WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today chaired a hearing to examine emerging online threats against children and proposed legislative solutions. Grassley and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) introduced three bipartisan bills to update federal sentencing guidelines, target violent online criminal networks and crack down on sextortion threats.
In response to Grassley’s questions, witnesses highlighted an urgent need to address online child extortion – specifically sextortion and violent online criminal groups like the “764” network. The witnesses discussed gaps in U.S. law that allow child predators to run rampant, with one witness testifying that “the imagery, the videos, the chats that we are seeing and reading are some of the most graphic that I have ever seen in my 20-year history.”
Grassley questioned the following witnesses:
- Tamia Woods, mother of James Woods and co-founder of the Do It For James Foundation
- Lauren Coffren, Executive Director of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
- Jessica Lieber Smolar, Esq., Former Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Grassley: “Recently, there have been several news reports on the increase in sextortion cases, and how quickly bad actors can manipulate children… many of those children think that suicide is the answer… From a parent’s point of view, why is it important to make sextortion illegal under federal law?”
Woods: “We have to make sure that, not only do our children see that we have their back on these issues, but we have to make sure that they know there are resources and laws that back them up.”
“People need to be held accountable on top of that. They need to know that they shouldn’t be comfortable with doing the things that they’re doing. Right now they’re comfortable, and you see more and more people being victimized because of that.”
On violent online groups like 764:
Grassley: “Ms. Coffren, you’ve been with the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children for over 20 years, having served in a variety of positions involving online child safety. Can you describe the recent trends involving these violent gore groups like 764 and how they operate and target children online?”
Coffren: “Sadistic online exploitation, violent online groups… most often they’re motivated purely by chaos. Their goal is to be able to weaponize our nation’s children to create terror… Children may be looking for solace, for comfort, for advice in online platforms and spaces where they can find a community. Unfortunately, these offenders are infiltrating and targeting those communities.
“The imagery, the videos, the chats that we are seeing and reading are some of the most graphic that I have ever seen in my 20-year history. We are hearing from law enforcement out in the field who’ve said that this is the most disturbing content as well. So, you’re talking about seasoned professionals who are really meeting their match with the new and evolving types of exploitation that we’re seeing.”
Grassley: “Ms. Smolar… can you share why we need federal legislation specifically to address these gore groups and other individuals who engage in sextortion? Please share your experience in working investigations involving these groups.”
Smolar: “Congress has provided so many important tools to those of us in the field, like mandatory minimums for crimes like receipt and distribution of child pornography or production. [Prosecutors] need those tools in order to properly hold these types of defendants accountable. Right now, when [prosecutors] charge crimes like sextortion or 764 across the country, we all charge them differently… There’s no consistency that allows [prosecutors] to properly address the specific harm that these actors are committing.
“In addition, a lot of these actors are overseas. It would be extremely helpful for those of us who want to extradite people here to the United States, to hold them accountable, to have a felony statute that specifically speaks to this harm.
“I’m familiar with a case where a defendant was in Germany. Germany had a coercion to harm statute, but [the United States] did not. [Germany] was able to charge that 764 offender there, but we could not charge him here. That shouldn’t happen. We should be able to charge these offenders, hold them accountable and deter them from continuing to hurt our children.”
-30-
