April 20, 2003

Innocent family photos determined to be child pornography

A recently immigrated Peruvian couple took photos to document some of the early stages of their children's lives. They dropped their film off at the local drug store to be developed, and the photos of nude children alarmed the drug store clerk, who reported the photos to the police. Next thing you know, the couple is arrested and the children are in the custody of the local child welfare bureau. The photos: children bathing, breast feeding shot; and a young boy who scratched his genital area when the shot was taken. The Dallas Observer did a very thorough in-depth investigation into this case.

Posted by Tiger at April 20, 2003 09:37 AM | TrackBack
Comments

I photograph my children and their freinds in different moments and there is nothing wrong I would like to share and to see your visuals in this as we should all band together against oppression

Posted by: Tyler at December 22, 2003 11:36 AM

I would like to know when family photos of people's children became child pornography.

Are there so many people in the world these days that get off on looking at nude children? Or are people anymore so sexually repressed and uptight and so politically correct that they believe any occassion of a naked child is pornography?

If that is the case, every doctor and every parent on the planet should be locked up right now for their daily "pornographic" interactions with children.

I think all of the people out there need to get over their own embarressment about their parents photographing them in the bath and lighten up.

Family photos of your children naked, in non-sexual, everyday activities for the sake of preserving an adorable moment in time are not pornography. If you are sick-minded enough to think they are then perhaps you need to get a professional opinion of your views. In other words, get therapy.

And as far as the current legislation goes, people come on, stop prosecuting innocent families over family pictures.

And put Michael Jackson and real pedophiles in jail were they belong. ;)

Posted by: Astartae at January 17, 2004 07:01 AM

i think astartae is totaly right i think the thort of children at tht age being fotographt nude is insanely desturbing

Posted by: danny at May 6, 2004 03:34 AM

I have to admit I don't understand Astartes comment "-put Michael Jackson and real pedophile's in jail where they belong" I wish to say first of all that I am not a Michael Jackson fan, I have only one of his records that I bought in a junk store for a quarter, I never seem to play it! I have studied some facts in the newest case against him and it's nothing more than a big money grab, for the 2 kids who said Mickael acted sexually, THOUSANDS of other children who spent time with him have stated NOTHING ontoward happened !! He has NEVER been convicted of anything inapropriate, and as time will tell he won't be this time either, his accuser's have changed their story TOO MANY TIME'S, so I guess what you are saying is, if a rich guy enjoys spending time with children, he is necessarily a sex predator? (being a pedophile is not agaisnt the law by the way since this merely means ones own preference) The worlds jails would never hold the hundred's of millions of pedophiles if this in and of itself were a crime !!

Posted by: M.J. Supporter at November 15, 2004 03:24 PM

M.J.Supporter's comments bother me a bit where he/she said

being a pedophile is not against the law by the way since this merely means ones own preference
as I suspect there are many who would misinterpret and disagree with that point. I, myself, initially thought he/she was way off base with that remark, as most in the civilized world believe it is against the law to have sex with children. Such people would be right to hold that belief. Pedophilia is the state of having a prurient sexual interest in children, as homosexuality is the state of having a prurient sexual interest in the members of one's own sex, necrophilia is the state of having a prurient sexual interest in corpses, bestiality is the state of having a prurient sexual interest in animals, and on and on. The mere possession of such prurient sexual interest, itself, is not criminally chargeable. As M.J.Supporter stated, it truly is only a sexual preference and does not connote actual actions which are unlawful. There are different degrees of actions, however, which one can take in seeking one's pedophilic sexual proclivities that are unlawful. In fact, nearly anything sexual dealing with children, from the mere looking at pictures of naked children to the improper touching of children is illegal. Of course, what qualifies as a child can sometimes change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Posted by: Mr. Mouse at November 15, 2004 07:25 PM