes that are all cartoons. I could go on for days regarding the type of stuff that is displayed on tv. It is way worse than any movie that will be rated R for mature material. These shows on tv are available to any child of any age at any time. All they have to do is pick up the remote and push a button. Little Tommy isn't going to drive up to the threater and buy a ticket for an R rated movie but he can watch shows like Southpark without restriction and without a parent being present.

I'm not a fan of "South Park"...

When is your last show going to be on mp3? I seemed to remember you talking about Southpark and Reno 911. Maybe I should review the audio file and come back and apologize.

"I say; let's strike at the heart of the problem instead of lopping off an odd limb."

I AGREE!! but Hounddog is just one movie, I'm talking about 24 hours of continuous television that is available to almost every kid at any time and your talking about one movie that will only be seen by a handful of people. Which is the heart of the problem and which is the limb here?


Sorry Steve, I thought you were Tre. He is the one that talked about Southpark.

There is a HUGE difference between TV and Movies

When a movie is released I can pick up a newpaper and read the reviews, I can go online and read reviews, I can talk to other people who have seen it to provide their opinions, and I CAN DECIDE IF MY CHILD SHOULD SEE IT.

When a TV show is put on the air there is no way to check out the content in advance. I can't read the reviews or talk to other people. It's just there and I have to wait until after it ends to determine if my child should have watched it which by that point is too late. It's in you face none stop and you have no idea what is next.

"nexus of the popular culture is in Hollywood and the film industry"

Who appointed you King of Morality?

I say the nexus of popular culture is the television industry.

I can go to blockbuster pick up the dvd case and flip it over and read the back and if I decide this is not a proper movie I can put it back on the shelf. My kid can pick up the remote point it at the idiot box and watch whatever he wants unless I'm right there to stop him.

I can assure you he will not get into the theater to watch this movie and he will not go to blockbuster to rent this movie. So I KNOW he will not see this movie but I have no idea what he will see next on the tv.


I just wanted to point out that many movies have featured child nudity in them. One that comes to mind is Pretty Baby where a young Brooke Shields is seen naked from top to bottom in the presence of an older man who marries her later in the film. Now I don't think anyone on that set got arrested...

Or pretty much any David Hamilton film. Child porn? I don't think so.

Kids? One of the most controvertial films of all time. Child Nudity? Check. Rape? Check. Drug abuse? Double check. Violence? Another check.

Point is that there is no way this film is going to be anywhere near as graphics as any of the films I listed above. I mean look at Blue Lagoon and Blue Lagoon 2! The kids were naked throughout much of the film. Maybe Brooke just likes her nudity, but that's besides the point. The real point is that even is Dakota in nude in the film then who really cares? It happens all the time. Its not going to harm her for life. Just live with it.

Again, people are just making a huge deal out of this because its Dakota Fanning. Just look at the film as the social commentary it most likely is, and live with it.


What will happen to the kids involved if the authorities decide to take legal action which we all know at this point is unlikely but let's just say it starts snowing in hell and they take action and arrest the film makers and the parents of the minor kids.

How will this protect them? Being forced to tesify in court against their own parents. Having details of what happened on the set exposed to the general public in graphic detail. Being ridiculed for their involvement in the film. How does spreading rumors about the movie help protect the kids? How does posting comments all over the internet that their parents are unfit help the kids?

Your "crusade" is about protecting the kids but you have done nothing that protects the kids involved in this movie. You know that if anything obscene was filmed it will never make it into the final cut of the film. I don't want to know what was filmed behind closed doors because that is none of my business but what I care about is what will be in the final cut. It's up to "proper" authorities to decide if any action should be taken for what is on the film that ended up on the cutting room floor.

Lot's of people keep saying Dakota wasn't harmed but she was, she will be emotionally harmed by the damage done by you and your crusade against her and her mother. The controversy surrounding the movie is ten times worse than anything that happened on the set. No matter how hard we try no one can go back to the past and change what happened (if anything happened). But we can go into the future and change how this is reported and how the kids are treated.

Before you go on your next rant stop for a second then decide how you would feel if you were 12 years old and you read what others were saying about you or your mother.

Your job is done, the authorities have been notified and everyone is aware of the controversy. Thank you for the information and the discussion that has followed. The "proper" authorities will handle it from here. The rest of us who support Dakota or the movie will continue with damage control. You can take down your website, your blog pages, delete all you internet post, and stop talking about it because we have all heard what you have to say. Now climb back under your rock and let the adults take care of the damage you have caused.


How dare you attack dear little Dakota. She has done NOTHING wrong and is absolutely innocent in this entire debate. All these personal attacks on either her character or her mother's character, will cause 1000% more emotional grief to her than anything she had to endure during the filming of this movie.

Everyone who has concerns about the film should STOP, LOOK and LISTEN. STOP and think before you criticize. LOOK around and see how close most 12 year-old girls are to their mothers. LISTEN to the cries of any young girl who is upset for her mother's well being. I dare say that the single most harmful event to little Dakota in this entire debate has been those people who have called for her mother to be prosecuted for neglect or some worse charge. PLEASE..... if you have any decency at all, THINK how such talk impacts a 12 year-old girl who loves her mother very much!

There will be a time and place to critique this film thoroughly, but rumors should be left where they belong - in the dust bin of history!

It's one thing to attack a movie but when you attack a 12 year old girl then you have sank to the lowest level of mankind. Why can't you guys pick on someone your own age?


Just look at the blue line site top banner:

DOKOTA FANNING - Reporting of child actress' rape scene causes otcry

THAT'S BULL SHIT - It should say HOUNDDOG - Reporting of child blah blah blah

YOU mention her name on this website like a hundred times, YOU have her picture plastered all over the website, and YOU always refer to it as the Dakota Fanning Controversy on their radio show.



I know exactly how you are going reply Tre.

Don't bother, heard from you a hundred times and it's still bullshit.



The comments to this entry are closed.