Parents accused of sexual abuse for taking pictures of their kids

[Firia]

*facepalm*

I remember when I was a kid, I'd hear about "embarressing photos." None of me, cause I had a sorted history. But others! "Here's my child (5 or younger) running through the sprinkler with no pants on." "Moooooom, don't show anyone that picture!" -- Older mother, and teenage kid.

What, first we cannot discipline our children without fear of Child Services being phoned, and now god forbid we try to capture some candid moments. Should the parents have opted for bubble bath to make the pictures more pg-13?

 

[Spartan Bannana]

Didn't Wal-mart call the cops on a guy trying to buy CoD4 while his nephew was with him.....Bitches be crazy

 

[Contun]

I hate people who can't differentiate normal picture taking by proud parents from pornography

I hate Wal-Mart

I hope they get as much as the law allows...

They sell me Big Red soda, so I don't hate them....

I hate Big Red soda!

lol

*Contun glares intently at 2012 Wont Happen, points and runs off*

 

[The Bandit]

I agree it's dumb, but describing that as a "parent's worst nightmare" isn't quite right. I'm pretty sure you'd rather this happen than some actual harm coming to the kid. But, whatever. I hope they win.

 

[Emilie Diabolica]

what.... the.... fuck....!

this is another reason why americans as a whole have such a bad name in other countries.
(no offence to you normal americans, i'm referring to the general stereotype)

well i think kudos to the parents for sueing walmart, though really they dont have much of a chance, seeing as they're fighting against a corporate giant with the best lawyers, mountains of money, etc...

...What does this have to do with Americans? Other than it taking place in America?

Because this wouldn't happen anywhere else besides the US. The level of paranoia over there is insane. This would never happen in Australia, people tend to be more level-headed.

Don't even make me laugh. I went to bed, so I didn't get a chance to respond to this comment until now, but I clearly don't have to. Other people have already responded and made a mockery of that ignorant comment. All of this "OH MAN THAT STUFF WOULDN'T HAPPEN HERE!" is getting ridiculous. Do some research before you start pointing fingers, and saying ignorant stuff like that.

nyeh, ***** and rave all you like, but it's prettty true. anyway, i'm not saying this out of the blue to piss you all off, some people agreed with me:

Hear Hear. Only in America would this happen. Not the suggestion of sexual abuse by some cockgoblin of a employee, granted, that could happen anywhere. But only in America would the entire process go as far as the kids ACTUALLY BEING TAKEN AWAY by child services before someone says "what the fuck?". To get to that point it would have been put past the store manager, then to some level of relevant authority like the police, who then would have put it to child services,who would have then taken people over to take away the kids. HOW IN HELL did it get this far without someone piping up saying "Wait a minute, this is totally normal, there's absolutely no ground for sexual abuse". The only place IN THE WORLD where it would get to that stage is America, because you have a bunch of paranoid panicky twats over there who will jump at the first opportunity to blow shit out of proportion.

P.S No offense to any level headed Americans reading this. For the most part you're a fun bunch.

Man! Someone agreed with you? Your "point" is now valid! I'm sorry for ever considering your "general stereotype" ignorant.

Soo, is your issue with the stereotype?
Or the fact that you cant handle that the US in general (note in general) seems to be incredibly paranoid about any new scare fad. First it's terrorism. "oh noes kill alllll the muslims! they all want to kill us! argh, *****, moan, etc. Then paedophilia. "omg some parents are taking PHOTOS of their kids! nude! oh, its not like that isnt normal or anything, but still, they could be PAEDOS!"(not like parents havent seen their children naked or anything before.

No, my issue is with people like you who do stereotype. You say you're so level-headed, well how about showing some common sense to boot? You think we were the only ones that wanted to fight back against terrorism? You think were the only ones who show disdain for this whole pedohilia outrage and want to do something about it? I'm starting to consider everyone else outside of the US assholes...in general of course.

hehe. you're fun.

Hehe, you got nothing left to say? Thats a shame. I thought you have some other "clever" rebuttle.

Nope. In case you havent noticed, this has been going around in circles for a while, so frankly, i cant be bothered. Anyway, arguing with you is like arguing with my father. It's fucking pointless, so why bother?

I didn't notice it was going around in circles, because it wasn't, until you stopped the conversation. Also, your father sounds like a very smart man.

smart man? well ok, if you count a man with asperger's syndrome who is responsible for the destruction of my family smart.

Sure. Since you brought him up.

Thanks for de-railing the thread by the way with all of these contributions.

of course, because it was totally onesided.
anyway, it looks like the thread is chugging along just fine, albeit in the last stages (being at 8 pages and all)

Because this wouldn't happen anywhere else besides the US. The level of paranoia over there is insane. This would never happen in Australia, people tend to be more level-headed.

Ahem. [http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14158]

I didn't notice until I clicked "Post" that the thread was already at 8 pages. Never-the-less, it feels good to make a point.

That controversy with Bill Henson was totally different to this case. Bill Henson's work consists of nude teens with heavily sexual themes. Yeah, it was confronting, and pushed the line of art vs pornography.

Perhaps you didnt read the OP, because this is about parents being charged for innocent photos of their children, with no sexual connotations whatsoever. Totally different kettle of fish to the Bill Henson controversy.

 

[Lavi]

This is why I say the pedophile hysteria is just pointless.

Eventually pedophiles will be accepted and you can hate something else, these things go in cycles.

It wasn't very long ago it was perfectly acceptable to think of black people as lesser beings, now all of a sudden saying such things will shock people.

It wasn't very long ago it was perfectly acceptable to make fun of homosexual people, and point out how their "brains are defective". Nowadays this is not acceptable.

Pedophiles are next, all of a sudden your "kiddy fiddler" jokes will be looked down upon.

Er- I hope you're trolling.

 

[crudus]

first of all I think picture developers shouldn't be able to look at the pictures because they might be private. I don't think that would be too hard to do.
Second of all, I think people should stop being retarded..ok I know they can't but I still have hope.

I think our generation was the last good generation. That is to say, we were spanked, we had fair consequences of stupidity (you are hurt, deal with it moron), and best of all: people didn't go overboard on everything. I blame the news media.

 

[Trivun]

My parents took pictures of me running around naked in the back garden when I was little. They even showed off the pictures (nothing explicit) with others of me growing up at my 18th birthday party, and half my friends saw them. As far as I'm aware, if there's no sexual content then taking pictures of your own kids is perfectly fine. What if the parents had been taking pictures of their kids at the swimming baths learning how to swim? Would that have been deemed 'pornography'? There is a limit, true, but in this case the limit wasn't reached. If these had been explicit child porn photos then the matter would be entirely different, especially in the fact that only an idiot takes child porn photos and gets them developed at Walmart. However, this is perfectly justified and it's clear the parents have done nothing wrong. I completely support them in this.

 

[tsb247]

There is another fundamental difference with pedophilia and that is that the majority of those who can be classified as pedophile are men (i.e. it is very rare to find this trait in women). This points to a unique symptom in men, and not to the population as a whole like homosexuality.

This is a fallacy, There are many paedophilac women. They are just less frequently involved in cases of child molestation.


Lets just make a bottom line here, something we can agree on.


1. sexual relations with pre-pubescent children is unacceptable.


We can agree on that, correct?

Now, whether paedophilia is a disorder or an orientation, it is not a choice.


The crux of my point, is that treating your average, harmless paedophile respectfully like any other human and tolerating their preference while having the understanding that they will not act on it, is not the same thing as condoning child molestation in any way shape or form.

Futhermore, seeing as it's not a choice, "discouraging" or "vehemently hating" paedophiles does nothing except give them a sense of abandonment by society, possibly making them more likely to act on their urges. And that, seeing as it's also not something you can choose too have, understanding will not swell their numbers.

What do you think?

Ok, I told myself I was done here, but I suppose I will respond. It's a new day after all.

As for the concept that there are more male pedophiles, here is my source for that:

http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html
(Just look under the heading of demographics. It doesn't say too much, but the sources are credible.)

I agree that it is not a choice (since the research I have done for posting on this thread has suggested that), but I do not agree that it cannot be helped/controlled/corrected to some extent since pretty much all of the sources I have consulted pointed to psychological and physiological factors that can be corrected (to an extent) with therapy and medications and hormone therapy in some instances.

http://www.medem.com/?q=medlib/article/ZZZUZRUZGLC

However, practicing sexual contact with children is indeed wrong, and it appears we agree on that fact.

I will never say I agree with it because it is simply not a healthy train of thought, nor is it acceptable in society, and that is simply because society has seen too much harm come from it. Just because some of them have not hurt a fly does not mean it is still a good idea to think the way they do. Society should not have to adjust to accept something that stems from a damaged mind. Should they be abandoned? No, but their train of thought/actions (should they act on their urges) should not be accepted as a norm on any level. They need help more than anything.

I will not support it. That's my stance (and well... Let's face it, the majority of society's as well), and while I normally try to see both sides of an issue before passing a judgement, this is one that I will not cave on. I have done some research specifically for this thread, and it gave me insight, but no reason to accept that the thinking or behavior as something to accept in society.

 

[Lazzi]

While I dont blame Walmart for how they acted, after all they are obligated to report/turn in anything containing child nudity. Which is A'ok, after all its is possible that they could stumble acorss pictures of true and legitamate child pornography.

How every htey state wasnt very tacktfull in there actions, wasnt it obvlious considering the context of the photos. Pictures of the three girls bathing in photos 91-98 and photos 99 foward of them eating breakfast and exploring what every turist traps that surounded the area. Also shouldnt they have been quiter about the whole thing, charigin parent with pedophila and childporngraphy causes emmense embaresment with in there community. Also seperating a family for 45 day just to end up saying "your clear" is a tad bit harrash. For the children sake I hope that they were staying with theyre grandparent or some reallative, not in state services,

 

[The_Echo]

Words cannot describe how I feel about such stupidity.

 

[jad4400]

It's my observatio nthat in terms of human paranoia and stupidity, we tend to go trough cycles. At the turn of the century we were making greater pushes towards science and technology to improve all of mankind and expand out understanding of the world. Fifty years later, if you did somthing slightly out of the ordinary you were considered to ba aa communist and lost all your stuff.

In the future we are going to be looking back at this and laughing at how silly we were...............................Hopefully.

 

[samsonguy920]

Well the guy who reported them worked at a wal-mart that explains the stupidity on his behalf.

They stand the best chance for getting money from the state who slandered them in front of their friends and community. Walmart is the biggest hurdle, since they will point at some barely legible clause on their signage at the photo kiosk. But if Walmart decides to try to settle, which they might, I would be satisfied that that employee and the store manager were both fired. This has got to be one of the worst cases of Walmart crapping on their customers.

 

[Neurowaste]

God damn paranoid society, reminds me of the dude who got sued for taking pictures of his little girl going down a slide by some of the other people there, the hell people, really? Anyways, my mom showed bathtime pictures of me when i was little to my girlfriend, perfect embarrassment weapon, nothing is wrong with it, just trying to have some memories, jesus.

 

[axia777]

Eventually pedophiles will be accepted and you can hate something else, these things go in cycles.

It wasn't very long ago it was perfectly acceptable to think of black people as lesser beings, now all of a sudden saying such things will shock people.

It wasn't very long ago it was perfectly acceptable to make fun of homosexual people, and point out how their "brains are defective". Nowadays this is not acceptable.

Pedophiles are next, all of a sudden your "kiddy fiddler" jokes will be looked down upon.

No they won't. Not now, not ever. If they ever are I will personally go around killing them all myself Punisher style. Child molestation is wrong on ever level. You are nuts for thinking otherwise. have you ever known a person who was molested as a child. I have known a few in my time. None of them was OK with it and most if not all of them were traumatized by it. Death to all child molesters who mess with kids.

As for these poor parents I really feel sorry for them. My parents still have naked pictures of me and my sibling when we were young taking a bath. It is all totally harmless. The State of Arizona really fucked up on this one. I don't know if the parents will win the law suit though. They should, but they might not.

 

[Wyatt]

TL;DR.

Not all were in the bath! THE PARENTS ARE PAEDOS!

My answer, there are pictures of me on a makeshift waterslide when I was about three, I was stark naked, that would be classed as "playtime". My parents, and my auntie who was also there, are not paedophiles. You mention that they shouldn't be taking pictures of things like that, I say, why not? Bathtime and these things happen anyway, why are the parents suddenly not allowed to take pictures of their child just because some circumstances have changed slightly. They're allowed to take pictures of them fully clothed (which might I add if any other person did that, they'd be called a paedo too) but not pictures of them, that would be exactly the same, pictures or no.

Now that may not have made any sense, but my basic point is. Children need to be bathed, they run around naked, that's what kids do, the parents will see them anyway, why aren't they allowed keep keepsakes of those (assuringly) adorable moments just because they are naked.

i didnt say they were pedos, i also didnt say that naked pictures of your children in the bath or even at play on 'makshift waterslides' is wrong. what i SAID was taking your naked pictured of the kids to wal-mart, and having the pictures of such a nature in the first place that a wal-mart tard even notices them enough to feel inclined to put down the bong long enough to make a call too CPS, and then the CPS workers obviously feeling the pictures were alarming enough to warent removal of the children from the home while an investigation was performed, leads me to believe that the parents diserved their fait.

its not wrong in general to take nude pictured of your children in certian contexts. those "aunt Mable' photos, or those your great-gran have ARE fine. but again as i said you cant tell the context of a photo just by looking at it and its more than obvious to me that the pirtures were of such a nature that they alarmed both a Wal-Mart employee as well as the state agency charged with protecting Children enough to warrent an investigation.

bottom line is if you dont want to be investigated for kiddy porn dont take naked pictured of your kids. if you just HAVE to have those naked pictures then be ready to answer questions about WHY you felt you needed them. and whats more, those cute innocent baby pictures to YOU are someone elses jerk-off fodder and given the state of todays interwebs society where pictures are no longer just shoe box material to be taken out by the owners once or twice in a lfie time, whos to say the wal-mart dude/chick couldnt have been a pedo and taken these pcitures and put them on the web themselves?

what amazing lack of simple common sense these parents showed to me even bringing their nude photos of their children in the first place. as i said one manes cute baby pics is another mans porn. they just showed amazing levels of a lack of good old fassion common sense to me and NOW after THEIR epic retardedness they want to blame the state and wal-mart?

there is no reasonable reason to have a perminent record of your nude child, though i dont see any real harm in it and dont think that your average parent should be brought up on charges for it, i also dont see the NEED for it either. its a wash in my mind. but if you ARE just determined to have those naked pictures of your child you DONT bring them to wal-mart to get them developed, not saiyng every wal-martl employee is a closet pedo, but you never know. how many cases of child molesters end with those that knew them saying 'i had no idea'? and if you MUST have those nude pictures, and you totaly HAVE to take them to wal-mart wich is one step removed from just putting them on the net yourself, than you better be ready to answer the questions you are facing from those agencys that are empowered to safeguard our children from abuse.

i read this and im happy about the conclusion. the parents acted with an obvious lack of sound judgment, they got investigated, the children were protected, end of subject. the 'trauma' of the whole month w/o custody of their children is just about the proper punishment to my mind for their incredable display of stupidity.

its even more so when you relize that the ONLY reason to commit your childs nudity to a perminent record is for future embarassment purposes. given the choice between gran-ma being able to drag out your nake baby pictures 20 years from now or ending child porn in general im going to side with the idea that says no nude pictures of kids. grand-ma be damned.

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

*SNIP*

I hope you realize that there are people who find fully clothed people just as sexually as naked people. I can find a naked woman just as sexy as the same gal wearing a space suit. Which means they must be a freak out there that finds that same attraction for fully clothed children.

Does than mean I must now, never take pictures of any kids I may have because some freak may use it for kiddy porn?

It sounds like your taking this too far.