U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-25-2010, 10:06 PM
 
2,639 posts, read 5,217,438 times
Reputation: 2352

Advertisements

*sigh*

Parents accused of abuse over bathtime photos of children

Quote:
Originally Posted by DigicamHelp.com
The parents were accused of sexual abuse. The children were taken away and put into child custody where they were examined for sexual abuse. In addition, the parents were placed on a sex offender list and the mother was suspended from her job.
Ignore the fact that another judge overrode the decision. The point here is that they didn't do anything wrong on the face, yet they were essentially persecuted for harmless photos. If the law were unilaterally applied as written, this would never have even been a subject of discussion. The problem is that the police jumped the gun and labeled these parents as child abusers without any regard to the actual law.

Some of you don't seem to understand the impact of this. Even if you're found innocent of a crime after the fact, the damage is done. Your reputation is in question, you've lost your job, and there is a stigma attached to you...all because of an ambiguous law that has people knee-jerk reacting instead of applying it as written.

As a side note, you need to also understand that just showing the genital parts of a child is well enough to get someone blacklisted.

And oh by the way, if you want to talk about "...sexually explicit conduct":

Breastfeeding Picture Gets Couple Charged with Child Porn, Children Taken

Quote:
Originally Posted by EcoChildsPlay.com
The couple was charged with “sexual performance of a child”, a second-degree felony which could carry up to 20 years in prison.
For BREAST FEEDING. And you want to tell me the law's not out of control?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2010, 10:36 PM
 
Location: California
30,699 posts, read 33,467,623 times
Reputation: 26114
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated View Post
*sigh*

Parents accused of abuse over bathtime photos of children



Ignore the fact that another judge overrode the decision. The point here is that they didn't do anything wrong on the face, yet they were essentially persecuted for harmless photos. If the law were unilaterally applied as written, this would never have even been a subject of discussion. The problem is that the police jumped the gun and labeled these parents as child abusers without any regard to the actual law.

Some of you don't seem to understand the impact of this. Even if you're found innocent of a crime after the fact, the damage is done. Your reputation is in question, you've lost your job, and there is a stigma attached to you...all because of an ambiguous law that has people knee-jerk reacting instead of applying it as written.

As a side note, you need to also understand that just showing the genital parts of a child is well enough to get someone blacklisted.

And oh by the way, if you want to talk about "...sexually explicit conduct":

Breastfeeding Picture Gets Couple Charged with Child Porn, Children Taken

For BREAST FEEDING. And you want to tell me the law's not out of control?
Are these the same kind of "sex offenders" people are all up in arms about over prescription viagra ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2010, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,251,141 times
Reputation: 36087
This photo won the Pulitzer Prize in 1972, and is one of the most famous war pictures in history. It was published in almost every newspaper in the world. Is it child porn?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ges/napalm.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2010, 04:11 PM
 
2,639 posts, read 5,217,438 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
This photo won the Pulitzer Prize in 1972, and is one of the most famous war pictures in history. It was published in almost every newspaper in the world. Is it child porn?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ges/napalm.jpg
1972 =/= 2010. Back then there wasn't a Megan's Law or a Mrs. Lovejoy running around screaming about "the children". Back then, there was a clear distinction between tasteful or impactful nudity, such as the photo you posted, tasteless or indecent nudity, which IS against the law but doesn't get you registered on a sex offender list, and then down right sex offending.

In those nearly 40 years, we have transitioned into an era where people are no longer tolerant of nudity, even that nudity that is not sexual in nature, i.e. a bare breast. Different times.

So to answer your question: If this photo were emailed through a Usenet group, I have no doubt a group of people would join the sex offender list, yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2010, 04:16 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,491,494 times
Reputation: 9363
Quote:
Originally Posted by kap121483 View Post
Revelated, YOU are incorrect. I have a 4 year college degree in Criminal Justice and know what I am talking about.
Then tell me why the US federal code Tital 18, Part I, Chapter 110, section 2256, subsection 8, says revelated, and you are wrong.

Think you are right, then please call the US Supreme Court who states otherwise..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2010, 04:17 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,491,494 times
Reputation: 9363
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
This photo won the Pulitzer Prize in 1972, and is one of the most famous war pictures in history. It was published in almost every newspaper in the world. Is it child porn?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ges/napalm.jpg
Nope.. which is where those who think "nude photos" = child porn.. They are wrong.. There is a very clear definition of "porn", which these photos do not meet..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2010, 04:20 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,491,494 times
Reputation: 9363
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated View Post
1972 =/= 2010. Back then there wasn't a Megan's Law or a Mrs. Lovejoy running around screaming about "the children". Back then, there was a clear distinction between tasteful or impactful nudity, such as the photo you posted, tasteless or indecent nudity, which IS against the law but doesn't get you registered on a sex offender list, and then down right sex offending.

In those nearly 40 years, we have transitioned into an era where people are no longer tolerant of nudity, even that nudity that is not sexual in nature, i.e. a bare breast. Different times.

So to answer your question: If this photo were emailed through a Usenet group, I have no doubt a group of people would join the sex offender list, yes.
The poster, linked to the photo TODAY.. If its child porn, it would be illegal to host the image, link to the photo, and viewing the photo, regardless as to when the photo was taken. Since you have now looked at the photo, and the image is sitting on your hard drive, are you now hosting child porn on your pc? Should we call the FBI and tell them you looked at child porn?

Megans law does not deal with photos, and Mrs lovejoy screaming about the children, has nothing to do with LAW..

There are nudist communities where everyone walks around nude, both adults and children.. Nude beaches exist.. They are NOT illegal..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 09:33 AM
 
162 posts, read 353,412 times
Reputation: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Then tell me why the US federal code Tital 18, Part I, Chapter 110, section 2256, subsection 8, says revelated, and you are wrong.

Think you are right, then please call the US Supreme Court who states otherwise..
LOL, at first I didn't understand your post due to your inappropriately-placed commas. After a third reading, I now comprehend.

Needless to say, I'm not looking up the statute, which you've most likely misinterpreted. I'm positive I'm right, or else no parrent could ever snap a picture of Jr, playing with rubber ducky, during bath time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 10:31 AM
 
2,639 posts, read 5,217,438 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The poster, linked to the photo TODAY.. If its child porn, it would be illegal to host the image, link to the photo, and viewing the photo, regardless as to when the photo was taken. Since you have now looked at the photo, and the image is sitting on your hard drive, are you now hosting child porn on your pc? Should we call the FBI and tell them you looked at child porn?

Megans law does not deal with photos, and Mrs lovejoy screaming about the children, has nothing to do with LAW..

There are nudist communities where everyone walks around nude, both adults and children.. Nude beaches exist.. They are NOT illegal..
You're arguing semantics. You're also arguing the wrong case.

This is not about what the law explicitly says. It's about incorrect application of it.

The article has been posted that clearly shows there were instances of parents being labeled sex offenders for posting their bath-time photos. DO you know what that means? It means that the enforcement of the law was not proper or acceptable based on the letter of the law. THAT is what this discussion is about.

You keep going on and on about "but it's not illegal according to the law!!" We know that. That's the crux of the debate. You need to pay closer attention to what people are saying. Nobody has said that such photos are or are not legal. What we're saying is that our justice system ignores the letter of the law in favor of what the Lovejoys of the world want.

Now, are you going to sit here and tell me that the events in this article didn't happen? Are you going to sit here and tell me that the breast feeding lady didn't get charged with child porn?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 10:55 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,491,494 times
Reputation: 9363
Quote:
Originally Posted by kap121483 View Post
LOL, at first I didn't understand your post due to your inappropriately-placed commas. After a third reading, I now comprehend.

Needless to say, I'm not looking up the statute, which you've most likely misinterpreted. I'm positive I'm right, or else no parrent could ever snap a picture of Jr, playing with rubber ducky, during bath time.
I've even linked to it.. US CODE: Title 18,2256. Definitions for chapter

And since you are now proclaiming that people can take photos in the tub, something I've said all along, I then think we are in agreement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top