porn: May 2008 Archives

This from the U.S. Attorney's office:

A San Gabriel Valley man was indicted today for allegedly using
social networking sites on the Internet to convince high school-age girls to have sex with him and pose for pornographic pictures.

Gregory Scott Serrano, 33, of Monrovia, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles on charges of production of child
pornography, using the Internet to entice minors to produce child
pornography and to meet for sex, receipt of child pornography,
possession of child pornography and attempted destruction of evidence.

The indictment lists 10 teenage girls as victims. However, authorities believe there are other girls who may have been victimized by Serrano.

The investigation into Serrano began in March after a 15-year-old girl reported that Serrano had taken pornographic photographs of her. According to court documents, Serrano posed as a 19-year-old and contacted the teenager after reading her profile on netlog.com and MySpace.com. After courting her via emails and cellular telephone conversations, Serrano pressed the teenager to meet him in person.

Some of serrano's usernames included: Greg Scott, Purein10citi, citigreg1116, serranogreg, and latinoload1116.

*Serrano is charged with 23 counts in state court and 22 federal counts. Bail in the case has been set at $820,000. He's residing at the Pitchess Detention Center in Castaic.

*Here's what Serrano listed on his resume at LinkedIn.com

Gregory Serrano's Experience

• Owner

  Primerica Financial Services

  (Public Company; Financial Services industry)

  Currently holds this position

• Culinary Delivery Specialist

Chili's Grill and Bar

(Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; eat; Restaurants industry)

1994 -- 2001 (7 years)

**Here's an excerpt from the 

SAFE_-_Serrano_indictment.pdf: 

Beginning in or about January 2007, and continuing until in or about March 12, 2008, in Los Angeles County, within the Central District of California, and elsewhere, defendant GREGORY SCOTT SERRANO knowingly used a facility of interstate commerce, namely, the Internet and the telephone, to attempt to persuade, induce, and entice an individual who had not attained the age of 18 years, namely, S.A., a 13 and then 14-year-old girl, to engage in a sexual activity for which a person could be charged with a criminal offense, namely, lewd acts on a child, in violation of California Penal Code Section 288(C)(1), and production of child pornography, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2251(a). 

***Here's some of Greg Serrano's Web sites:

WIndows live here.

MySpace here.

Friendster here.

LinkedIn here. 

****Netlog site here.

Justice Antonin Scalia writes the opinion in this case, which is known as U.S. v. Williams:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court upheld criminal penalties Monday for promoting child pornography.

The court, in a 7-2 decision, brushed aside concerns that the law could apply to mainstream movies that depict adolescent sex, classic literature or innocent e-mails that describe pictures of grandchildren.

The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law that also prohibits possession of child porn. It replaced an earlier law against child pornography that the court struck down as unconstitutional.

The law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child porn. It does not require that someone actually possess child pornography. Opponents have said the law could apply to movies like "Traffic" or "Titanic" that depict adolescent sex.

But Justice Antonin Scalia, in his opinion for the court, said the law does not cover movie sex. there is no "possibility that virtual child pornography or sex between youthful-looking adult actors might be covered by the term 'simulated sexual intercourse.'" Scalia said.

Likewise, Scalia said, First Amendment protections do not apply to "offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography."

*There's a lot of interesting thought on the First Ammendment contained throughout Scalia's opinion. Here' s a section on the effect of the ruling on "Hollywood:"

Amici contend that some advertisements for mainstream Hollywood movies that depict underage charactershaving sex violate the statute. Brief for Free Speech Coalition et al. as Amici Curiae 9-18. We think it implausible that a reputable distributor of Hollywood movies,such as Amazon.com, believes that one of these films contains actual children engaging in actual or simulated sex on camera; and even more implausible that Amazon.com would intend to make its customers believe such a thing. The average person understands that sex scenes inmainstream movies use nonchild actors, depict sexual activity in a way that would not rise to the explicit level necessary under the statute, or, in most cases, both.