Parents being arrested for taking naked pictures of their kids

Question for everybody, let's say you're one of those people who processes everybody's film, and while processing a role you find pictures of a couple and their kids who are in the bathtub, or in a pair of boots and nothing else and laughing, or something like that. Do you A. call the police on these parents or B. process the film and go on with your job?


I can't believe how paranoid and idiotic people are becoming. They think ANY picture of a naked child MUST be pornographic and sexual exploitation of a minor. And it gets worse because the police are busting down the doors of parents who take pictures of kids who aren't even naked but rather dressed down. And to make it even worse, parents are even being arrested for photographing their fully clothed children playing in the park, for the reason that the parents must be pedophiles to do that. And earlier today, it was mentioned to me that in the UK, parents are completely FORBIDDEN to photograph children at all.

The people enforcing these laws and who believe these things to be true and for the greater good have got to be some of THE most brain dead morons on the face of the earth. Now I remember a story from a few years back, this couple was arrested for taking pictures that had them performing oral sex on their infant son, THAT is child porn, THAT is sexual exploitation of a minor, not Junior in the bathtub or wearing his cowboy boots and a big grin or little Susie doing ballet in her underwear, or even dressed children playing in the park. Do the people who believe this crap NOT have any children? Or do they ONLY photograph them in heavy winter parkas and fatigues?

Supernova wrote:Question for everybody, let's say you're one of those people who processes everybody's film, and while processing a role you find pictures of a couple and their kids who are in the bathtub, or in a pair of boots and nothing else and laughing, or something like that. Do you A. call the police on these parents or B. process the film and go on with your job?

B.

Supernova wrote:I can't believe how paranoid and idiotic people are becoming. They think ANY picture of a naked child MUST be pornographic and sexual exploitation of a minor.

Probably because they are secretly perverts themselves!

Supernova wrote:And it gets worse because the police are busting down the doors of parents who take pictures of kids who aren't even naked but rather dressed down. And to make it even worse, parents are even being arrested for photographing their fully clothed children playing in the park, for the reason that the parents must be pedophiles to do that. And earlier today, it was mentioned to me that in the UK, parents are completely FORBIDDEN to photograph children at all.

That doesn't even make any sense!

Supernova wrote:The people enforcing these laws and who believe these things to be true and for the greater good have got to be some of THE most brain dead morons on the face of the earth. Now I remember a story from a few years back, this couple was arrested for taking pictures that had them performing oral sex on their infant son, THAT is child porn, THAT is sexual exploitation of a minor, not Junior in the bathtub or wearing his cowboy boots and a big grin or little Susie doing ballet in her underwear, or even dressed children playing in the park. Do the people who believe this crap NOT have any children? Or do they ONLY photograph them in heavy winter parkas and fatigues?

Like I said, they assume anthing with children in it is wrong because they are closet pervs themselves. My parents have taken naked pics of me and probably everyone in my family has a naked pic from when they were a todler or something. It's normal. Nobody is beating off to naked pics of a 3 year old unless they are a pedophile anyway and they shouldn't even have or be around kids in the first place.

Indeeeeed, and we all know the joke of a baby picture where somebody is butt naked on a bear skin rug...I never got why that was so common, but I digress.

I know there's at least one picture of me at 2 or 3 right out of the tub and I remember specifically telling my parents 'take my picture' and I was posing for it and even as a little kid when we got the picture back I was thinking 'I look gooooood'. My mother was going through my baby album to show the neighbor boys some old pictures and found that one and quickly flipped the page over so they wouldn't see it. It's a bit more embarrassing now that I'm older but there sure as hell wasn't anything pornographic to it. At that age I knew they didn't have a lot of pictures of me without any clothes on and that's how I wanted my picture taken...looking back now maybe that's because I HATED dressing up for photos and having to change dresses and put on different things all the time for them, and that was the only real time I was just myself. And that's the thing, to hear most parents comment on this, they have pictures of their little kids out of the tub or just wearing their shoes and they are all laughing in the pictures, they're really being just themselves and having fun, and it's cute. There's nothing wrong with that and parents shouldn't be branded child pornographers for it.

Nudity and sexuality do not always go hand in hand. If the pictures are of their own kids and they’re not “playing doctor”, I think the law needs to stay out of their business.

I agree, it's their own kids for one. It's not like they're taking naked pictures of other people's kids. And secondly, if it's not sexual, grow up. I mean didn't they take naked pictures of babies on a hug in the olden days? They show naked babies on TV a lot. I think common sense needs to be used. Obviously there is an age to stop. But photographing little kids in a bathtub doesn't scream pedo and it doesn't merit police busting down their doors. And taking pictures of your own kid in the park is pedophile play now? GMAFB! This is why I say government really needs to butt out. People will take honest cases of child molestation less seriously if crap like this becomes too routine.

What's next, arresting parents for changing their babies diaper and seeing below the belt?

And you know...you don't really see it NOW, but only just a few years ago they still had little kids running around butt naked in diaper commercials and nobody had a problem with that either. Though I have noticed when WE were kids, they had commercials of little girls and boys running around in their underwear to promote the new Lamb Chop and Power Rangers underwear, but you sure as hell never see that anymore either, do you?

Society is taking everything to ridiculous extremes. Those rug & bathtub pics used to be pretty much the standard. Just about everyone had them. Now you might get jail time & the kids taken away. It's absurd.

It's idiotic is what it is.

Shale wrote: This could also have resulted in the mother's arrest if taken by her husband and processed in some remote backward thinking parts of this country.

Which is actually ironically those who claim to be "forward" thinking. It's definitely interesting to see how it's all happened, and definitely not in the way you'd typically expect.

These peopke are getting out of control. I have naked pictures of me in the bathtub, my parts weren't showing, I have a picture of me just wearing a pull-up and I know it's not a form of pornography.

That's stupid to be charged for taking a harmless pictue of your child naked or in underwear, as long as they're not pervertive.

Come on!

Well, I would report it, only because I know in my state, I would be legally bound to do so. As unfair as it is for these people to get in trouble, it would be worse for a well-meaning photo lab employee to get into big trouble for it.

It is all very ridiculous, especially in this time when any pervert is going to have a home printer, and not risk his photos at a lab to be processed.

That's crazy stupid. Babies and toddlers having no clothes on isn't sexual. Most of the time they run around naked and will take their clothes off because they think its funny. If when bathing a baby or changing them they start being playful, then there's nothing wrong with taking a snapshot. It's not dirty.

RobbieFTW wrote:That's crazy stupid. Babies and toddlers having no clothes on isn't sexual. Most of the time they run around naked and will take their clothes off because they think its funny. If when bathing a baby or changing them they start being playful, then there's nothing wrong with taking a snapshot. It's not dirty.

Has EVERYONE conveniently forgot about this?


Obviously, nobody had a problem with this, so why would people care that some folks take naked pictures of their own kids?

CeCe wrote:Society is taking everything to ridiculous extremes. Those rug & bathtub pics used to be pretty much the standard. Just about everyone had them. Now you might get jail time & the kids taken away. It's absurd.

ITA. The image of a naked baby on a rug is as standard as the image of a bowl of fruit. That anyone would be arrested over it is lunacy. Child porn, it's not.