Reply With Quote
are bath-time photos of your naked children really necessary? they need proof later in life that they were bathed, or what?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-co...ory?id=8624533For A.J. and Lisa Demaree, the photos they snapped of their young daughters were innocent and sweet.
Share
Children were taken into protective custody over pictures taken at bath time.
But after a photo developer at Walmart thought otherwise, the Demarees found themselves in a yearlong battle to prove they were not child pornographers.
"I don't' understand it at all," A.J. Demaree told "Good Morning America" Monday. "Ninety-nine percent of the families in America have these exact same photos."
The eight photos in question were among a batch of 144 family photos the Demarees had taken to their local Walmart. The developer alerted the police and the investigation into child pornography began in earnest, even though the parents maintained they were innocent bath time photos.
Related
Experts Condemn Man Who Slapped Child
WATCH: Parents Sue Walmart Over Bath Time Photo Controversy
Web Site Questions Wal-Mart Shoppers' Attire
The Peoria, Ariz., couple had their home searched by police and worse, their children -- then ages 18 months, 4 and 5 -- were taken from them for more than month. Their names were placed on a sex offender registry for a time, and Lisa Demaree was suspended from her school job for a year. The couple said they have spent $75,000 on legal bills.
A report issued by local authorities described the photos as "child erotica" and "sex exploitation," the couple's lawyer Treon told "Good Morning America." He said the person responsible for the report was unqualified to make such judgments.
The Demarees are now sharing a few of the photos with the public, he said, so the "truth to catch up with the lie."
"These photos were never intended for anyone to see except for family members," Treon said. "Perversion is in the eye of the viewer."
Eventually, a judge threw out charges against the Demarees, but now they're going on the legal offensive by suing the state, the city and Walmart for their role in what they call a "nightmare."
"I think that we need to have an awareness of how our innocent photographs can be misconstrued and misperceived," Lisa Demaree said.
are bath-time photos of your naked children really necessary? they need proof later in life that they were bathed, or what?
sign of the times. everyone is quick to judge everyone, we are pessimists, su ious of each other, and ready to label and destroy each other's lives.
I can't think of a single reason why the photos are necessary, but I can't think of a single person I know who doesn't have photos like this of his/her childhood.
The person who turned 'em in was probably was teenage hirer who thought it'd be funny to cause trouble... When I was a teen I made a joke like that to a friend who's parents who had some of these "cute" naked pics framed around their house.
I work in a photo lab and i hate when we get those pictures, so i dont even print those out.
Maybe because they're cute? Maybe because they're so enamored with being new parents that they want to savor every moment? But no. It's your and the state's business to tell parents when they can and cannot take pictures of their own children.
I'm sure my mom has a few photos of me sans clothing when I was little. She must be a pedophile.
In fact, parents who see their kids naked other than for diaper changing or bathing are probably getting off on it.
This is the height of absurdity.
Maybe because they're cute? Maybe because they're so enamored with being new parents that they want to savor every moment? But no. It's your and the state's business to tell parents when they can and cannot take pictures of their own children.
I'm sure my mom has a few photos of me sans clothing when I was little. She must be a pedophile.
In fact, parents who see their kids naked other than for diaper changing or bathing are probably getting off on it.
This is the height of absurdity.
YAY NANNY STATE!!
Gotta love where our country is right now.
"Man I hope the government does something..."
I don't know what's worse, this, or telling an 18 year old boy he's a sex offender for life and throwing him in jail because he had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend that he's been dating for 2 years.
thispego let me get some tub photo time with your baby
So...John Mccain's state is arresting parents for idiotically taking more/less innocent pictures of their children to Walmart to be developed? 8 out of 144 photos, you'd think the photo developer would put 2 and 2 together. I mean, I think taking such pics to a public developer is dumb and parents should exercise better judgment...but unless there was blatant displays of baby parts in those pics I don't know how anyone could press charges on those parents.
Who the still uses film, that's what they deserve, it's 2010 get with the times.
I sincerely hope the ing win! what a joke! bath time pictures = child pornography... people are so ing up tight now a days.
There are millions who still use film.
Okay so here's my serious response.
First of all the pictures apparently were digital. I assumed it was film since 144/24= 6 rolls of film, and the initial story didn't mention they were digital, but that was more of a joke anyhow.
As for the pictures: Personally I've taken similar types of pictures of my kids. The first type is a "first bath" picture. Typically you have to wait a little while for the umbilical cord to come off before you can give your baby a bath (you can only give them a sponge type bath before it falls off), they are usually just a couple of weeks old at most.
The second type is something I've done with all three of my boys, I'm not really sure how it got started but when my son was about a year and a half I took a picture of him taking a bath in one of those steel buckets (The round type some people might put beer in). It's basically my son in the bucket with soapy water and a rubber ducky.
The only real issue I would have with the story personally is that I wouldn't take those types of pictures of my kids at four and five years old, but I suppose that's just me personally, the oldest I've done it was a year and a half, to me once a kid is four or five they aren't cute in that same way, and it seems to me to be at least a little inappropriate, but I can't imagine I would report anyone else for doing so, I just wouldn't do it personally.
What's also disturbing is that it seems this type of thing is a domino effect, and once the first person calls it something, everyone after that doesn't have the ability, or good sense to call it something else, it's almost like they have to run with what they are given, and aren't able or willing to say "Hey, this isn't child pornography".
Lastly, I watched an interview with the parents and their attorney and his explanation for only releasing half of the photos was that the original police officer classified them as child pornography and because of that the attorney didn't feel he could release them without subjecting himself to the same type of treatment his clients had faced.
That doesn't make any sense to me, a judge ruled they were not child pornography so I can't think of any reason they wouldn't release those photos, it would help to prove their point because the four that they have released are certainly very typical of the type of photos most parents would probably have taken of their kids.
This whole deal is absurd.
Note to all parents: Go digital and buy a damn photo printer so you don't get accused of pornography.
Nudity is not pornography.
Wow...we have a lot of pictures of my son in the bath...mainly because he is usually having a lot of fun and laughing / smiling, which makes for perfect "cute" pic opportunities. This is absolutely absurd. My wife is an LSOTP, i am going to show her this to see what she thinks.
She often had people in her office that were labled "sex offenders" that were so wrongly accused it was insane. One guy was now 22 years old, married to a 20 year old girl, and he has been labled a sex offender since he was 18 and the girls parents pressed charges on him for dating their 16 year old. Kid was going to college, had a steady job, making good for himsel fand his wife, yet had this stigma attached. So insane.
Im all for hanging the real sicko offenders out there, but to me, they need to do away with the registry thing until they can have some better guidelines for it.
That's messed up..
that has nothing to with anythingKid was going to college, had a steady job
i feel bad for these guys on the sex offender list for their teenage girlfriends, but thats very different and really doesnt relate to the OP, there is a law and everyone knows the laws, its pretty much black and white, if you dont want to risk it, then dont
Last edited by mookie2001; 09-24-2009 at 10:43 AM.
On the same page as this story, a 15 year old girl is facing felony child pornography charges for taking/sending naked pictures of herself to friends.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
My mom has pictures of me in the tub when I was probably 1 or so. You can see the peepee and everything. I looked happy as .
4 and 5 is a bit old for those kind of pictures... but it's still not egregious enough to warrant sex offender status.
This line kinda threw me off "then ages 18 months, 4 and 5"
Really? What, exactly, is the law?
Un ingbelievable. I thought all parents had naked baby pictures to use for blackmailing and bartering with their teens...
I agree it's absurd. Most parents take those types of pictures. And the reason they take those pictures aside from that they are cute and fun for parents is so they can embarrass you when you get older by sharing them with your friends, girlfriends/boyfriends, fiance type of .
But, along the lines of asking who uses film anymore, even though they were digital pictures... buy a home laser photo printer. You can get them super cheap these days for something like $70-100.
17 is the age of consent? isnt that the law?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
