Anyone read this great Salon article "They call me a Child Pornographer"

[LynneSin]

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/07/18/photos/

I guess the family took a vacation with their small children and thanks to the counter person at Eckerds photo lab taking the law into his/her own hands, some family was put through hell with Child Protective services because family photos of a camping trip including their children running around naked (and these kids were under age 5).

The sad thing was, when the police realized that it was nothing more than a family camping trip there was still nothing he could do since the process was rolling for investigating the claim that the pictures were pornographic.

[Jokerman]

1. Frightening and disturbing

I can't imagine the hell these people went through.

My dad used to think it was funny to get "candid" home movies of us while we were on wilderness camping trips. I always thought that made him an asshole but I would have never considered it a matter for the cops.

[LynneSin]

2. It was mentioned later in the article for a solution to this problem

I mean, it would be easy to blame the photo clerk at Eckards (although if someone was a child pornographer you'd think by now they would invest the money in a digital camera) but the process setup basically meant that once the crime was reported, the Child Protection services had to go through all the steps and interviews.

This solution would be to allow the police to investigate it and if he/she discovered it was nothing more than just harmless family pictures then allow the case to be dismissed

[Crazy Dave]

3. An ex-coworker of mine worked at an Eckerds...

...and she said they would get real, without a doubt, child pornographic pictures to process frequently. Our local sheriff's office which is notoriously known for not wanting to be bothered unless it's to beat up or shoot someone would jump all on their case when they tried to report each incident by saying things like, "what are you doing scrutinizing other people's photos?", like they were violating the pedophile's rights.
No proof, just her word but she always seemed like a honest person and I personally know her dad who is also a good person.

[Divameow77]

4. 8 years old

is too old to be photographed naked. I'm not saying that this family should get in trouble but 8 really is too old. I have an 8 year old son and I know better. What they did was stupid, harmless to them but stupid. I think it should be taken seriously by the police and the store, better then not seriously enough, IMO.

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. But if kids are brought up not to believe their bodies are filthy and

shameful, but are holy, wonderful, natural, and without shame, then what's wrong with an 8 year old? or 12 year old? or an adult?

America is fucked up. It's just nudity, for crying out loud.

But, in America nudity = sex, and sex, unless it's used in advertising or as a joke in a sitcom, is evil evil evil filthy bad evil filthy shameful bad evil.

[Divameow77]

11. I understand what you are saying

but there are certain things that parents need to conform to what society deems appropriate, and the gray area of child pornography may need to be one of them.
I agree that children should be taught to accept their bodies and not be ashamed, but they also need to learn when it's appropriate, that some people may be offended by it and they should respect that, and others may take advantage of it. It's unfortunate that nudity is equated with sex, when in your mind (and mine as well) it clearly isn't, but that's the way it is a lot of the time and we should teach our children to understand it. I also know from experience that children don't always know what situation a certain behavior is okay.

[GirlinContempt]

13. But, an 8 year old

out camping with his parents? That's the situation.

[Divameow77]

17. I still think 8 is too old

so I don't let my son run around outside naked. I also wouldn't encourage my kids to pee on a fire to put it out, that's just me. To each their own I guess :shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. So you're sexualizing an eight year old?

[Divameow77]

88. I'm not sexualizing anything

I just gave my opinion that 8 is too old to be photographed naked. Not criminal in this situation, but inappropriate.

[Phillycat]

9. I totally agree.

8 years old is too old to be publicly naked.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

14. The kid wasn't really publicly naked.

They were out in the woods. There was no one around except for them. He was drying his clothes out. I don't see any problems with that and I personally wouldn't have seen anything wrong with the photo. The only problem is the Eckerd employee saw a problem with it.

[Phillycat]

15. I disagree.

I guess I'm old-fashioned. :shrug:

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. Not old fashioned at all - in the long history of humanity,

being afraid of nudity is a relatively recent development, pretty much from the 1800s, and then mostly only in America, though partly in England (but they have now mostly outgrown that short aberration in their worldview).

Most of the world's people still maintain a natural view of nudity and the human body.

[Phillycat]

20. I am of course not afraid of nudity.

We live in America, in 2006. And it is inappropriate for an 8 year old child to be naked and photographed. That is the reality in our society. You can disagree with it all you want. But I am glad the Eckerd's employee did what is ethically right and also legally required.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Inappropriate?

I think it's inappropriate to think there's something wrong with a naked eight year old.

Downright obscene actually.

[Phillycat]

27. Okay.

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Why are you rolling your eyes?

Accusing these people of child pornography is more than inappropriate. It ought to be criminal.

[Phillycat]

29. Uh.

I said it was inappropriate for an 8 year old child to be naked and photographed. And it is. Whether or not you think that is wrong is your problem. Societally, it is INAPPROPRIATE to photograph a naked 8 year old. Which is why the laws are in place that photo-processing places must report anything that looks wrong. Which this fully fit the definition of "Crossing the line". Would you prefer that the Eckerd's employee ignored this and the father sold the pictures on the internet?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. That strikes me as very inappropriate.

If society's so fucked in the head that members of society would accuse these people of child pornagraphy, and other members of the same society would apologize for that obscene behaviour, then we've fallen a long way.

If I had to choose which was more obscene: some guy who took pictures of his kids running around naked during their camping trip, or the guy who thought that was inappropriate, I'd choose the latter.

In fact, I'd think the latter had some real problems.

[Phillycat]

31. Actually, I think we're progressing as a society in this area.

When I was a child and being molested, no one in my family wanted to talk about it. My teachers knew i was being beaten and never said anything. Now there are laws that FORCE someone to say something.

Perhaps you are so adamant about this because it hasn't happened to you or someone you love. If it did, you might feel differently. Peace.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Oh, I got knocked around a bit as a kid.

And I've always been in favor of mandatory reporting laws and have done my share fair of reporting.

That said, what that employee did to this guy's kids amounts to abuse.

[Phillycat]

33. We will disagree, then.

And I am off home. Ta!

[1monster]

53. Ah...

Your attitude becomes much more clear. I understand that you would be uncomfortable with an eight year old being photographed naked.

Children who feel secure and not ashamed of their bodies tend to be less likely to worry about nudity than children who are insecure.

Children also become "modest" at different ages according to influences in their lives. My stepson was very concerned about covering up privacy by age six. My son would run around naked until just before puberty despite my efforts to make him show a little more decorum.

Molested children are seldom joyous about being naked... and with good reason.

(I note this as one who wore concealing clothing buttoned up to the neck and blankets also pulled up to my neck and tightly wrapped around my body even in the hottest weather in Florida with no air conditioning for many years after leaving home. I have had my own issues and have dealt with most of them, but have also learned that some can never be dealt with completely.)

The problem with issues like this gentleman's is that false accusations like this take time and effort away from protecting those truly at risk and they put good families at risk for long term psychological problems.

[alarimer]

47. I think the Eckerds people need to be fired for bringing

false charges. or some equivalent. Maybe a lawsuit is the best thing though. Sue the crap out of these people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. yeah, no kidding.

I hope they win big.

[northzax]

112. no, they erred on the side of caution

what there needs to be is a more efficient way for the cops and CSD to look at something and say "eh, this is bullshit, and we all know it" and make it go away.

[Divameow77]

114. agreed

people are ripping on this employee, when it's the cops that ran with it.

[northzax]

118. they had no choice either

once the train is moving, you can't get off until the end of the ride. everyone had a role to play in the little kabuki of investigation. I have a friend who works for Child Protective services, and she is always dealing with this sort of paperwork any accusation means multiple visits, multiple inspections, multiple forms to fill out. After doing this for a decade, she's got a pretty good nose for trouble, and has to spend time and money investigating people who she knows aren't trouble, instead of supporting the children of those who are. it's all a mess.

[LynneSin]

139. It's a compromise

I just don't feel a family needs to be torn apart because a minimum wage clerk misjudged what they say.

[LynneSin]

51. So you want someone making minimum wage

To determine what is and isn't legal?

What next? I drop off pictures from a protest and I have the Secret Service and FBI knocking on my door. It is NOT in the job requirements for Photo lab employees to be making judgement on other people's photographs. Hell, next thing you'll tell me it's ok for their Pharmacist to report any prescriptions I get or question any purchase I make. Perhaps we'll have the girl working the cash register also the one to screen my tapped phone. All of this while making minimum wage

[Phillycat]

77. No one else gets to see pictures being dropped off.

The only person who gets to see pictures people drop off is the person processing them. Who else is going to catch it if a child pornographer drops off pictures to be developed?? I cannot understand your attitude here. There is no other stop-gap available in this case.

[LynneSin]

78. Then I expect Eckards and other drug stores to hire experts

And I expect our taxdollars to train these employees so that they are expects in judging the difference between child pornography and family photos. I mean, who cares if I'm paying $50 for a roll of film to be developed as long as I have the government approval that all my pictures are santitary :crazy:

I mean next you're gonna tell me it's ok that Pharmacists can use their judgement on what kind of prescriptions I'm allowed to get like birth control. And I guess you're ok that the Bush Administration is tapping phones. I mean, hell that last conversation you had on your phone sound pretty suspicious - better haul your ass in as a suspect terrorist

I don't want to live in your world - it scares me. I, like you, am not big on the nudity thing and perhaps that was from our family raising us that being naked is bad. But I, unlike you, do NOT pass the judgements of how I was raised onto other familes.

I mean, seriously, think about it. Last time I dropped photos off at my local drug store (Happy Harry's here in Delaware) it was some 17 year old kid with bad acne and long greasy hair who was running the photo machine and YOU want to give HIM power to decide what is criminal and what is harmless?

You're sick - you're sicker than the person who wrote this article who did something harmless. And the worst thing is you're enabling our government to find another way to peak into our private lives.

[Phillycat]

79. Okay, first of all, please stop calling me names.

Second of all, calm down.

I do not expect the Eckerd's employee to make the call whether the pics are criminal or not. All I expect is that the employee contact someone who IS qualified, which is supposed to be the governmental agencies that the employee DID contact. At that point is where the problem began, NOT with the employee alerting someone. The agencies are supposed to have qualified people who can make that determination and not trap people in a net that they shouldn't be in. If the agency was overzealous and made this guy's life unhappy for a while - well that sucks. But frankly, I would rather too much attention than not enough to this problem!

Teachers have, for over a decade now, been required to report suspected child abuse. Now, teachers are not child abuse experts and not family therapists. But they are required to pass on any suspicions and then QUALIFIED people can get involved and determine whether there is a problem. The reason teachers are chosen for this responsibility, even though they have no specific training for it, is because they are the ones who will see it! They are the stop-gap. They pass it on to someone who can make the call. And that is exactly what this Eckerd's employee did. He passed it on to someone who was qualified to make the call.

[Rabrrrrrr]

81. "I would rather too much attention than not enough" - I read it this way..

Better to put a hundred people in jail to ensure that the one criminal is nailed than to let the one criminal escape.

I don't think you mean it quite that way, but that is the potential for abuse of a system that says "better to investigate too many than not enough".

Personally, I'm of the opinion that, while children need protection and molestors should be taken out of society, we are accusing way, way too many people of it, and ruining a lot of lives just through the accusations.

Even if found not guilty, as happens in the majority of cases, the ACCUSATION of child pron carries so much more social baggage than anything else; if one is accused of murder and found not guilty, the entry back into society is quite easy; if one is accused of child porn or child molestation, and found not guilty, one will have an awful time getting back into society.

[LynneSin]

86. Do you know this will be on their kids records until the kids are 21

It was in the article. Even though they were found innocent a record of the investigation will be kept filed until their children are age 21.

My wife and I decided, given my anger at the situation, it was best that I not be there during our home visit. So I drove around the neighborhood and sat in the car until Oney left. In the end, she didn't even search the house. She told my wife the investigation was closed, that the case against us was unsubstantiated and no further action would be taken. My wife said Oney seemed apologetic but offered no apology. The same scenario was played out at Janet and Rusty's house. Despite the fact that the case was unsubstantiated, a record of the accusation and ensuing investigation will be kept on file for three years -- in case, we were told by our lawyer, other complaints should be filed against us. Our children's records will show the incident until they are 21 years old.

THEY WERE INNOCENT THEN WHY KEEP THIS ON RECORD???!!!

[Divameow77]

104. Because just because something can't be proven

doesn't mean it didn't happen. I don't agree with what happen to these people just because they showed poor judgement (in some people's opinions) but if a child shows signs of abuse, but nothing can be proven so it's not recorded then they show up to school with more signs of abuse, shouldn't the authorities know that this isn't the first time? All these laws are in place to protect children. Maybe they aren't fool-proof but the judicial system is not perfect, and we all know it.

[LostinVA]

120. OMG -- you cannot be serious?

"Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it didn't happen." On the face of it, a logical statement. HOWEVER: our criminal justice system doesn't work like that.

Jesus Christ. What a horrible statement.

[LynneSin]

143. Ok good, I'm calling the FBI on you

I mean you're posting here at a known democratic website where there is discussions that oppose George W. Bush. Which pretty much means you're probably some kind of psycho terrorist who is considering doing something detrimental to this country.


Ok, just kidding about that statement, but to me that is exactly what you are OKing - making harsh decisions on weak evidence which ultimately will lead to someone's life being totally torn to shreads just so some clerk at a drugstore counter can sleep better at night

[LostinVA]

149. That analogy actually works n/t

[LynneSin]

154. Hey don't laugh - I'm turning you in too

Somewhere a marriage is breaking up because you're in a Lesbian reliationship. I just KNOW IT

[LostinVA]

157. Probably several -- I'm a total straight chick magnet

Even YOU can feel it all the way up in Delaware!!!

[Divameow77]

155. Calm down,

That's not a correct statement for every case, but maybe in the situation I described. I'm sorry, when child abuse is concerned I think allegations of a certain nature need to be kept on record. This situation was blown way out of proportion by the police, and it's wrong, but don't forget that these things really do happen to kids. I'm glad some people here have so much more sympathy for the accused then for children that suffer from abuse.

[LynneSin]

162. You're right - they do happen to kids

but probably not by someone who is dumb enough to have the pictures developed at Eckards.

Which means alot of money was wasted on a hunch by a personal judgement by a clerk working at Eckards instead of letting the experts do the job of cracking down on these things.

[Divameow77]

163. Your probably right but

apparently some people are dumb enough, it's my understanding that plenty of abusers get caught that way. I still believe that the clerk was just following direction from management. I'm willing to bet management saw the pictures before the cops even did.

[LynneSin]

169. You just don't get it

I guess in your world the Patriot Act is a good idea huh?

[Divameow77]

171. Of course not,

I'm not saying that what happened to this family is okay, actually the first thing I even said was that I think it's wrong to take pictures of a naked 8 year old. Just because I think something's wrong doesn't mean I think it should be criminal either. I was trying to defend the actions of the clerk who I don't think really did anything wrong, just probably what he was instructed to.
The bottom line is that we are getting the story from the father, maybe the clerk would have something different to say, or if we saw the pictures ourselves then who know's what our reactions to them would be. It seems like some are taking his side of the story as gold.

[Phillycat]

91. I disagree.

Statistically speaking, we are not catching even a quarter of the molesters and child pornographers out there. I think we should be more vigilant as a society on this issue. I think there are few false accusations and many that get away with it because no accusation comes to light.

So we disagree. Peace.

[LynneSin]

95. Do you think a man with a camera full of child porn is going to Eckards

for their development?


And we may disagree but your world still scares the bejesus out of me. Your belief that we're guilty until proven innocent from an uneducated (in the sense of detecting child pornography) clerk at a drugstore is frightening. You would rather destroy families through mindless investigations than to instead focus on real problems that can be detected through schools and tracking through internet sites like MySpace, which I feel is a breeding ground for child pornographers to find new victims.

How much tax dollars was wasted and how much money did that family lose because of the stupidity of a clerk. You think this is ok. I weep for your values.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

101. Duh, that's where all the pedophiles go for photo development.

Not only is the presumption of guilt disturbing (if you really want to get freaked out, read all of Patriot Act II :scared:), but the fact that this wouldn't raise an eyebrow in most civilized societies and here people seem to think it's okay to ruin a family over it is pretty disturbing. Also, how quickly some people automatically sexualize the nudity of a child is pretty fucked up. Definitely creepier than a parent with a photo of their kid naked.

[LynneSin]

84. Then where do we cross the line from good and bad?

That family was put through hell because the person at Eckards made a MISTAKE and once that mistake was made then the system required to put the family through hell even though the police who first saw the pictures knew they were nothing harmless but couldn't do a thing because of the system.

The people working the photo counter are there to develop pictures NOT analysis everything that goes through there because unlike teachers, they are not trained to analysis for what is child porn and what isn't. You make horrible assumptions that what you see in a photograph explains the entire story - it doesn't, it's a 1-shot capture in time that leaves the rest to the viewers imagination. For a teacher, they not only see the children but the tell-tale signs of abuse from how the child reacts, cuts, bruises and general behavor. All of those are major clues that abuse is going on. A few pictures (and remember some of them were not naked, some of them had kids doing harmless things like using empty beer bottles as musical toys) does not show signs of abuse. Heck, only a few pictures were pulled from the roll of film as 'evidence' which leads me to believe that if perhaps the entire roll was looked as an entity you'd see it was a family vacation not some child-porn ring.

I stand by what I say - your willingness to allow clerks to take a few pictures and make assumptions is a dangerous turn for the worse. What else will these clerks decide is 'right' and 'wrong' just from a glance of a photograph? What about my nephew holding a rifle? We better check him out - he could be going hunting or perhaps he's being trained to assasinate somehow. How will we know unless we put the whole family through turmoil while investigating it.

And the sad thing is - we waste our time on junk like this when real abuse, real child-pornography is being overlooked

[Phillycat]

92. We disagree. nt

[LynneSin]

99. Yes we do: ME: Innocent until proven guilty. You:

Guilty as hell with non-experts allowed to make rash decisions based stuff taken out of context at the cost of taxpayer dollars and the welfare of innocent families.

Thank goodness we disagree. I don't want to live in a world that pretty much sounds like what Bush is already doing.

BTW - is this upseting you? Good. The perhaps you'll get a clue at the vast harm you're willing to do to innocent people in hopes of catching child pornographers taht probably are smart enough to own a fricking digital camera you can buy for now less than $99.

[Phillycat]

109. No, sorry.

I am not upset, but you certainly are. :shrug:

[LostinVA]

121. And, those clerks will so put their own "values" into their "decision"

The sight of two girls kissing will skeeve out some. Lots of totally innocent things appear bad too those: uneducated, unworldly, intolerant, etc.

[LynneSin]

140. ABSOLUTELY

It's no different than a pharmacist using his/her moral judgement over whether or not I can fill a birth control prescription.

And the craziest thing is - how many actual child pornographers and other people committing crimes are going to drop their pictures off at the local drugstore for development. I mean, I know there are folks dumb enough to do that but I'm guessing it's probably not that often.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

89. Even though a teacher isn't an "expert," I'd say they're still hell of a

lot more qualified than an Eckerdt's cashier.

[Phillycat]

94. Not the point.

The point is that there IS NO ONE ELSE who will see the pictures other than whoever is processing them.

[LynneSin]

96. Do me a favor - have your phone tapped

make sure your prescriptions are thought out by some fundie who can make decisions for you too.

THat's your world and YOU DON'T FUCKING GET IT DO YOU

You are wrong - you are scarily so wrong that I'm shaking as I type this that you would ENABLE this kind of LET'S CALL THEM GUILTY AND PUT THEM THROUGH HELL.

And you make really bad assumptions that all child pornography is going through Eckards

I weep for you.

[Phillycat]

98. Okay.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

122. No, they totally do not get it

And it scares me, to be quite honest.

[LynneSin]

141. I feel like I'm dealing with fundamentalists here

This is the attitude I would suspect for Religious nutbags who love using their moral judgement as to what is right and what is wrong.

In any other country INCLUDING industrialized nation this would never have even been a blip on the radar because nudity isn't such a dirty thing.

It's only in america we can crimilize people and claim them as guilty before we even have the entire story. And snapshots are merely pictures in the moment where the person looking at the photo has to make their own determination of "What was happening at that instant when the picture was taken". The fact that only a few pictures from the roll were turned over to Child Services and NOT the entire roll goes to show that a snap judgement was made without putting in consideration what was on all the pictures (which were non-'sexual' family pictures of a family camping together).

This is what is wrong with our country. And people who support this should hang their head in shame because they are no better than Xtian fundies

[LostinVA]

142. Complete agreement on your entire post n/t

[Orrex]

80. Self delete

Replied to wrong post

[Rabrrrrrr]

82. Of course! Why should sex be labeled dirty?

That offends me, too.

Sex - when consensual - is natural and fun and intimate and wonderful.

Nothing bad about it at all.

Of course, they should also learn about protection, STDs, and everything else involving sexuality so that they can make an informed decision about consenting to sex, as well.

[Orrex]

85. Sorry--you replied before I self-deleted, but here's the followup

I agree that sex isn't dirty, just as nudity isn't dirty.

But how, in all seriousness and honesty, would you react if you came home and found your twelve year old son having consensual, protected sex with your ten year old daughter?

[LynneSin]

90. Sex is also something between consenting adults

And you've provided a scenario that is pretty far out there (although I wouldn't be suprised that it hasn't happened). I would be a bit more worried about what the parents are doing that their kids somehow felt having sex that young and with each other actually happened.

[Orrex]

105. Thanks for treating my question seriously

Because that's how I meant it.

What I'm getting at is the difficulty, for me, of balancing "not dirty" against "shouldn't do that." Granted, my hypothetical was fairly extreme, but not--I think--to the point of absurdity. How, after teaching one's children that sex is natural and healthy, does one say "but don't do it until you're a consenting adult."

Such a prohibition seems at odds with the asserted naturalness of the act. What other natural act must be forestalled in this way? We can't include "driving a car" or "drinking alcohol," because these are external to the functioning of the body and therefore unsuitable as analogies.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

93. I'm sorry, but I think I may have missed numerous steps in your logic.

Um...yeah, I'm not seeing a connection here...

[Orrex]

106. How so?

On what grounds might one object to a pair of pre-teens who agree to perform a natural act?

I'm not saying that I would approve of it. I am asking how someone else might articulate an objection to it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

108. First of all, in the case you mentioned, it's incest.

Secondly, pre-teens are too young for sex.

And as for the missing steps in your logic, I don't understand how you jump from photos of a kid swimming to young siblings having sex with each other. I'd like an explanation for the connection there. I'm not sure if you have a logical one.

[Orrex]

110. Please clarify

By what standard are they too young to participate in a natural act? The legal standard? Okay, but then you have no cause to object when the legal standard requires an investigation of photos of nude children.

By what standard is incest wrong between consenting individuals? The legal standard? See above. If, as in the proposed example, we're talking about protected sex, then one can't argue out of concern for the possibility of genetic defects in potential offspring, since there won't be any.

Here's the logic:

Nudity is natural. Do you agree? If not, why not?

Sex is likewise natural. Do you agree? If not, why not? If it's only natural under certain circumstances, please articulate these circumstances fully.

If sex and nudity are natural, on what basis does one object to two consenting persons' choice to participate in sex if there's no possibility of genetic defect resulting from incestuous conception?

What part of the logic is missing, in your view?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

111. Answers to your "questions."

1. I do believe nudity is natural.

2. I also believe sex is natural. However, I believe that the participating parties should be old enough to understand the consequences, which I do not believe ten and twelve year olds are capable of.

However, I also believe there is a large difference between an innocent nude photo of a child playing and children having an incestuous sexual relationship. I would like an honest explanation of how you think they are the same thing. To me the connection would be similar to comparing homosexuality with beasiality.

[Orrex]

113. Where did I say that they are the same thing?

Point me to the post in which I made this assertion, or else please withdraw your claim.

I don't understand your use of scare-quotes around "question," either. Could you explain?

Do you believe that 10 and 12 year-olds are inherently incapable of understanding the consequences of sex, or do you believe that this is a result of our culture? If it could be shown that they understand the consequences (as, for instance, by their choice to engage in protected rather than unprotected sex) would your objection remain? At what age do people acquire understanding of the consequences of sex? What, exactly, are the consequences of sex?

Perhaps you perceive that I am being frivolous, but I assure you that this is not the case. I am attempting to determine why a certain natural act is given special status while other natural acts are not.

Can you name another natural act that operates under a similar prohibition?

[LostinVA]

128. When did we all fall down the frigging rabbit hole?

Dude -- you are on IGNORE. I find your scenario frankly disgusting, creepy, and flamey. To even THINK, let alone WRITE about preteen siblings having sex quite honestly totally sickens me... sick, sick, sick.

And, Haruka is 100% right: you HAVE compared the photos top this sibling incest. Trying to make believe you didn't is dishonest and disingenuous.

[Orrex]

135. Christ almighty, get a grip

If you're so fragile that you can't even bear to consider a question, perhaps you should turn off your computer, close the drapes, and hide under your bed for the rest of your life.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

136. It's an inflammatory pointless question and you know it.

[Orrex]

138. I'm asking you to explore your beliefs--is that inflammatory?

Do you really believe that children are wholly asexual? Really? By the age of four I knew that I liked Nicole differently from how I liked Brian. I know a transvestite who realized that he preferred girl's clothes even before he got to kindergarten. I know a transsexual who has known herself to be a woman her whole life. Sexual identity is established very early in life, and sexuality follows not far behind. To pretend otherwise is to enforce the exact same "sex is dirty" mentality that so many here claim to revile.

For the last god damn time, I am not advocating sex between pre-teens. I am asking why one so-called natural act is defended while another natural act is deplored. All I've gotten in response is a string of arguments-by-fiat that are no better than "because God sez so."

Please.

There is a communal squeamishness around here that I find, frankly, troubling. Certain topics are sacrosanct and certain questions forbidden, lest the questioner be attacked and demonized. I'm grateful that there are so many here in the Lounge willing to inform me of my intentions.

[LostinVA]

125. Sex between teen age siblings is not a "natural act"

in any society I know of or have heard of... except certain freako Roman emperors, and that wasn't something that was the norm for their society, either.

Haruka is right.

[Orrex]

137. I don't advocate it, but you haven't explained why it's unnatural, either

You're not giving any reasons other than societal norms. Is "naturalness" determined by societal norms?

Instead of considering the question, you fall back on a kneejerk "ick" reaction while waving the flag of societal norms as if that actually addresses anything.

Why don't you give me a list of other questions that you have deemed off-limits, so that we can save time in the future?

[LostinVA]

124. What the hell does INCEST between siblings have to do with this???

Quite a jump from kids goofing off on a family trip with OTHER FAMILIES to two pre-teen siblings having sex with one another.

Seriously -- what kind of world do you live in that makes you THINK like that. Ick.

I personally live in the real world, and have an ex who was molested by her dad for ten years. I know wtf is wrong in this world... and these photos ain't it.

[Orrex]

131. Relax--it's just a question

If you haven't read through my other posts on this thread, here it is again: if an act is permitted because it's natural, on what grounds is another natural act forbidden?

Explain to me specifically why consensual, protected sex between pre-teens is wrong.

If it's wrong for legal reasons, then you have no basis for objecting to laws that require an investigation of photos of naked children.

If it's wrong for moral reasons, then you must articulate the means by which you determine that this morality is correct.

Additionally, you must articulate the precise means by which we determine when a person is old enough to participate in this natural act.

I'm not advocating any behavior here; I'm asking a question. Are you unable to see the difference? Or can you give no more thoughtful response than "ick?"


Incidentally, I'm sorry to hear about your ex--really, I am. But I know someone who was raped for years by a foster sibling with scissors, pliers, and a screwdriver, and I know others with even less pleasant stories. Don't presume to tell me about the real world.

[pitohui]

55. cameras ain't "natural"

the parent has no good reason to be documenting this event, sorry

if they're so bloody natural, leave the damn camera at home

[Rabrrrrrr]

64. So, then, no pictures of children at all?

I'm not sure of your point here.

If being naked is natural, and if taking pictures of events in the life of a family are natural, and if our bodies are natural, then why not take pictures of events in the family's life that might include some nudity?

:shrug:

I'm so glad I grew up in a home AND a church that, while it wasn't nudist, didn't consider the human body taboo and filthy, either.

The only difference between a penis and an elbow is a difference that we, as a sexually immature society, have decided to make.

[Ariana Celeste]

68. That last line there...

You are absolutely right, man. :thumbsup:

[Rabrrrrrr]

70. Thanks!

It really is true - there's no reason at all, except our made up bullshit fear of the body, that women aren't allowed to go without shirts but men are; or that we must be clothed at all times, hiding our "privates".

hell - even look at that word we use, our "privates" - why are they private? Why have we ignorantly sexualized a couple parts of the body just because they're used in procreation?

That's one thing that I really and truly don't understand. They're just body parts.

[Orrex]

83. Self delete

[Bassic]

73. No good reason?

How about the fact that they're their own friggin kids and they thought they wre cute?

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

44. Hell, I'm 14 and have no qualms about going outside naked.

I'd give people looking a wave and a smile. To quote Tavis Smiley "Men don't mind being objectified. Hell, we LIKE being objectified" :P

[ThomCat]

123. If you were old fashioned you wouldn't see a problem

with kids skinnydipping. It used to be common and very acceptable. It's a modern thing that nudity is such a horrible taboo. You're on the cutting edge of modern fear.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

127. Can I steal the line...

"the cutting edge of modern fear?"

Also, is the Central Park picnic Saturday or Sunday? I'm confused. All I know is I'm bringing hummus and tabouli.

[ThomCat]

134. Feel free. :)

It's on Sunday the 23rd, per a post later in the thread.

I looked at the wrong month on my little digital calendar when I posted the original post. :dunce:

[Divameow77]

19. I wouldn't say the Eckerd employee has a problem,

he was just doing as instructed. I would rather have someone jump the gun, then do nothing in a potentially bad siuation.

[LostinVA]

59. Agreed -- my family wouldn't have done it

But a neighbor family was very "natural" back in the late 60's and early 70's. They were inside nudists, and would go on wilderness camping trips every summer so they could be free of society's conventions. THe kids were raised to have no problem with it. The neighbors thought they were a bit weird, but mainly because the mom worked instead of the dad.

It's not my personal cup of English Breakfast, but I have no problem with it, as long as the family doesn't.

[northzax]

116. hell, last weekend

I was canoeing with some friends (all male, all 30-31) and there was a sudden thunderstorm. we got soaked. once we hit the campsite, everything was soaked, we stripped down and dried our clothes by the fire. big deal.

and there are naked pictures of me as a kid, again, big deal.

[LynneSin]

144. Ok now I'm pissed at you

Naked men around the campfire? Where the hell was my invitation?

[northzax]

148. see, now that would have been a problem

and if you don't respond to the evites, what are we supposed to do, huh?

[LostinVA]

150. Hahahahahha

[xchrom]

5. this brings all kinds of issues up with me --

this is many years ago now -- but my folks and other family members let us kids run around naked all the time when the weather was warm.

they just did it -- i'd hate to think what would be made of such good people today.

second -- i just hate being around children any more -- because of this hyper alert that has crept into our culture.

i feel so bad for these people who were only living their lives -- and now this.

[ThomCat]

126. I know.

Situations that were no big deal and deserved no attention at all years ago are now federal cases because simple nudity is now hypersexualized and criminalized.

It's a damn shame.

[progmom]

7. I know someone who had a similar situation

It ended up nearly ruining him. By the end, the stress of it all caused him to lose an unhealthy amount of weight, he developed facial tics, and he and his wife separated.

It was really sad.

[mainegreen]

58. -nt-

[LynzM]

8. This happens with photos of nursing babies/toddlers, as well

There are many stories of children being removed from their families, sometimes for months, because the parents have photos developed in which the baby/child is nursing. NURSING, for pete's sake! Obviously pornographic, since it involves a nipple, breast, and mouth, performing the purpose for which they exist. :grr:

[LynneSin]

10. If you have kids, invest in a digital camera

You can get a decent one for about $150 but the heartache that it will save you is priceless

[Divameow77]

12. Hear, hear!

Baby bathtub pictures are too cute too pass up.

[Deep13]

18. Statutory definitions are very specific.

They have to be since guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is entirely possible that the photographer with innocent intent violated the state's child porn law. Sexual crimes against children happen more often than is generally known. Since predators thrive on secrecy, people cannot be afraid to blow the whistle when they see what might be evidence. Besides, right now we are assuming the photographer is telling the truth. I find the whole situation to be pretty bizarre and worth a second look at least.

Just read the article. It is VERY bizarre. The secluded spot, the posed nature of the photos (had them bang on cans and piss on the fire), the alcohol and the apparent disinterest in heads by the photographer make this all pretty suspicious. I hate to say it, but the lack of a criminal record is indicative of a predator. Child predators are usually model citizens except for being pedophiles. This looks bad.

[GirlinContempt]

21. What?!

by that logic, all parents who can't make their kids stay in frame, drink while on vacation, and take pictures that could be construed as posed are suspicious characters. I didn't realize most of my friends were closet child molesters :eyes:
It isn't bizarre to take your children on a camping trip and see their wee wees. It's called being a parent.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

22. And let's face it...the average boy would love getting the chance to

pee onto a campfire.

[Deep13]

35. ....While an adult composes the photo.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

38. Oh please...

Composing and posing are two different things. It's not even likely that they spent much time, "composing" the shoot as they were usually a disposable. Not too many settings to adjust on one of those. Even if they were using an SLR and spent a couple minutes, figuring out how to shoot it, I still don't think it'd be pedophilic. Just someone trying to get a well-composed photo of their kid doing something cute. Personally, I think it's kind of disturbing that you can't see how some naked kids in the woods could be photographed innocently. Nudity does not equal sexual photography, especially with kids.

Unfortunately, if they were camping in France, then this would have been a non-issue. OMG, they have naked kids and adults on the beaches there...together. Europe: Continent of pedophiles. :eyes:

[Deep13]

40. We don't know. You assume he is telling the truth...

...and not spinning the story.

[GirlinContempt]

66. I think the people who

get SUPER freaked about naked children are way creepier than parents taking photos.
For someones mind to jump from nude child to sexual content makes me rather nauseous.

[Rabrrrrrr]

67. I'm with you. It really creeps me out to hear people

making that connection and getting that freaked out.

Christ, there are tens of thousands, perhaps millions, of nudist families around the world; in Japan it's natural and normal for the dad and son to go to the public bath together; and for mom and daughter to go to the public bath together; it's normal in the scandanavian countries for families and friends of all genders and ages to hang out in the sauna or hot tub together naked; in most of Europe they go to the beach naked together; to say nothing of Africa and South Pacific islands and south america and so on and on and on and on and on...

It's really only America that has the sexual immaturity and ridiculousness to think that naked = being anally raped with a broomsitck by your dad while 600 people watch it live over the Internet.

[LynneSin]

72. I'm not big into the nudity thing, in fact I'm bit of a prude

but that's me and I don't pass judgement on others and what they do. I think this it well stated that outside of America, no one would question what this family did while camping. But instead it happened in America where a minimum wage making clerk at Eckard's is some how getting the authority and expertise to detect the difference between child pornography and family camping pictures

[Divameow77]

87. You keep bringing up that the clerk makes

minimum wage, what does that have to do with anything? A waitress makes less then minimum wage sometimes, does that make her less qualified to judge a persons ability to drink more alcohol?
I dont' see your point with that :shrug:

[Samurai_Writer]

97. Waitresses and bartenders must be certified in most states

They have to take a class from the city or state that teaches them how to determine if someone is drunk. I've never heard of certifications for photo finishers to determine what's child pornography and what's not.

[Divameow77]

100. I was both a server and bartender

in Minnesota and Georgia and never had to be certified to do either, never heard of that actually. The only training we got on that subject was during training, nothing really "official". I imagine a photo lab goes over such things in detail with employees, considering it's LAW in some states to report suspicious pictures.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

102. It's a law in many states to be certified if you're serving alcohol.

I believe the program is called T.I.P.S.

[Divameow77]

103. I took a TIPS class

for the restaurant management jobs I had, but it was optional for the establishment to provide it to it's employees, not mandatory.

I still don't see what that has to do with a minimum wage person making a judgement call to report possible child abuse? I could think of plenty of high paid/underqualified people that are working in our government, what does pay have to do with it?

[LynneSin]

161. You took a tips class

and to be honest - more states are requiring it.

Now, the minimum wage comment may be a bit of a generalization but seriously, how much training the photoclerk have other than how to work the machine. It really is the judgement call of who happened to be working the counter this week. And from the reactions of several people here on this thread, if I was working I probably wouldn't have said a thing; whereas I think some people would have Child Protective Services in there hauling the kids away from the family.

There is no standard uniformity. At least with a TIPS class they are pretty much the same thing wherever you go

[LynneSin]

156. In Pennsylvania there is no licensing to serve but

we were constantly given classes about every 3 months in order to be able to understand overserving and how to prevent it and deal with it if it should happen.

In Delaware you do have to be certified

[Ariana Celeste]

69. No shit.

You're right. Seeing people make a connection like that right off the bat makes me think they are either knee-jerky to the extreme, or very sick individuals.

[Dangerously Amused]

107. Or a bit more sensitive to the situation,

...perhaps themselves having been secretly molested as children? Perhaps wishing like hell that someone would have been a little "too zealous" in reporting their situation?


Careful with your judgments here, people.

[LostinVA]

71. I thought that, but didn't want to say it...

[Bassic]

74. I'm with you, I think this whole thing

is completely ridiculous.

[ThomCat]

130. I absolutely agree.

The people who insist that simple nudity, especially in young children, is a criminal matter make me suspicious. What is going on in their heads that they see so much adult sexuality in little kids?

Have you ever tried to get a kid (from the ages of 2-6) to stay IN their clothes? It's often not easy. A lot of young kids will happily run around naked.

I don't have kids but I babysit a lot. Every kid I've ever babysat went through a "captain underpants" stage where that was the most you could get them to wear sometimes.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

133. Exactly. My cousin has three kids: 5, 3, and 1.

The five and three year olds you can basically expect to have underwear or partial actual clothing on. Rarely both. Turn around and boom. They're running naked across the front lawn together. To get them totally dressed, you have to bribe them. I don't understand how someone who instantly assume a picture of that had to be sexual.

[Ariana Celeste]

160. Absolutely.

I remember when my little brother and I were young kids- my mom would have to fight him constantly to at least keep some shorts on- because even if it was snowy outside, the instant she turned her head my little brother would be running around our backyard in either his underwear or nothing at all. That kid was only happy when he had nothing on! :D

[pitohui]

56. i agree w. you deep13

something is v. wrong

if it was all good happy natural nudity the camera would have never put in an appearance

[Rabrrrrrr]

65. Bwuhahahahahahahaha!

Oh, God, that's hilarious! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Seriously, I'm dying here...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I wish I had a bigger ROTFL smiley, but I don't.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

46. Lol, I think I would pay to

it's just one of those random urges. . .

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

48. Most of the guys I hang out with are at least twice your age.

Apparently, it can be suppressed, but not outgrown.

[LynneSin]

23. If the guy was a child pornographer...

...then why would he bother writing a 1000 word essay to Salon about what he was put through

[Deep13]

36. Why did OJ make a video with his side of the story?

Anyway, I'm not say he necessarily did it. It is, however, more than enough for a search warrant.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. I'm not following.

With OJ there was a crime committed.

[Deep13]

41. Sounds like you are following.

Anyway, I am just saying it is enough to check it out even if it proves to be nothing. You know what the difference between murder and child molestation is? With murder, the victims do not have to live with the result of the damage.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Murder victims do not get to live to recover.

In this case "checking it out" proved harmful.

[pitohui]

57. they paid him EOM

.

[Deep13]

34. You don't pose and photograph that, do you?

[GirlinContempt]

45. My brother used to run around naked

one time he was holding my dads briefcase and my mum got him to stop and took a picture of him naked with the case in front of his dingdong. My mum, the child pornographer :eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

25. I don't see anything bizarre about went on.

1. Camping is done in a secluded spot generally.

2. Nowhere does he say that he posed the kids for the banging on cans. It simply says, "I took pictures of the kids using sticks to beat on old bottles and cans and logs as musical instruments." You inferred that it was posed. Sounds like really normal kid behavior to me. Wow...you really got to ask those kids to bang on shit, because kids never just randomly start banging on stuff. I don't even find the peeing on the fire thing weird, because let's face it, boys will be boys and a lot of time they're amused by peeing on stuff.

3. As for the alcohol, "Later, after the kids had gone to bed in their tent and the cold descended, Rusty and I sat in our camp chairs, having a beer..." That sounds pretty innocent to me. Plenty of fit parents have a couple beers, even in front of their kids, and I see nothing weird about parents staying up and having some beers after the kids go to sleep.

4. One shot minus a head does not indicate an "apparent disinterest in heads." Haven't you ever messed up a photo, especially with a disposable camera? I know I have.

I really think you're grasping at straws here.

[Deep13]

39. You are forgetting the cashier's statements.

She said they indicated children drinking, heads cut off and that generally, they were bad. You only have the interviewee's word for anything. I'm not grasping at straws. I prosecute sex offenders. Grooming activies usually involve conditioning children to accept nudity first and then to accept molestation. Such conditioning is made to seem as innocent as possible, both to disarm the victim and to present plausible deniability to others. Why did he dispose of the camera only to have it printed by someone else? My guess, again if he is guilty, is he was conditioning the children to accept being photographed nude. He would probably use a digital camera for the keepers. (I don't know, maybe he did not want to bring it anywhere it might get damaged.)

Sex offenders appear as pillars of the community to outsiders. Usually, there is not so much as a speeding ticket. They often, but not always, prey on their own children or step children. If they prey on other people's it is because they have none of their own. They are always men who were themselves abused as children. They usually use drugs or alcohol to obtain compliance. Child victims of sex abuse are never right again and often become abusers themselves. Their secretive nature means they are often not caught or are revealed only years after the fact by the victim.

Again, I know all this is hardly conclusive, but considering the horrible consequences if there is something going on, I think it is worth at least an interview and a search warrant.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

43. Well, this is only the parents word but...

"There were explanations for each one. The photo of a child whose head had been "cut off" was simply one where a child's head fell outside the border. The photo of a child drinking beer was actually one of Rusty's daughter carrying a broken beer bottle she had found and planned to put into her makeshift xylophone."

Also, there were four adults on the trip. I don't think anything described occured clandestinely away from the rest of the group. Molesters might start out with nudity, but that does not mean nudity must lead to molestation. Some parents simply teach their kids that nudity is okay and their bodies are not shameful. Even the police officer didn't think the pictures warranted an investigation.

[alarimer]

50. well the cashier was simply ignorant

and wrong. And should be fired at least for nearly ruining people's lives. And the DCFS is out of control with its unConstitutional activities. No search warrant?? How in the hell is THAT legal? Typical knee-jerk reaction to assume these poor people were guilty. I would stay in France after this. Fuck America and its obscene nudity=sex and therefore must be criminal.

[LynneSin]

52. Wait, you're talking about the 'expert' who makes minimum wages

Last time I check, Eckard's probably isn't hiring people to work their photo counter with FBI experience in child pornography cases. This is probably some kid or retiree working a job for some money and perhaps making minimum wage, maybe a bit more.

Sorry, that's no better than some asshole behind the pharmacy counter making moral decisions as to whether or not I can fill my birth control prescription.

You are absolutely wrong in this point. It was a family camping vacation and stuff like this happens. And btw, OJ making a video about his being innocent vs. Salon, a reputatable online news website publishing this story is like comparing Apples to Car Mufflers - not even in the same ball park

[LostinVA]

62. Bingo n/t

[ThomCat]

132. That is a very important point.

We're letting the least trained, least expert person define someone as a pedophile. Someone who probably has no experience with kids and only has his own family's behaviour to base his decisions on.

[LostinVA]

61. But why take the clerk's POV of the photos over the parents'?

Which is what you are doing. I'll take the investigators' and the parent's version of this over some clerk who has no idea what the heck is going on.

I was looking at old photos from right after the college the other day. There's a group of us, one handcuffed to the bed, one of us "smothering" her with a pillow, and another person holding a knife and licking the blade. We were 22 and stoned and goofing off. Call the cops! A murder has been committed!

My point? Taking precautions is one thing, jumping to conclusions is another.

[ThomCat]

167. You're absolutely right.

Why should a photo clerk's opinions and impressions be privilaged over the cop's or the family's? If the clerk is the only one who was disturbed by those pictures then it's clear that the clerk might have some issues. One quick interview with the parents and the kids should have closed the entire case.

[Bassic]

75. Hey, yesterday I took a picture of

my 2 month old son in his little bathtub because I thought he was cute. Maybe I'm a closet mollester and you should prosecute me! :eyes:

[northzax]

119. how dare you condition your baby to bathe naked!

that is what speedos are for. pervert.

[pitohui]

54. it is sad but

we all know what the world is, why on earth would you take nekkid pix of your underage children and NOT expect to be investigated?

how are the good folks at eckerd's to psychically know that you took nekkid pix of your underage children for some "good" reason -- to be honest, i'm not clear what "good" reason there could possibly be, such photos have no kind use that i can see and embarrassing your children when they're older w. nekkid pix is not necessarily the most wonderful thing a parent could ever do

some people make their own problems

put clothes on your damn kids and don't photograph them nekkid and you won't have an issue

[Bassic]

76. That's pretty much the same thing as saying

"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear from wiretapping"

[LostinVA]

129. Nail on the head, Bassic n/t

[JackDragna]

115. How about you simply take the pictures..

..when the kids are doing something cute and aren't really concerned whether the tykes are clothed or not? Should people censor completely acceptable family photos because of the witchhunt we've developed in the United States over the last 25 years against anyone even remotely suspected of child molestation? It all started in the lunatic 80's with the Satanic scares, that parents and daycares were molesting children and running them through unholy rites..now we've come to the spot where naked pictures of all children are pornography and childless people over 40 are child molestors. Lovely.

[mainegreen]

60. Most child service organization are totally out of control.

Having dealt with one myself, and having been on their side (supposedly) I've found that most people working in them deserve to be dragged into the street and whacked in the head with a splintery board. They are soulless angry ugly people who don't give a damn about the children's well being, truth, justice or anything moral or good. 'Vogon' would be the best way to describe these mindless driveling pricks. The amount of children these agencies 'help' actually end up being more messed up after wards than they were before. Friends I have who went through the experience of these organizations as children generally hold murderous views towards these people. I'm surprised more don't get shot based on their terrible, terrible people skills. Seriously, aren't these retards supposed to be skilled in personal relationships?

Simply following the law is no excuse. They don't follow the law, they read into it.

:mad:

[LostinVA]

63. "They don't follow the law, they read into it."

That line speaks volumes, Mainegreen...

[JackDragna]

117. It's disgusting on so many levels..

..the pain and misery foisted on innocent people is quite ugly. It reminds me of the draconian drug crime laws we have, where mere suspicion of trafficking in narcotics can get your property seized, with little hope of getting it back. With false child molestation charges, of course, it's virtually impossible to recover one's dignity and good name.

[_Wayne_]

145. What a weird little family

The Eckerd's employee should have most definitely reported the photos to the police, and the family should most definitely be investigated.

And I'm not buying the Dad's article, chock full of hyperbole:

"Sensing how bad this might become, my wife pulled her car to the side of the road and fought the urge to throw up."

PLEASE. You took NUDE photos of an EIGHT YEAR OLD BOY. And then had them developed! Camping with the family is great. And allowing children to run around naked in the woods is innocent. But photographing the kids, and developing the pictures, and then whining about an investigation (that now appears to just be some questions to friends of the family, which the Dad calls "hell") is suspicious behavior, easily warranting some attention from authorities.

Grow up, Dad. Stop photographing your naked children. It's cute when their six months old. It's a little weird at two years old. At eight, it's FUCKING WEIRD.

[Phillycat]

146. Thank you!

God, reading this thread has been like living in Bizarro World. :crazy:

[Dangerously Amused]

147. The justice system, albeit imperfect, worked as we ask it to here.

It is my guess that the people here who are getting greatly outraged over this incident have themselves never been directly introduced to the world of child sexual abuse... were never sexually abused as children, never had a child of their own sexually abused by an adult, never medically nor psychologically treated a sexually abused child/now adult, never directly observed or felt both the short- and long-term impact of child sexual abuse, never investigated cases of child sexual abuse, etc. I admire their healthy attitudes toward sexuality, and I wish everyone could have that good fortune in life. However, for those of us whose lives have been directly affected by child sexual abuse... who have seen firsthand the insidiousness, the grooming, the pathology, the devastation... situations such as the one in this article may legitimately raise suspicions.

Whereas one person might look at a series of photographs and think, "innocent family camping trip with naked kids, healthy attitude toward sexuality, no big deal" another might see the same series of photographs and think, "OMG, that is exactly what Uncle Ray did when he was molesting me/my cousins/whoever, this should be reported!" Is one person "right" and the other "wrong"? No, each person views the situation through the filters of his or her own life experience. Those who have never been directly affected by childhood sexual assault might not recognize the signs of it if it was right in front of them. Likewise, those who have been so affected might read too much into a situation.

So can we fault the clerk who reported these photographs for over-reacting? No; because we don't know his or her background, or what he or she was instructed by the employer to report, we can't know his or her precise motivations to report this incient... however, I think it safe to assume that the clerk was acting with honest concern. Whether the rest of us based on our own life experience would have made the same judgment call and reported the photographs is irrelevant. That clerk's concern was legitimate to her (or him), and that's all that matters; we expect people to act upon their legitimate concern of child abuse... whether we later agree with their assessment of the evidence or not.

I, personally, based on my life experience, have reached the conclusion that when a potential victim is more vulnerable than others to remaining a silent victim, and particularly in situations where the victim is wholly or partially physically and/or emotionally and/or financially dependant on the potential abuser for quality of life, i.e, children, the elderly, the retarded, the psychologically impaired, the physically disabled, etc.... it is better to err to the side of caution in an effort to protect the victim. This is also the position taken by the law, with mandatory reporting requirements, etc.

In this case, while I agree that it is unfortunate for a family to endure the investigation of an incident in which there was no wrongdoing, and while I can identify with their feelings of resentment and violation because I sure wouldn't like it if it happened to me, this situation is the result of living in a society in which child sexual abuse is well hidden, but ever present. Yes, it is heartbreaking to know that the innocent sometimes get caught up along with the guilty, but hopefully the checks and balances in the justice system will work to free the innocent. No, it doesn't always work that way, but what is the alternative? If we can't have a perfect justice system, then we'll have no justice system at all?

[Phillycat]

151. Your post is brilliant.

Thank you for stating it so well and so calmly. I tried to state as much ('tho not nearly so eloquently) above and was shouted down by hysterical ninnies. An honest discussion with facts and logic is called for with this issue, and I appreciate your attempt to bring some here.

Regards,

A Survivor

[Dangerously Amused]

153. Thank you kindly.

And hugs and respect for what you've had to live with.


:hug:

[LostinVA]

152. My ex was raped by her father for ten years

From 8 to 18. I KNOW what sexual abuse does to a child. So, don't even try to pull that.

[Orrex]

158. You know SOME of what it did to your EX

So that gives you some basis to comment on the effects of sexual abuse upon your ex.

But that gives you no authority to comment upon its effects on other people, nor does it grant you any special power to declare a scenario summarily A-Okay just because you've decided that, in your opinion, it probably has nothing to do with sexual abuse.

You have demonstrated your unwillingness (or, perhaps, your inability) to consider opposing or alternative viewpoints on this subject. On what basis do you declare that your view should be given priority of those of others, especially when those others have had much more direct and/or extensive experience with child abuse than you have?

[LynneSin]

166. And it doesn't give the Eckards clerk the right to judge either

Sorry, I feel for what you might have gone through. I have gone through my own childhood problems, but you can't use your personal story as justification for a family being ruined based on bad judgement from an untrained clerk. This is America, remember that old "Innocent until proven Guilty" and we're democrats, remember fighting against a Patriot Act that pretty much says "If it looks bad let's report it and use any illegal means possible and they're guilty until proven innocent"

It's just wrong and I feel sorry for your clouded judgement that prevents you from seeing that you are acting just like someone who believes in the Patriot Act

[Orrex]

170. Depends upon Eckhard's policy in that case

Many stores in my town have a flat "no nudity" policy for film that they develop. If Eckhard's policy is "report suspicious photos to the authorities," then the responsibility is Eckhard's, rather than the clerk's.

For that matter, if Eckhard's has made its policy publicly available (whether or not the man familiarized himself with it), then the customer has received fair warning that suspicious photos may be investigated.

The presumption of innocence is, of course, central to our justice system. But an investigation--even an awkward or embarrassing one--does not automatically violate that presumption. I could as readily argue that my hypothetical arrest for hypothetical shoplifting has violated the presumption of my innocence.

If the family has suffered emotional, financial, or other damages, let them pursue restitution through the courts.

It's just wrong and I feel sorry for your clouded judgement that prevents you from seeing that you are acting just like someone who believes in the Patriot Act

Ah yes, that familiar and smarmy accusation. I was beginning to wonder when it would rear its ugly and predictable head.

I, in turn, feel sorry for your benighted view that an act of policy by a private company, and a subsequent and justified investigation is somehow a violation of one's rights.

[Orrex]

159. I second Janesez' opinion

A very well-considered and well-written post on a subject that is (apparently) all-too-easily swept under the rug.

[LynneSin]

164. Well hidden but probably not being sent to Eckards for development

It was well written but I still believe in a country where we are innocent until proven guilty. This family was never given that option but treated as guilty from day one when an untrained clerk at the store made a rash decision based on his/her moral values.

I'm guessing to anyone who thinks that this should be the norm when it comes to untrained store clerks making rash decisions have perhaps, never had their family torn apart because of false accusations.

My heart goes out to anyone who is a survivor of child abuse or any similiar crime; however, this does not give anyone the right to make baseless accusations. You cannot take your experiences and assume that is the case for eveyrone else out there.

I could take anyone one here at DU and one post they have made here and somehow turn that into a crime that should be investigated by the CIA/Secret Service as "I think this poster wants to do harm to George Bush/US". I could do it, but it doesn't mean I'm right, that I have a case or that poster is guilty. Is this the world we want to live in? I mean I thought that was why we were fighting the Patriot Act because all of us still believed in innocence until proven guilty.

[Ariana Celeste]

165. Sigh.

I can see why some who were sexually abused may see things that way. But not all of us. I was molested as a child, by 2 family members (different occasions) and a friend of the family. I was also sexually abused by one of my ex's.

But I still think that nudity is natural, and I'm not sexually repressed in any way. I don't think there's any problem with parents letting their kids run around naked.

In fact it is because I was molested that I am shocked and sickened when I see people thinking "A naked child? Well there is obviously something sexual going on!"

:shrug:

[LynneSin]

168. Thank you for your post

:hug:

[Ariana Celeste]

172. Thanks.

:hug:

I've posted a similar reply in past threads related to sexual abuse... and surprise, it usually goes ignored. I see it often on DU and other sites, where people speak for everyone who has been sexually abused... as if all of us think the same, have the same problems, and have the same coping mechanisms.

[mvd]

173. Locking

Locking at the thread starter's request.

mvd
DU Moderator