Family Pics Deemed Child Porn by Wal-Mart at Center of Lawsuit

[BorderCollieMom]

I didnt see this story anywhere. I kust saw the story on Cnn/HLN . There are many other news links on Google.

This is from the Wall Street Journal Blog site.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/09/22/family-vacay-pics-deemed-child-porn-by-wal-mart-at-center-of-lawsuit/

Comments ?

[Details]

I saw it on another news site - forget which now.

The police and LE don't seem to get what they did wrong. To say that you take the kids away on the word of a WalMart photo guy - without having, let's say, a judge review them to see if they are child porn - is insanity. What will the WalMart photo guy decide is porn next?

For the word of a WalMart photo guy, they took the children away for a year, traumatized them, abused them, when all that was needed was for a judge or someone with an official eye to look at the photos and speak to the parents. Not remove the children without investigation.

[Katt2]

I saw it on another news site - forget which now.

The police and LE don't seem to get what they did wrong. To say that you take the kids away on the word of a WalMart photo guy - without having, let's say, a judge review them to see if they are child porn - is insanity. What will the WalMart photo guy decide is porn next?

For the word of a WalMart photo guy, they took the children away for a year, traumatized them, abused them, when all that was needed was for a judge or someone with an official eye to look at the photos and speak to the parents. Not remove the children without investigation.

Actually the children were removed from the home for a month while it was being investigated and I have seen no reports of them being abused.

[warhorse46]

I saw it on another news site - forget which now.

The police and LE don't seem to get what they did wrong. To say that you take the kids away on the word of a WalMart photo guy - without having, let's say, a judge review them to see if they are child porn - is insanity. What will the WalMart photo guy decide is porn next?

For the word of a WalMart photo guy, they took the children away for a year, traumatized them, abused them, when all that was needed was for a judge or someone with an official eye to look at the photos and speak to the parents. Not remove the children without investigation.


The kids were removed for only a month not a year. But even still they suffered the trauma of being ripped screaming & crying from their parents on just the word of the wal mart worker. I would think a more in depth investigation would be in order before removing children from homes unless there is obvious signs of abuse or neglect. I guess this wal mart worker would have turned me in because I have pictures of my son in the bath when he was a baby.

[Details]

Actually the children were removed from the home for a month while it was being investigated and I have seen no reports of them being abused.A month - and it was abuse - it hurt the children. The children are traumatized, scared of being taken away again, will never trust authorities as they should. It did take a year to get the whole matter resolved. Not to mention a ton of money.

[R~O~S]

A month - and it was abuse - it hurt the children. The children are traumatized, scared of being taken away again, will never trust authorities as they should. It did take a year to get the whole matter resolved. Not to mention a ton of money.

I actually have to agree. It is abuse to take children from a loving home without reason and putting them in the hands of strangers, keeping them from seeing their parents for an extended period with only their imaginations to figure out what will happen to them. & what exactly were these children told as to the reason for it?

Were they allowed to believe there was some reason to fear their parents or that they were somehow "bad"? Are these children now left with the understanding that somehow there's something about their bodies they should be ashamed of?

& I've got to say, it leads me to wonder what is considered child pornography? I've always assumed it wasn't just nudity, but a posing of children in a sexual way.

I have pictures of both of my boys in the tub. There's nothing sexual about them. They're pictures of little boys playing with their toy boats with lots of bubbles in their hair and a bubble beard.

I've seen small children allowed to run naked on the public beach after their diaper was so water logged it fell right off of them. If pictures were taken by their parents or heaven forbid they were caught in the background of someone elses picture would it be child porn?

As a society we're out of control. We allow children to be horribly abused and CPS does nothing, there has to be "proof" of abuse, after all those bruises could have been gotten in many ways and children break bones all the time. But a family takes tubby pics and the kids are snatched off to foster care on the word of a photo center clerk?

There's nothing pornographic about the natural state of the human body, there are nudist beaches and communities nationwide. Are we going to start gathering up all of those children because their parents took a picture of them?

I came from a time when little girls were told their bodies were something to be ashamed of. I've spent the last 35 years hiding under triple X sweat shirts so nobody would notice I might actually have cleavage. It a damn shame we're headed back in that direction, I thought we got past all that in the '60's.

[Brentwood]

I actually have to agree. It is abuse to take children from a loving home without reason and putting them in the hands of strangers, keeping them from seeing their parents for an extended period with only their imaginations to figure out what will happen to them. & what exactly were these children told as to the reason for it?

Were they allowed to believe there was some reason to fear their parents or that they were somehow "bad"? Are these children now left with the understanding that somehow there's something about their bodies they should be ashamed of?

& I've got to say, it leads me to wonder what is considered child pornography? I've always assumed it wasn't just nudity, but a posing of children in a sexual way.

I have pictures of both of my boys in the tub. There's nothing sexual about them. They're pictures of little boys playing with their toy boats with lots of bubbles in their hair and a bubble beard.

I've seen small children allowed to run naked on the public beach after their diaper was so water logged it fell right off of them. If pictures were taken by their parents or heaven forbid they were caught in the background of someone elses picture would it be child porn?

As a society we're out of control. We allow children to be horribly abused and CPS does nothing, there has to be "proof" of abuse, after all those bruises could have been gotten in many ways and children break bones all the time. But a family takes tubby pics and the kids are snatched off to foster care on the word of a photo center clerk?

There's nothing pornographic about the natural state of the human body, there are nudist beaches and communities nationwide. Are we going to start gathering up all of those children because their parents took a picture of them?

I came from a time when little girls were told their bodies were something to be ashamed of. I've spent the last 35 years hiding under triple X sweat shirts so nobody would notice I might actually have cleavage. It a damn shame we're headed back in that direction, I thought we got past all that in the '60's.

I couldn't agree more. There are pictures of my 2 brothers and myself in the tub when we were little guys in one of our family photo albums. Separating children and their parents because of this is just completely ridiculous, imo. This horrible wrong probably damaged the hearts and souls of this entire family, especially the children.

[mood*ring]

Geez this is just horrible. Sears take more provacative poses than that. We have pictures of all the grandchildren "naked" (just diapers) and sitting in washtubs. No tops on the little girls or boys and the diaper is not noticeable. We have pictures of family members as babies naked and laying with the bare bottoms up on bear skin rugs and stuff. Those are always the favorites. I guess I come from a family of pervs.

The walmart employee should have gone to a higher up if he suspected the pictures were of an innapropriate nature before contacting police. But there are prudes and fanatics in all walks of society.

I will be the first to say that the employee was severely mistaken, the police were acting on this mistaken information as well as the state but as much heartache that it has caused this family, isn't it better to err on the side of caution?

[Details]

...
I will be the first to say that the employee was severely mistaken, the police were acting on this mistaken information as well as the state but as much heartache that it has caused this family, isn't it better to err on the side of caution?No.

This hurt the children. Damaged their trust. Caused nightmares and lingering trauma. No, it is not OK to do that just in case.

It would have taken no time for the photos to be reviewed by a PROPER authority. No WalMart employee should have the ability to separate a family - no branch of law enforcement should delegate deciding what photos represent child porn and which do not to a WalMart employee.

The employee did as they should - contact LE, just in case. LE should have had someone responsible review the photos - and since they are NOT child porn, the worst that should have happened was an investigation of the parents while leaving the children right where they were.


If you take a picture of your Christmas tree, and someone thinks it's a phallic and pagan symbol - are you really OK with them taking your kids for a month? Let alone a year of suspension from your job, and $75,000 dollars worth of legal expenses getting the "sex offender" status removed from yourself and your spouse?

[warhorse46]

Geez this is just horrible. Sears take more provacative poses than that. We have pictures of all the grandchildren "naked" (just diapers) and sitting in washtubs. No tops on the little girls or boys and the diaper is not noticeable. We have pictures of family members as babies naked and laying with the bare bottoms up on bear skin rugs and stuff. Those are always the favorites. I guess I come from a family of pervs.

The walmart employee should have gone to a higher up if he suspected the pictures were of an innapropriate nature before contacting police. But there are prudes and fanatics in all walks of society.

I will be the first to say that the employee was severely mistaken, the police were acting on this mistaken information as well as the state but as much heartache that it has caused this family, isn't it better to err on the side of caution?


I understand what you are saying but I think more investigation should have been done in this case than just a few preliminary questions by a police officer before the children were removed. A full investigation by CPS & a court hearing @ the very least.

[debbadoo]

Geez this is just horrible. Sears take more provacative poses than that. We have pictures of all the grandchildren "naked" (just diapers) and sitting in washtubs. No tops on the little girls or boys and the diaper is not noticeable. We have pictures of family members as babies naked and laying with the bare bottoms up on bear skin rugs and stuff. Those are always the favorites. I guess I come from a family of pervs.

The walmart employee should have gone to a higher up if he suspected the pictures were of an innapropriate nature before contacting police. But there are prudes and fanatics in all walks of society.

I will be the first to say that the employee was severely mistaken, the police were acting on this mistaken information as well as the state but as much heartache that it has caused this family, isn't it better to err on the side of caution?



Well, let me join your family of pervs, then! I have pics of my kids with their bare butts in the air and in the tub. The insanity of some people is overwhelming! I feel horrible for the parents and most of all the kids! Neither did anything wrong.

[Debb]

I think the response to WalMart would be different if the investigation revealed that there was indeed abuse involving the children. If something looks odd and you say nothing, you run the risk of allowing a child to continue to stay in an abusive situation. (I don't think a real pervert would take their photos to a public place for development, but there are crazy and stupid people in the world.)

The article says CPS was involved and they conducted an investigation. Maybe a month is too long, but they are prohibited from revealing details about a case. We don't know the whole story.

I just don't like to bash someone for speaking up about the welfare of a child. Not enough people report things that look off and terrrible things happen as a result.

[warhorse46]

I think the response to WalMart would be different if the investigation revealed that there was indeed abuse involving the children. If something looks odd and you say nothing, you run the risk of allowing a child to continue to stay in an abusive situation. (I don't think a real pervert would take their photos to a public place for development, but there are crazy and stupid people in the world.)

The article says CPS was involved and they conducted an investigation. Maybe a month is too long, but they are prohibited from revealing details about a case. We don't know the whole story.

I just don't like to bash someone for speaking up about the welfare of a child. Not enough people report things that look off and terrrible things happen as a result.


I agree with you & I don't think the wal mart employee did anything wrong. He saw something that he was concerned about & reported it to the authorities. My beef is with LE who did not launch a proper investigation before having the children removed. From the time of the report to the time of the children being removed was just a matter of a few hours according to the grandmother on HLN yesterday. That is not enough time to get the whole story IMO.

[Deb7]

I want to know what the Walmart employee is doing inspecting other people's photos to begin with. It was on a memory stick, he had no business ogling other people's memories to begin with.

BTW if the parents were taking child pornography, I honestly doubt they would hand over their porn to another person to see. They could have easily used the photo kiosks in (nearly every) Walmart in the photo section. I never give them mine anymore, I just use the machine.

[February]

Leave it to Walmart.

[JazzyBell]

I hope that the lawsuit clears up all of the steps taken that resulted in this travesty of justice.

1) Did the wm employee go to a Supervisor before calling LE?

2) Did LE go to a judge before acting on these photos?

3) When was CPS called in and WHY did they determine that these photos were pornography?

When these questions are answered, I am hoping that the following people will be called to account (if necessary) for the egregious actions taken:

1) The WalMart employee for deciding for him/herself what is pornographic - without consulting anyone else

2) WalMart for not putting in place proper procedures for an employee discovering questionable pictures.

3) Law Enforcement for acting on questionable material.

4) CPS for acting in an irrational manner.

The pendulem of child protection/abuse is swinging wildly between horrific abuse going unnoticed and self-righteous do-gooders turning in innocent parents.

It is my fervent wish that this family gets millions of dollars in damages. It will not take away the trauma of their experience, but it might - just might prevent WalMart and LE from acting so irrationally in the future.

[Details]

I think the response to WalMart would be different if the investigation revealed that there was indeed abuse involving the children. If something looks odd and you say nothing, you run the risk of allowing a child to continue to stay in an abusive situation. (I don't think a real pervert would take their photos to a public place for development, but there are crazy and stupid people in the world.)

The article says CPS was involved and they conducted an investigation. Maybe a month is too long, but they are prohibited from revealing details about a case. We don't know the whole story.

I just don't like to bash someone for speaking up about the welfare of a child. Not enough people report things that look off and terrrible things happen as a result.WalMart reporting is the right thing. Allowing them to be the word that gets the kids removed is where there is a HUGE problem. You don't just take kids away on an allegation - the investigation needs to happen first, and if something is found during that - or if the pictures are REAL child porn - THEN you remove the children. You don't remove them first without a REAL reason - not merely some pictures that had nothing sexual about them - just pictures of two sisters at bathtime.

IF this were a case where there was real abuse - an investigation, a proper one, still should have been launched with the kids still at home UNTIL evidence of abuse surfaced. They were able to come get the kids in a few hours - take that time to investigate instead.

Nor does CPS usually do so. I know of some families that have had reports called in on them - reports of physical abuse, severe neglect - and CPS does NOT usually pull the children on one person's word. They check. That is what should have happened this time.

Instead - did you read the whole article? The parents were legally branded as sex offenders. The parent who worked with kids was taken off her job for a year. Cost them $75,000 to get that cleared up. Guilty until proven innocent, for a mere allegation. That is incredibly wrong.

[BorderCollieMom]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-couple-suing-bathtime-photos-prompt-wal-mart/story?id=8624533


This is the part that got me.....

From link.....

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 Dick Treon told "Good Morning America." He said the person responsible for the report was unqualified to make such judgments.

[sexxytazz]

Yet the couples own attorney told ABC :

ABC News was able to obtain access to four of the photos. There are still nine other photographs which were not released because the Demarees' lawyer said that the photos were intended for private home use and showing them to outside parties would violate the law for distribution of child pornography.

I think questions needed to be asked.

I think the blame lies with LE and CPS for this going as far as it did.

[Keegan]

We are only seeing the pictures of the children with towels covering their bodies. The naked photos have not been shown.

I agree with DFS. The children should have been removed THEN the parents investigated. We scream when DFS does nothing. We scream when they do something.

I am saying the entire story has not been told. We are only hearing from the parents lawyer. Let them scream all they want. To allow one child, just one, to be sexually abused or used for the enjoyment of a SO is wrong. Notice that the state has not dropped their case against them.

And by the way, it doesn't take any qualifications to know a child is being sexually abused. Just common sense.

[Amy]

I understand what you are saying but I think more investigation should have been done in this case than just a few preliminary questions by a police officer before the children were removed. A full investigation by CPS & a court hearing @ the very least.

If it had been handled this way, it seems it would all have been over with in a week, if that long.

I hope they will be able to buy a good digital camera and printer so they don't have to worry about being turned in again for whatever some person, in his/her own mind, deems "porn." Hey!!!! That could be part of the Wally World settlement. Best of the line.

Like others, there are pics of my siblings and I and friends as little ones running around in diapers, or no shirt, etc. WTF is wrong with a little kid wearing only a diaper? Got that kind of pic of my kids, too. It's not like little ones are completely dressed 24/7. And, if they're doing something that is a Kodak moment, most parents would be taking pics.

[Amy]

I think the response to WalMart would be different if the investigation revealed that there was indeed abuse involving the children. If something looks odd and you say nothing, you run the risk of allowing a child to continue to stay in an abusive situation. (I don't think a real pervert would take their photos to a public place for development, but there are crazy and stupid people in the world.)

The article says CPS was involved and they conducted an investigation. Maybe a month is too long, but they are prohibited from revealing details about a case. We don't know the whole story.

I just don't like to bash someone for speaking up about the welfare of a child. Not enough people report things that look off and terrrible things happen as a result.

The problem doesn't seem to that the employee reported the pics. It is more w/the actions of LE of removing the kids from the home before there was any kind of investigation.

And, how the heck did they get placed on a sex offender list? Shouldn't that have been done only if they were found to be porn persons? Heck even rapists and molesters don't go on the list until after they have been convicted. If I understand the process, part of their sentencing is to register.

[Patriot]

How ridiculous IMO. I hope the parents get justice. Or at least compensated for their trauma.

Perhaps we should all have a mini photo lab in our homes so we can print our precious family pictures without the interference of the over zealous PC police. :rolleyes:

[Details]

Yet the couples own attorney told ABC :

I think questions needed to be asked.

I think the blame lies with LE and CPS for this going as far as it did.After all this, they must be careful.

However - a judge reviewed the pictures, and did NOT see child porn. Not as family pictures. A naked picture of me can be anything from a medical record, a personal picture to help me lose weight, a present for my husband - but published in a magazine that same picture becomes porn.


They should never have removed the children without a real cause.

[sexxytazz]

After all this, they must be careful.

However - a judge reviewed the pictures, and did NOT see child porn. Not as family pictures. A naked picture of me can be anything from a medical record, a personal picture to help me lose weight, a present for my husband - but published in a magazine that same picture becomes porn.


They should never have removed the children without a real cause.

Agreed!!!!!

[camracrazy]

I have never understood why parents like to take naked pics of their kids. I think I would be worried that the person at the photo place might be some kind of perv that would make copies to keep for their own collection!

[Adalena935]

I think WalMart, the law made big mistakes and isn't going to admit their own wrongdoing.

The whole thing's criminal what's been done to this family; children and parents alike. their lives are ruined.

We'd all be under investigation for naked children and grandchildren in our homes. sheesh.

In decades past it was the McMartin Pre School witchunt. I guess now we're going to have the naked baby in our homes witchunt.

[Adalena935]

I have never understood why parents like to take naked pics of their kids. I think I would be worried that the person at the photo place might be some kind of perv that would make copies to keep for their own collection!

It's about pursuit of happiness for individuals. Where no one should force you to photos you don't want to take and posess, no one should be able to keep you from it either (within the law of course).

The law was way out of line in this case. They'll never admit to their own folly in my opinion. they put these people on the sex offender list. The Mother lost her job for a year. The children taken out of the home for a month.

What if someone did that to you because you took a photo of an animal and they and the law decided you were an animal abuser. same thing just using a dif object. It's what someone else says about you that's not true.

These people's lawsuit is justified. I hope they win. A lot. There isn't enough money on the planet to compensate them for this horror that's been done to them by otherwise overly-vigilant agents of the state. Misuse of power. This is my opinion.

ETA: pre-digital it was the only way to get such photos of one's children in the bathtub with suds on their heads or whatever.

[camracrazy]

I never said I didn't understand the details of the case. I said I don't see why people enjoy taking pictures of their children nude. I don't have a problem with nudity but I wouldn't want one of my loved ones thinking, "Awww, she looks cute!" and snapping my pic! :scared: I believe children have the right to the privacy of their bodies just like an adult would. It certainly isn't something I would want some random photo clerk looking at. It seems that a lot of naked baby photos get used later in life to embarrass the person they were taken of (i.e. showing them to a future boyfriend/girlfriend or spouse) and personally I don't believe in humiliating my kids either. My comment in my earlier post had nothing to do with whether this family was treated in a correct manner or not.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

I read about this and I can't find the link at the moment-- however the pictures were described in great detail on the other link. These were not just bathtub photos.

They were naked shots of the girls naked with their legs spread and hugging and or touching one another... The parents said they were playing and encourage them to play naked for self expression.


The parents IMO are not guilty of anything after reading the article-- but I can see how police and the Wal-Mart employee thought there was something wrong with the pictures.

All I can say there are reporting procedures in place Wal-mart did nothing wrong IMO, perhaps the police needed to investigate further before removing the children from the home-- but we need these pictures reported ( as I said it was more than bathtub shots) in case there is a monster out there.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Here is one link:

Our family is very open and comfortable. We don't want our children to feel inhibited in their own house," A.J. Demaree said. "If they want to run around in their underwear, if they want to go run and grab an old Halloween costume and throw that on and run around the house, or if they want to run around the house naked and play around, that's what we encourage.".


http://current.com/items/90986809_parents-sue-wal-mart-after-children-taken-away-over-bath-time-photos.htm

Taking pictures of three little girls all naked horsing around may raise eyebrows at the store you asked to develope them

[Details]

Raised eyebrows - sure. Report to police - sure. Police taking your word to take the children away - with none of the pictures being true porn - no way.

It sounded just like the usual type of parent picture - the sisters are being so cute together, playing well, being affectionate to one another as you always hope your children will be - you can't resist taking a picture of them. Of course, I was raised in a fairly nudist household too. Clothes are for outside, inside, you wear whatever is comfortable - partly because we were pretty poor, and wanted to avoid wear and tear and stains on outside clothes. Nudity doesn't mean sex - just means you don't have your clothes on - nothing more than that.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Raised eyebrows - sure. Report to police - sure. Police taking your word to take the children away - with none of the pictures being true porn - no way.

It sounded just like the usual type of parent picture - the sisters are being so cute together, playing well, being affectionate to one another as you always hope your children will be - you can't resist taking a picture of them. Of course, I was raised in a fairly nudist household too. Clothes are for outside, inside, you wear whatever is comfortable - partly because we were pretty poor, and wanted to avoid wear and tear and stains on outside clothes. Nudity doesn't mean sex - just means you don't have your clothes on - nothing more than that.

As I said the police needed to investigate more. When they did they found more on the computers and it was misinterpreted.

Sorry any "crotch shots' are not cute IMO, and I do not care how lenient parents are. And these "crotch shots" are what got them in trouble not the tub photos.

According to the police report, photos were of the children in provocative positions, with their genitals exposed.

http://current.com/items/90986809_parents-sue-wal-mart-after-children-taken-away-over-bath-time-photos.htm

These are girls-- so to expose genitals is harder than boys--it is not needed IMO in the family album . Call me a prude-- but I see no reason for it.

[camracrazy]

Thanks for the new links. It's more understandable now why the photos were questioned. They weren't all in a bubbly bath with little exposed... they were totally exposed. I can see why that would raise eyebrows.

Now the photos have been seen by a Wal Mart worker, whomever she may have shown them to (i.e. a boss or supervisor), the police, a judge, the prosecuter, the defense attorney, and CPS. Even as a young child I would have been HORRIFIED to know that all those people saw pictures of me nude. I hope that the girls don't realize that! (It looks like they would be 2 1/2, 5, and 6 now),

[Details]

As I said the police needed to investigate more. When they did they found more on the computers and it was misinterpreted.

Sorry any "crotch shots' are not cute IMO, and I do not care how lenient parents are. And these "crotch shots" are what got them in trouble not the tub photos.



http://current.com/items/90986809_parents-sue-wal-mart-after-children-taken-away-over-bath-time-photos.htm

These are girls-- so to expose genitals is harder than boys--it is not needed IMO in the family album . Call me a prude-- but I see no reason for it.I think you're reading way too much into "genitals exposed" - I believe that simply means that there were no underpants on. That's not a crotch shot - that's just naked kids without strategic stuffed toys or towels around.


The judge who looked at the photos found nothing to worry about - so there's no way this is the type of explicit crotch shot you're describing.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Thanks for the new links. It's more understandable now why the photos were questioned. They weren't all in a bubbly bath with little exposed... they were totally exposed. I can see why that would raise eyebrows.

Now the photos have been seen by a Wal Mart worker, whomever she may have shown them to (i.e. a boss or supervisor), the police, a judge, the prosecuter, the defense attorney, and CPS. Even as a young child I would have been HORRIFIED to know that all those people saw pictures of me nude. I hope that the girls don't realize that! (It looks like they would be 2 1/2, 5, and 6 now),

YAQW!

When I first read it I was horrified to think I could be arrested over tub shots. I then went in search of other articles as it seemed something must be missing for the children to have been removed-- and there was.

I always try to read one or two news outlets-- seems that one may have more info or are willing to share more info depending on what the news angencies spin is. Know what I mean?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

I think you're reading way too much into "genitals exposed" - I believe that simply means that there were no underpants on. That's not a crotch shot - that's just naked kids without strategic stuffed toys or towels around.


The judge who looked at the photos found nothing to worry about - so there's no way this is the type of explicit crotch shot you're describing.

According to the police report, photos were of the children in provocative positions, with their genitals exposed.


I am not, I read it and heard it--and their parents SAID the reason they were fully exposed is because of the horse play.

Nine photos were NOT released because it would fall under child pornography according the the parents attorney. So it was a bit more than you seem willing to see.

[Details]

"Some of the photos are bath time photos," Lisa said, "but there are a few after the bath. Three of the girls are naked, laying on a towel with their arms around each other, and we thought it was so cute."Just sisters after a bath, being sweet to each other. I can't blame the parents for taking the pictures. But just because genitals were exposed - as in not covered with underwear, doesn't make it a crotch shot. And the judge agreed: A medical exam of the children revealed no signs of sexual abuse, and a judge ruled that the photos were in fact harmless.
http://current.com/items/90986809_parents-sue-wal-mart-after-children-taken-away-over-bath-time-photos.htm

They phrase it so as to let your imagination run wild - but reading what the photos actually were - it's just kids being kids. They don't have any reason to think nudity is evil or wrong or sexual.

[Details]

I am not, I read it and heard it--and their parents SAID the reason they were fully exposed is because of the horse play.

Nine photos were NOT released because it would fall under child pornography according the the parents attorney. So it was a bit more than you seem willing to see.Any photo of a naked child is child porn, if released to the public. A photo of a naked me (for weight loss purposes) isn't porn if I keep it, is, if it's broadcast. The content doesn't make it porn - the judge says the photos are harmless - but broadcasting it would.

What you imagine - a judge would not be calling harmless. They're indulging in horesplay - so the towels don't stay on. That's not child porn - unless released to be broadcast over the internet - any photo of a naked child, man, or woman would be porn if broadcast like that.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Just sisters after a bath, being sweet to each other. I can't blame the parents for taking the pictures. But just because genitals were exposed - as in not covered with underwear, doesn't make it a crotch shot. And the judge agreed:
http://current.com/items/90986809_parents-sue-wal-mart-after-children-taken-away-over-bath-time-photos.htm

They phrase it so as to let your imagination run wild - but reading what the photos actually were - it's just kids being kids. They don't have any reason to think nudity is evil or wrong or sexual.

Police said the children were in 'provocative positions' and until the judge ruled the police and SWS must have agreed, in fact someone felt the picture required exams to assure the children were not sexually abused. So no I do not think that this was just tub photos and the like.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Any photo of a naked child is child porn, if released to the public. A photo of a naked me (for weight loss purposes) isn't porn if I keep it, is, if it's broadcast. The content doesn't make it porn - the judge says the photos are harmless - but broadcasting it would.

What you imagine - a judge would not be calling harmless. They're indulging in horesplay - so the towels don't stay on. That's not child porn - unless released to be broadcast over the internet - any photo of a naked child, man, or woman would be porn if broadcast like that.

As you said you were raised this way-- others are not. I NEVER said that naked photos in themselves were "bad" I said that shots that showed full genital is unnecessary for a family photo album, again call me a prude, but I don’t want to see shots of my children’s private parts on my computer or in my family photo album and certainly not in someone else’s.