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.
Because of course child pornographers don't take pictures of children bathing.
Even innocent photos can make their way into child pornography rings. The actions taken here were to protect the children from that happening.
I think your missing the point, we can not deem photos that are legal, and rule them illegal because of what some 3rd party sicko, may or may not do with photos that might come into their possession. In order to look at this case, you need to look at the intent of those who took the photos, and had them developed. PERIOD...
The fact that some people go out and drink and drive, which then results in a 3rd individual being killed, doesnt mean that everyone who walks into a bar is an alcoholic..
post 45, thr glorification of pedophiles created ahuge mess. btw there kids lots of people do that, whos to say u cannot take pics of your kids next thing you know your not gonna be able to change your kids pampers
No. You will have to go to an official diaper changing center where only accredited and cleared social services staff will be able to change them. Oh, and you will of course be charged for this.
The difference being that the legal definition of "child pornography" being
Child pornography is the visual representation of minors under the age of 18 engaged in sexual activity or the visual representation of minors engaging in lewd or erotic behavior designed to arouse the viewer's sexual interest.
Taking photos of a child in a bathtub does not meet the definition of child pornography because the intent of the photos is not to arouse, unless of course the children are engaged in sexual or lewd, erotic behavior, which I seriously doubt, (considering the children were returned home)
Its just another case of, protect the children at all cost, even if it means accusing individuals of violating laws without any evidence.
Well yeah but what about the pictures they recover from pedophiles of kids just standing nude; especially younger kids - what does that fall under? They're not doing anything sexual but the purpose of the picture is not innocent. I remember one case in Fl where the guy had little girls (like 4 and under) standing nude with a baby doll - I think he was a foster parent but I'd have to google it to get all the facts.
I don't have an issue with the pictures being reported by Wal-mart; I'm a better safe than sorry person but I think CPS needs to examine their policies on how they handle cases like this.
So how much freedom are we willing to give up just in case some pervert might get a cheap thrill out of it?
These people were investigated. They were not charged because the investigation determined they were innocent. What you are saying is that they shouldn't have even been investigated. So when should people be investigated? When there is clear evidence of a child having been raped? The investigation cannot undo the rape of a child.
I have already stated that I think removing the children from the home for a month does not seem reasonable to me. I have already stated that the comments by one of the investigators made to the family and friends of the parents involved were not justified and the investigator should answer for that behavior.
But the issue isn't some pervert getting a cheap thrill, the issue is the safety of the children.
Well yeah but what about the pictures they recover from pedophiles of kids just standing nude; especially younger kids - what does that fall under? I remember one case in Fl where the guy had little girls (like 4 and under) standing nude with a baby doll - I think he was a foster parent but I'd have to google it to get all the facts.
I don't have an issue with the pictures being reported by Wal-mart; I'm a better safe than sorry person but I think CPS needs to examine their policies on how they handle cases like this.
Yeah, but are we going to ban all parents from taking photos of their kids just because some perverts get a stiffy out of it? At what point do you give up your freedom altogether?
I think your missing the point, we can not deem photos that are legal, and rule them illegal because of what some 3rd party sicko, may or may not do with photos that might come into their possession. In order to look at this case, you need to look at the intent of those who took the photos, and had them developed. PERIOD...
The fact that some people go out and drink and drive, which then results in a 3rd individual being killed, doesnt mean that everyone who walks into a bar is an alcoholic..
NO ONE RULED THE PHOTOS ILLEGAL.
The photos were a red flag that caused authorities to look at the intent of those who took the photos. And to see if other photos had been taken that compromised the children further.
The parents weren't convicted of being pedophiles, or even charged.
The outrage in this is that the children were removed from a loving home for one month while authorities investigated.
These people were investigated. They were not charged because the investigation determined they were innocent. What you are saying is that they shouldn't have even been investigated. So when should people be investigated? When there is clear evidence of a child having been raped? The investigation cannot undo the rape of a child.
I have already stated that I think removing the children from the home for a month does not seem reasonable to me. I have already stated that the comments by one of the investigators made to the family and friends of the parents involved were not justified and the investigator should answer for that behavior.
But the issue isn't some pervert getting a cheap thrill, the issue is the safety of the children.
So every family that takes nude photos of their kids should be investigated?
What I'm saying DC is that it shouldn't take a month to investigate a thirty minute case.
And I also have said repeatedly that the month seems unreasonable. Thirty minutes doesn't strike me as reasonable, either, since I think that the laws are quite stringent and put a greater burden on CPS to perform due diligence that would exceed thirty minutes. But how many times do I have to say that one month was excessive?
At what point do you give up your freedom altogether?
January 22, 2000
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.
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.
