American sex-paranoid Conservatism going way too far now

_

While I'm certainly anti sex-paranoid conservatism, I can't say the Wal-Mart employees did anything wrong in this case. They didn't accuse the parents of child abuse... they just turned the information they had over to the authorities who are qualified to make these judgement calls. Whether or not those authorities went too far is perhaps a different story.

But let's think of this from the other side. What if your children WERE being sexually abused? (The Wal-Mart employees probably didn't even know for sure that it was the parents who took the pictures.) Wouldn't you want someone who saw a red flag to err on the side of caution and let someone know? If you saw something that you thought indicated even possible child abuse, would you blow it off and turn a blind eye? For all we know, maybe the Wal-Mart employee was a victim of child sexual abuse him/herself and that's why s/he was hypervigilant. Poor judgement or not, this employee was just trying to do what was best for the children, which is something I think too many people are afraid to do these days because they don't want to stick their noses in anyone else's business.

Random_Wookie

if anyone is to blame it would be the police and government departments that actually took the children away, without possibly doing following procedure. I know my parrents have naked photos of me when i was a kid, but i dont care. But the question I will ask again, why do we feel the need to take naked photos of children? Also what counts as child pornography?

gimmesometruth27

aerial wrote:

Jasunmark wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

america is fast becoming an extremist nation ... the sooner the non-extremists realize this - the best chance you have of stopping it ...

Oh, I don't think that at all.

The extremists are sure making a lot of noise... yelling at "town hall meetings" or throwing big publicity stunts like marches on washington and cross burnings, but in the end, it's just the freaky fringe... that's not indicative of the country as a whole.

The administration can lie, but the little guys better not raise their voice or question Washington. The march was not a publicity stunt...we knew the media would not be there because the so called main stream media is not reporting all the news......they sure don't want to show Americans the man they helped get in the White house has opposition....were the hell did you get cross burnings from? The march was for Washington only, but it is ashamed that history was not covered to its fullest. The Largest March on Washington in History.
I believe in the Bible and God...but I agree, seems this was taken to far....we have many embarrassing pictures of my son when he was small in the buff....

if you are calling that the largest march on washington in history i would like to direct you to the civil rights marches and viet nam war protests of the 60s. the mainstream media may not be reporting it, but when you have any extremists doing anything why would you televise it and embolden them? these people are the wacky fringe that really do not have an idea what they are protesting against. there were so many different issues that people were protesting about it makes this entire movement look like fools. they are just angry that their country has shifted away from their values and they can't do a thing about it.

that said, these parents should have purchased a photo quality printer rather than take it to a place like walmart to have those pics developed.

polaris_x

scb wrote:

While I'm certainly anti sex-paranoid conservatism, I can't say the Wal-Mart employees did anything wrong in this case. They didn't accuse the parents of child abuse... they just turned the information they had over to the authorities who are qualified to make these judgement calls. Whether or not those authorities went too far is perhaps a different story.

But let's think of this from the other side. What if your children WERE being sexually abused? (The Wal-Mart employees probably didn't even know for sure that it was the parents who took the pictures.) Wouldn't you want someone who saw a red flag to err on the side of caution and let someone know? If you saw something that you thought indicated even possible child abuse, would you blow it off and turn a blind eye? For all we know, maybe the Wal-Mart employee was a victim of child sexual abuse him/herself and that's why s/he was hypervigilant. Poor judgement or not, this employee was just trying to do what was best for the children, which is something I think too many people are afraid to do these days because they don't want to stick their noses in anyone else's business.

i wholeheartedly disagree ... not seeing your kids for DAYS!? ... losing custody for a month!?? ... this could end up being traumatic for the kids ... what picture showed any kind of evidence that these kids were abused?

kids walk around naked in beaches and pools all over the place ... there was nothing sexual about the pictures unless you are a pedophile ... when you bring in a camera full of vacation photos - it should be pretty obvious this isn't some pervert taking pictures of kids - use some perspective and common sense ...

kenny olav

Jasunmark wrote:

HM. I make porn so I'm sure not a prude at all.

But I'll tell you this.. taking pictures of a naked 5 year-old is just creepy beyond words.

I'd worry what other things they're shrugging off too, to be honest...

I guess my family is the Munsters then. Or the Manson family. Whatever you think is appropriate... despite the fact that we're all happy, successful people and none of us have criminal records. But I guess we're wrong... we should be locked up.

I hope the law suit is successful so this doesn't ever happen again.

kenny olav

cincybearcat wrote:

Kenny Olav wrote:

http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/2151478.html

The liberal counties have the lowest #, and the conservative counties have the highest #! SAYS IT ALL!!!

That's because in the liberal counties they kill their babies before they are born.

You won't find a vegetarian at a brazillian steak house would you?

i was expecting an argument like "liberals don't report/prosecute enough sex offenders" which might be a valid argument, although hard to prove...

but okay... if you got nothing else, go after us for abortions :roll:

Drowned Out

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

that said, these parents should have purchased a photo quality printer rather than take it to a place like walmart to have those pics developed.

I don't agree with what this employee did, but I can agree with this...just cause the photographer saw nothing sexual about the pics, doesn't mean the photo lab employee won't. Who knows where they could end up...
I know a woman that has bath pics of her 3 yr old on facebook. The account is private, but I still think it's extremely poor judgment to allow any pics like that to get into anyone outside of your immediate family or close friends' hands...in fact, I don't really see the point of taking them in the first place either.
I have pics of my kids in the bath as babies....when bathing was a bit of a big deal....but my girl could shower alone at 5, so I think taking pics of her in there would be a violation of her privacy...

cincybearcat

Kenny Olav wrote:

i was expecting an argument like "liberals don't report/prosecute enough sex offenders" which might be a valid argument, although hard to prove...

but okay... if you got nothing else, go after us for abortions :roll:

Lighten up champ.

I was having fun with the stupid thread title.

This is not about sex-paranoid conservatism...it's child endangerment and how far out of wack that has gotten. I don't see what the walmart employees did as anything wrong, the authorities on the other hand should be more deliberate. How ever, it's a difficult situation, because if child abuse was occuring and authorities are too slow to act, they get thrown in the mud lightning fast.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

Lighten up champ.

I was having fun with the stupid thread title.

This is not about sex-paranoid conservatism...it's child endangerment and how far out of wack that has gotten. I don't see what the walmart employees did as anything wrong, the authorities on the other hand should be more deliberate. How ever, it's a difficult situation, because if child abuse was occuring and authorities are too slow to act, they get thrown in the mud lightning fast.

what evidence was there of abuse? ... there was none ... i think this is about sex-paranoid conservatism ... ultimately it comes down to this - if we took this across the country ... how many places would raise a red flag and how many wouldn't ...

soulsinging

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Lighten up champ.

I was having fun with the stupid thread title.

This is not about sex-paranoid conservatism...it's child endangerment and how far out of wack that has gotten. I don't see what the walmart employees did as anything wrong, the authorities on the other hand should be more deliberate. How ever, it's a difficult situation, because if child abuse was occuring and authorities are too slow to act, they get thrown in the mud lightning fast.

what evidence was there of abuse? ... there was none ... i think this is about sex-paranoid conservatism ... ultimately it comes down to this - if we took this across the country ... how many places would raise a red flag and how many wouldn't ...

Who knows? Have YOU seen the pictures? Do YOU know these were totally innocent and there was no evidence of abuse?

It's ridiculous what this family had go through, but this is not a common occurrence. Normally I'm strongly opposed to overbroad prosecution, but I'd rather we round up too many child predators and occasionally have to release somebody and pay them a huge legal settlement than round up too few and have children being abused and many people being aware of it but too afraid or disinterested to do anything about it.

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Lighten up champ.

I was having fun with the stupid thread title.

This is not about sex-paranoid conservatism...it's child endangerment and how far out of wack that has gotten. I don't see what the walmart employees did as anything wrong, the authorities on the other hand should be more deliberate. How ever, it's a difficult situation, because if child abuse was occuring and authorities are too slow to act, they get thrown in the mud lightning fast.

what evidence was there of abuse? ... there was none ... i think this is about sex-paranoid conservatism ... ultimately it comes down to this - if we took this across the country ... how many places would raise a red flag and how many wouldn't ...

I didn't say there was any abuse.

_

polaris_x wrote:

scb wrote:

While I'm certainly anti sex-paranoid conservatism, I can't say the Wal-Mart employees did anything wrong in this case. They didn't accuse the parents of child abuse... they just turned the information they had over to the authorities who are qualified to make these judgement calls. Whether or not those authorities went too far is perhaps a different story.

But let's think of this from the other side. What if your children WERE being sexually abused? (The Wal-Mart employees probably didn't even know for sure that it was the parents who took the pictures.) Wouldn't you want someone who saw a red flag to err on the side of caution and let someone know? If you saw something that you thought indicated even possible child abuse, would you blow it off and turn a blind eye? For all we know, maybe the Wal-Mart employee was a victim of child sexual abuse him/herself and that's why s/he was hypervigilant. Poor judgement or not, this employee was just trying to do what was best for the children, which is something I think too many people are afraid to do these days because they don't want to stick their noses in anyone else's business.

i wholeheartedly disagree ... not seeing your kids for DAYS!? ... losing custody for a month!?? ... this could end up being traumatic for the kids ... what picture showed any kind of evidence that these kids were abused?

kids walk around naked in beaches and pools all over the place ... there was nothing sexual about the pictures unless you are a pedophile ... when you bring in a camera full of vacation photos - it should be pretty obvious this isn't some pervert taking pictures of kids - use some perspective and common sense ...

Please note the part I bolded above. I never said the kids should have been taken away or even that the pictures were anything but innocent. I only said the Wal-Mart employee, who is not qualified to assess the situation, was thinking of the kids when s/he decided to provide the information for the authorities to assess the situation.

Sometimes child abuse is perpetuated when people see something that may be odd and think they are qualified to assess the situation. This person was right to recognize that there are people more qualified whose job it is to assess whether or not anything is wrong.

Once again, poor judgement or not, I think it's best to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting kids, and I can't fault this Wal-Mart employee for doing that.

_

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Lighten up champ.

I was having fun with the stupid thread title.

This is not about sex-paranoid conservatism...it's child endangerment and how far out of wack that has gotten. I don't see what the walmart employees did as anything wrong, the authorities on the other hand should be more deliberate. How ever, it's a difficult situation, because if child abuse was occuring and authorities are too slow to act, they get thrown in the mud lightning fast.

what evidence was there of abuse? ... there was none ... i think this is about sex-paranoid conservatism ... ultimately it comes down to this - if we took this across the country ... how many places would raise a red flag and how many wouldn't ...

The Wal-Mart employee didn't need evidence, only suspicion. S/he was obligated to report anything that seemed suspicious. It's up to the authorities to identify evidence, and I don't think anyone is defending them.

cincybearcat

scb wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Lighten up champ.

I was having fun with the stupid thread title.

This is not about sex-paranoid conservatism...it's child endangerment and how far out of wack that has gotten. I don't see what the walmart employees did as anything wrong, the authorities on the other hand should be more deliberate. How ever, it's a difficult situation, because if child abuse was occuring and authorities are too slow to act, they get thrown in the mud lightning fast.

what evidence was there of abuse? ... there was none ... i think this is about sex-paranoid conservatism ... ultimately it comes down to this - if we took this across the country ... how many places would raise a red flag and how many wouldn't ...

The Wal-Mart employee didn't need evidence, only suspicion. S/he was obligated to report anything that seemed suspicious. It's up to the authorities to identify evidence, and I don't think anyone is defending them.

Exactly.

Random_Wookie

i would hope that it does not stop the wallmart employee from doing the same again if they see something suspicous. Perhaps to avoid this again we need a better definition of pornography in generall.

kenny olav

Random_Wookie wrote:

i would hope that it does not stop the wallmart employee from doing the same again if they see something suspicous. Perhaps to avoid this again we need a better definition of pornography in generall.

I would highly highly doubt it, and besides, what pedophile pornographer is bringing his pictures into Walmart to have them developed??? I'm sorry, but I think all we should need to avoid this again is common sense.


I have to wonder... would Target have done this?

Random_Wookie

Kenny Olav wrote:

Random_Wookie wrote:

i would hope that it does not stop the wallmart employee from doing the same again if they see something suspicous. Perhaps to avoid this again we need a better definition of pornography in generall.

I would highly highly doubt it, and besides, what pedophile pornographer is bringing his pictures into Walmart to have them developed???

i would have to agree, but there are some real stupid people out there.

_

polaris_x wrote:

there was nothing sexual about the pictures unless you are a pedophile ... when you bring in a camera full of vacation photos - it should be pretty obvious this isn't some pervert taking pictures of kids - use some perspective and common sense ...

If you're suggesting that commen sense dictates that because the pictures were taken by the childrens' parent(s) (which we don't even know whether the employee knew), I just have to point out that, according to the National Center For Victims of Crime, 43% of the children who are abused are abused by family members.. most of which is father-daughter abuse.

polaris_x

soulsinging wrote:

Who knows? Have YOU seen the pictures? Do YOU know these were totally innocent and there was no evidence of abuse?

It's ridiculous what this family had go through, but this is not a common occurrence. Normally I'm strongly opposed to overbroad prosecution, but I'd rather we round up too many child predators and occasionally have to release somebody and pay them a huge legal settlement than round up too few and have children being abused and many people being aware of it but too afraid or disinterested to do anything about it.

of course i haven't seen them but neither has anyone ... i'm only going by the description of the photos ... bathtime pictures?

pictures that were amongst a bunch of vacation photos ... i really don't understand how anyone can say the wal mart employee was justified in handling these pictuers over ... if we are to believe that pictures of kids taking a bath warrants submissions to the fbi ... how many parents would be under suspicion??

i could be a neighbour and suspect the father is abusing his daughter because he lets her run around the house naked? ... do i have a right to call in the authorities? ...

polaris_x

scb wrote:

If you're suggesting that commen sense dictates that because the pictures were taken by the childrens' parent(s) (which we don't even know whether the employee knew), I just have to point out that, according to the National Center For Victims of Crime, 43% of the children who are abused are abused by family members.. most of which is father-daughter abuse.

if a stick is brought in full of family pictures - it should be assumed that the they were taken by the family ...

this is irrelevant because what we are talking about here is whether a wal mart employee has the right to report parents and (in this particular case) disrupt an entire family based simply on innocent pictures ... i could look at any picture of kids and believe there is a hint of suspicion ...