don't take your pictures at walmart!

[August West]

He's talking about somebody who apparently made a huge tactical error in this age of paranoia, who should have known better.

I agree, those officers and their superiors were buffoons of the highest order

[RAMd®d]

The parents have done nothing wrong but "they should have known better". Sure, blame the victims.

That's not necessarily a matter of blame. It *is* a matter of discretion. I assume the parents had no ill intent and therefore certainly do not *deserve* this fallout.

But this is not the first, second, or even third time such an incident has made national news. I believe the parents *should have known* the potential consequences and the end results, however undeserved they are.


Its wrong to get pics of nude children developed because someone might get a hold of them that gets off on them.

Wrong, no. Smart, no. Poor judgement, yes. Not because somebody "creepy" might get a hold of them, though I certainly wouldn't want that of *my* children's photos. But not smart because of the potential repercussions.


Child porn is wrong because children are harmed.

So, if a child is photographed nude but not "harmed", the result cannot be child porn? So for instance, if a parent photographs their nude child and sells the pictures to anybody who fancies them, that is not child porn?

I don't believe at this point that the parents were acting criminally, but how you define child porn and harm seems pretty flawed to me.

ug, there are some critical logical points regarding what constitutes child porn and these are forever confused and innocent people get grievously injured to feed the fearful mob.

Agreed.


The motivation of the Walmart employees has not been established by anybody outside of the MRF, based on the link. I don't think the fallout was based on trying to protect innocent photos from potentially falling into evil hands, as you imply.

I believe the employees and investigators felt that the photos were in fact child porn and not potential fodder for deviants. So however incorrect they were, they appear to me to be acting within their purview rather than trying to keep creepy people away from their desires. That is to say I think they believed the parents to be the creepy people.

Now I don't deny that I could be incorrect.

And since the judge made his decision and the parents are pursuing litigation, the question remains-- what will those who are morally outraged by the parents' (and children's) treatment do about those who were morally outraged by the photos? Forget about them until the next opportunity arises to badmouth "sexually repressed", "low-level bureaucratic" people who "need to feel important" people?

We *may* not have a duty to keep people away from their creepy desires (if they only remain desires) but I think we have a duty to protect people from abuse, be it from other people, a system, a bureaucracy, or even themselves, on occasion.

But sitting around a cracker barrel calling perceived incompetents various names doesn't do a whole lot to help the victims.

At least not any victims.

[trisho.]

I caught this story earlier this week and my friends and I shook our heads at it for a good hour or so. To us, it feels like the Wal-Mart employee is like every other Joe Schlub in this country and thinks s/he's a citizen detective on CSI or something. Common sense & context says those were harmless images. They were family vacation pictures which means there were other photographs of the parents & the kids where they were clothed...ergo, anyone with a bird brain could figure out it was their father and things were okay.

I also have to wonder if anybody below the age of 25 never had photos taken of them in a bathtub or something. What in the world would make that so effin' shocking? Has that tradition been lost or are these folks just that stupid? Not everybody is a child molester, and even still, you can't stop all of them. Really.

And what mattkime meant by no kids being harmed, I read it as the intent was not to harm the kids. If some sleazy ass employee decides to steal their photos and sells them without the parents' knowledge, what are you going to do? The issue is, so far, the kids were not harmed and there was no intent to harm them and anybody with a clue could figure that out.

I personally feel the parents should also sue the individual employee along with current suit against Wal-Mart, the police and CPS. If that one joker didn't think he was a citizen detective, then this would have never happened. I mean, the mother lost her teaching job over this whole debacle. Come on now. I would also sue the school board to get her job back as well. Someone on that board could have used common sense as well. If reporting photos is in the company policy, then again, the person should have used common sense and not reported it. Plenty of times company polices go against logic and humanity. There were 8 photos out of 140 or so. What if that employee just happened to not turn his head when they shot out? Then none of this would have happened.

[$tevie]

It is super messed up that we combine "nudity" and "sexuality" so instantly. The two can be completely exclusive of each other. The Puritans still rule in some ways.