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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rod Laver Arena - Feb 18, 2003
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
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 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.
Rod Laver Arena - Feb 18, 2003
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
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.
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? ...
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 ...
please raise your hand if there is not one picture of you in the family album, showing you partially naked at some stage in your toddler life.
i don't have kids, but if i ever do, and that happens to me, i won't be happy.
No kidding. And if your babysitter was taking pictures of your kids naked and having them developed at Walmart you'd probably not be too happy either.
I think the authorities jumping the gun and actually taking kids away (though I haven't seen the pictures) is the real issue here. They tend to er on the side of kids' safety though...in their minds anyhow.
Without seeing the pictures, there is no way to know what was the appropriate level of response.
please raise your hand if there is not one picture of you in the family album, showing you partially naked at some stage in your toddler life.
i don't have kids, but if i ever do, and that happens to me, i won't be happy.
No kidding. And if your babysitter was taking pictures of your kids naked and having them developed at Walmart you'd probably not be too happy either.
I think the authorities jumping the gun and actually taking kids away (though I haven't seen the pictures) is the real issue here. They tend to er on the side of kids' safety though...in their minds anyhow.
Without seeing the pictures, there is no way to know what was the appropriate level of response.
thank you captain obvious.
my comments are based on the fact that we already know it's the parents who took the pictures.
so anyway, are you raising your hand or what?
please raise your hand if there is not one picture of you in the family album, showing you partially naked at some stage in your toddler life.
i don't have kids, but if i ever do, and that happens to me, i won't be happy.
No kidding. And if your babysitter was taking pictures of your kids naked and having them developed at Walmart you'd probably not be too happy either.
I think the authorities jumping the gun and actually taking kids away (though I haven't seen the pictures) is the real issue here. They tend to er on the side of kids' safety though...in their minds anyhow.
Without seeing the pictures, there is no way to know what was the appropriate level of response.
thank you captain obvious.
my comments are based on the fact that we already know it's the parents who took the pictures.
so anyway, are you raising your hand or what?
but would the employee at walmart have know that at the time? hindsight is a wonderful thing, i think depending on the pictures (not having seen them) i would have passed them on. the problem here is with the response by the authorites taking the kids away, I assume they did this without investigating first?
Rod Laver Arena - Feb 18, 2003
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
No kidding. And if your babysitter was taking pictures of your kids naked and having them developed at Walmart you'd probably not be too happy either.
I think the authorities jumping the gun and actually taking kids away (though I haven't seen the pictures) is the real issue here. They tend to er on the side of kids' safety though...in their minds anyhow.
Without seeing the pictures, there is no way to know what was the appropriate level of response.
thank you captain obvious.
my comments are based on the fact that we already know it's the parents who took the pictures.
so anyway, are you raising your hand or what?
but would the employee at walmart have know that at the time? hindsight is a wonderful thing, i think depending on the pictures (not having seen them) i would have passed them on. the problem here is with the response by the authorites taking the kids away, I assume they did this without investigating first?
if i had seen pictures of someone behaving inappropriately with children, i absolutely would have taken it further. partially naked pictures of a child at bath time does not = innapropriate behaviour is automatically happening.
Without seeing the pictures in question it's impossible to say what should have been done.
my comments are based on the fact that we already know it's the parents who took the pictures.
so anyway, are you raising your hand or what?
but would the employee at walmart have know that at the time? hindsight is a wonderful thing, i think depending on the pictures (not having seen them) i would have passed them on. the problem here is with the response by the authorites taking the kids away, I assume they did this without investigating first?
if i had seen pictures of someone behaving inappropriately with children, i absolutely would have taken it further. partially naked pictures of a child at bath time does not = innapropriate behaviour is automatically happening.
Without seeing the pictures in question it's impossible to say what should have been done.
holy fuck ive got totally naked pics of my kids...
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
but would the employee at walmart have know that at the time? hindsight is a wonderful thing, i think depending on the pictures (not having seen them) i would have passed them on. the problem here is with the response by the authorites taking the kids away, I assume they did this without investigating first?
if i had seen pictures of someone behaving inappropriately with children, i absolutely would have taken it further. partially naked pictures of a child at bath time does not = innapropriate behaviour is automatically happening.
Without seeing the pictures in question it's impossible to say what should have been done.
holy fuck ive got totally naked pics of my kids...
So have my parents of me. Tell me one kid that grew up in Aus, that doesn't have at least one picture of them bare arsed under the sprinkler, or sitting on the potty. such proud parents they were.
What the hell were they thinking. Off with their heads!
please raise your hand if there is not one picture of you in the family album, showing you partially naked at some stage in your toddler life.
i don't have kids, but if i ever do, and that happens to me, i won't be happy.
No kidding. And if your babysitter was taking pictures of your kids naked and having them developed at Walmart you'd probably not be too happy either.
I think the authorities jumping the gun and actually taking kids away (though I haven't seen the pictures) is the real issue here. They tend to er on the side of kids' safety though...in their minds anyhow.
Without seeing the pictures, there is no way to know what was the appropriate level of response.
thank you captain obvious.
my comments are based on the fact that we already know it's the parents who took the pictures.
so anyway, are you raising your hand or what?
Wait ... do I raise my hand if the family album does have pictures of me as a toddler in the bath tub or if it does not?
Cause I was a second child and the only picture I can ever remember seeing of myself that young I am at Hershey's Chocolate World fully dressed.
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.
in what weird warped world are bathtime photos suspicious?? no fucking world i live in or even care to live in i can tell you that.
i have pics of my children naked on the beach, naked in the bath with their hair extended straight up in 'shampoo horns'. hell ive even got a photo of my 2 youngest children naked in the backyard trying to climb into the same bucket during summer water play. why?? cause the situations were funny.
it would never enter my mind that such innocent situations would/could be viewed as suspicious. and do not think for even a nanosecond that im some naive person whose life has never been touched by child abuse. it sickens me that there are predators out there... but it equally sickens me that such innocent situations can take on the connotation of something more sinister.
the authorities were out of line separating this family for any amount of time.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
in what weird warped world are bathtime photos suspicious?? no fucking world i live in or even care to live in i can tell you that.
i have pics of my children naked on the beach, naked in the bath with their hair extended straight up in 'shampoo horns'. hell ive even got a photo of my 2 youngest children naked in the backyard trying to climb into the same bucket during summer water play. why?? cause the situations were funny.
it would never enter my mind that such innocent situations would/could be viewed as suspicious. and do not think for even a nanosecond that im some naive person whose life has never been touched by child abuse. it sickens me that there are predators out there... but it equally sickens me that such innocent situations can take on the connotation of something more sinister.
the authorities were out of line separating this family for any amount of time.
1. We haven't seen the pictures and have only heard one side of the story.
2. It doesn't matter whether they would be considered suspicious to anyone else; it only matters that they were suspicious to the employee.
3. Regardless of why a person may find something suspicious that others may not, anyone who has a bad feeling that someone MAY POSSIBLY be abusing a child has an obligation to report it.
4. They report it, not because they themselves are judging that something is wrong, but because they think someone else should decided whether or not something is wrong.
5. It's up to the authorities to determine whether or not there's something wrong or it's all innocent.
Again, no one had defended the authories' actions here. But step #5 is the only one of which we should be critical.
Which is worse: for a report to be made when there's nothing wrong (note that we're only talking about the REPORT to the authorities, not the response of the authorities) or for something to be wrong and no one to report it?
3. Regardless of why a person may find something suspicious that others may not, anyone who has a bad feeling that someone MAY POSSIBLY be abusing a child has an obligation to report it.
Which is worse: for a report to be made when there's nothing wrong (note that we're only talking about the REPORT to the authorities, not the response of the authorities) or for something to be wrong and no one to report it?
so ... by this logic - anyone can report anyone to the authorities ... just based on a "bad feeling" ...
it seems we agree on the response by the authorities - where your precautionary principle falters is that if everyone who had a bad feeling reported it - authorities would be inundated with cases that they might not actually get to the ones that are more critical ... it's sort of like calling 911 for a cold ...
there has to be some criteria - bathtime pictures amongst a bunch of vacation photos should not trigger that response unless you are like the OP said some sex-paranoid conservative who thinks nudity is a bad thing ... nothing in the article points to these pictures being anything than the innocent kind we all have seen or have ...
in what weird warped world are bathtime photos suspicious?? no fucking world i live in or even care to live in i can tell you that.
i have pics of my children naked on the beach, naked in the bath with their hair extended straight up in 'shampoo horns'. hell ive even got a photo of my 2 youngest children naked in the backyard trying to climb into the same bucket during summer water play. why?? cause the situations were funny.
it would never enter my mind that such innocent situations would/could be viewed as suspicious. and do not think for even a nanosecond that im some naive person whose life has never been touched by child abuse. it sickens me that there are predators out there... but it equally sickens me that such innocent situations can take on the connotation of something more sinister.
the authorities were out of line separating this family for any amount of time.
Maybe that's true, but I think the fact that it was reported by the employee had nothing to do with prudish moral judgments and invasion of privacy and everything to do with increased awarenss of how frighteningly prevalent child abuse is... and that awareness is a good thing. The authorities should have investigated, but splitting up the family for a month while they did so was a bad decision. This argument should not be about moral norms or value judgments, it's about the inadequacy of the justice system's response to the situation before it. I don't think this was some employee seeing the photos and going "naked people are wrong, I'm going to report this." It was an employee paid minimum wage feeling obligated to say something to someone in order to cover their ass. Becuase if there had been abuse and they hadn't reported it... they'd be skewered 100 times worse than this.
bathtime pictures amongst a bunch of vacation photos should not trigger that response unless you are like the OP said some sex-paranoid conservative who thinks nudity is a bad thing ... nothing in the article points to these pictures being anything than the innocent kind we all have seen or have ...
That's an absurd leap of logic there. You're not an American, you don't understand the 'cover your ass' approach to all potential legal problems. This had nothing to do with prudish conservatism and everything to do with 'To Catch a Predator' having us all seeing bogeymen in our closet and knowing we'll get sued for millions if we see something and let it go by.
And for the record, I know that there are no naked pictures of me as a kid out there. Certainly not when I was 5 years old. At that age, I was NOT running around town naked and posing for cameras in the buff. And speaking as guy that worked with kids that age, that's not age appropriate and I'd have reported it if some kid had told me about naked playtime with dad at that age. And I'm far from prudish.
That's an absurd leap of logic there. You're not an American, you don't understand the 'cover your ass' approach to all potential legal problems. This had nothing to do with prudish conservatism and everything to do with 'To Catch a Predator' having us all seeing bogeymen in our closet and knowing we'll get sued for millions if we see something and let it go by.
And for the record, I know that there are no naked pictures of me as a kid out there. Certainly not when I was 5 years old. At that age, I was NOT running around town naked and posing for cameras in the buff. And speaking as guy that worked with kids that age, that's not age appropriate and I'd have reported it if some kid had told me about naked playtime with dad at that age. And I'm far from prudish.
so ... you're saying this is all about making sure the walmart didn't get sued!?? ... i would say that's a bigger leap than the one i'm taking ...
maybe you are proving my point in your second point because here at the beaches and public playgrounds - kids run around naked all the time ...
let me get this straight - are you saying this family's kids should be taking baths by themselves at their age!?
so ... you're saying this is all about making sure the walmart didn't get sued!?? ... i would say that's a bigger leap than the one i'm taking ...
maybe you are proving my point in your second point because here at the beaches and public playgrounds - kids run around naked all the time ...
let me get this straight - are you saying this family's kids should be taking baths by themselves at their age!?
Clearly, you're not a US citizen. You wouldnt believe the shit we have to do in order not to get sued. They got sued anyway though it seems... can't win you see?
Where is here? That does raise an interesting set of questions I think. The US stats are something like 1 out of 4 girls will be sexually harassed or abused before adulthood. Kinda frightening. I wonder if we just have more problems to worry about than wherever you live... I mean, we do also lead the world in homocides, shootings, violent crime, and any other number of things. But I can assure you if I ever have children they will not be running around public parks buck naked at 5 years old. Too many creepy perverts out there.
I don't remember being 5 very well. i suppose now that i think of it, it may be too young to handle bathing alone. but i dont get why parents would want to take pictures of it. that's weird to me. but then, becoming a parent makes people act very weird. so maybe it's an issue of the employee being single and thinking anyone snapping photos of their kid in the bath is a weirdo, like i do.
Clearly, you're not a US citizen. You wouldnt believe the shit we have to do in order not to get sued. They got sued anyway though it seems... can't win you see?
Where is here? That does raise an interesting set of questions I think. The US stats are something like 1 out of 4 girls will be sexually harassed or abused before adulthood. Kinda frightening. I wonder if we just have more problems to worry about than wherever you live... I mean, we do also lead the world in homocides, shootings, violent crime, and any other number of things. But I can assure you if I ever have children they will not be running around public parks buck naked at 5 years old. Too many creepy perverts out there.
I don't remember being 5 very well. i suppose now that i think of it, it may be too young to handle bathing alone. but i dont get why parents would want to take pictures of it. that's weird to me. but then, becoming a parent makes people act very weird. so maybe it's an issue of the employee being single and thinking anyone snapping photos of their kid in the bath is a weirdo, like i do.
i'm in toronto ... i know all about crazy lawsuits down there ... i still find it difficult to believe that this wal-mart's employee's motivation was not to get sued ...
maybe it's this conservatism that breeds the perverts ... is it strange that so many child abuse cases are reported within the church and these so called priests?
often parents make bathtime "fun" otherwise kids won't want to take baths ... and in this day and age where digital cameras makes taking pictures so easy and more common ... i don't find it shocking at all that they want to capture a moment when the kids are having a fun time ...
i'm in toronto ... i know all about crazy lawsuits down there ... i still find it difficult to believe that this wal-mart's employee's motivation was not to get sued ...
maybe it's this conservatism that breeds the perverts ... is it strange that so many child abuse cases are reported within the church and these so called priests?
often parents make bathtime "fun" otherwise kids won't want to take baths ... and in this day and age where digital cameras makes taking pictures so easy and more common ... i don't find it shocking at all that they want to capture a moment when the kids are having a fun time ...
it's plenty strange, and there may be some merit to conservatism breeding perverts. but we lead the world in a lot of criminal activity and i find it hard to believe all of those are tied to conservative values, so i don't see any reason to single out sex crimes as being caused by conservatism. i think poverty and abuse and marginalization play a much larger role than the church you had to go to as a kid.
as to bathtime, i suppose there's some sense there. but i dunno... im having fun when i have sex with my gf, yet i doubt she'd be cool with me snapping a bunch of photos and taking them to walmart for the developing guy to peek at. which is why i say parents do weird things things they'd never consider appropriate to do elsewhere become ok when it comes to their kid.
I mean, if we're all so prudish about nudity, why don't you send me some naked pictures of you right now? Or are you not comfortable with that?
You're a good friend, Nirvana. And for the record, i never found this offensive, or considered reporting you to the authorities.
EEEEEEEEEEK....it's a penis :shock: :shock: :roll:
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Comments
I didn't say there was any abuse.
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.
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.
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
Powered by Pearl Jam
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?
i would have to agree, but there are some real stupid people out there.
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
Powered by Pearl Jam
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.
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? ...
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 ...
i don't have kids, but if i ever do, and that happens to me, i won't be happy.
No kidding. And if your babysitter was taking pictures of your kids naked and having them developed at Walmart you'd probably not be too happy either.
I think the authorities jumping the gun and actually taking kids away (though I haven't seen the pictures) is the real issue here. They tend to er on the side of kids' safety though...in their minds anyhow.
Without seeing the pictures, there is no way to know what was the appropriate level of response.
my comments are based on the fact that we already know it's the parents who took the pictures.
so anyway, are you raising your hand or what?
but would the employee at walmart have know that at the time? hindsight is a wonderful thing, i think depending on the pictures (not having seen them) i would have passed them on. the problem here is with the response by the authorites taking the kids away, I assume they did this without investigating first?
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
Powered by Pearl Jam
Without seeing the pictures in question it's impossible to say what should have been done.
holy fuck ive got totally naked pics of my kids...
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What the hell were they thinking. Off with their heads!
Wait ... do I raise my hand if the family album does have pictures of me as a toddler in the bath tub or if it does not?
Cause I was a second child and the only picture I can ever remember seeing of myself that young I am at Hershey's Chocolate World fully dressed.
in what weird warped world are bathtime photos suspicious?? no fucking world i live in or even care to live in i can tell you that.
i have pics of my children naked on the beach, naked in the bath with their hair extended straight up in 'shampoo horns'. hell ive even got a photo of my 2 youngest children naked in the backyard trying to climb into the same bucket during summer water play. why?? cause the situations were funny.
it would never enter my mind that such innocent situations would/could be viewed as suspicious. and do not think for even a nanosecond that im some naive person whose life has never been touched by child abuse. it sickens me that there are predators out there... but it equally sickens me that such innocent situations can take on the connotation of something more sinister.
the authorities were out of line separating this family for any amount of time.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
1. We haven't seen the pictures and have only heard one side of the story.
2. It doesn't matter whether they would be considered suspicious to anyone else; it only matters that they were suspicious to the employee.
3. Regardless of why a person may find something suspicious that others may not, anyone who has a bad feeling that someone MAY POSSIBLY be abusing a child has an obligation to report it.
4. They report it, not because they themselves are judging that something is wrong, but because they think someone else should decided whether or not something is wrong.
5. It's up to the authorities to determine whether or not there's something wrong or it's all innocent.
Again, no one had defended the authories' actions here. But step #5 is the only one of which we should be critical.
Which is worse: for a report to be made when there's nothing wrong (note that we're only talking about the REPORT to the authorities, not the response of the authorities) or for something to be wrong and no one to report it?
so ... by this logic - anyone can report anyone to the authorities ... just based on a "bad feeling" ...
it seems we agree on the response by the authorities - where your precautionary principle falters is that if everyone who had a bad feeling reported it - authorities would be inundated with cases that they might not actually get to the ones that are more critical ... it's sort of like calling 911 for a cold ...
there has to be some criteria - bathtime pictures amongst a bunch of vacation photos should not trigger that response unless you are like the OP said some sex-paranoid conservative who thinks nudity is a bad thing ... nothing in the article points to these pictures being anything than the innocent kind we all have seen or have ...
Maybe that's true, but I think the fact that it was reported by the employee had nothing to do with prudish moral judgments and invasion of privacy and everything to do with increased awarenss of how frighteningly prevalent child abuse is... and that awareness is a good thing. The authorities should have investigated, but splitting up the family for a month while they did so was a bad decision. This argument should not be about moral norms or value judgments, it's about the inadequacy of the justice system's response to the situation before it. I don't think this was some employee seeing the photos and going "naked people are wrong, I'm going to report this." It was an employee paid minimum wage feeling obligated to say something to someone in order to cover their ass. Becuase if there had been abuse and they hadn't reported it... they'd be skewered 100 times worse than this.
That's an absurd leap of logic there. You're not an American, you don't understand the 'cover your ass' approach to all potential legal problems. This had nothing to do with prudish conservatism and everything to do with 'To Catch a Predator' having us all seeing bogeymen in our closet and knowing we'll get sued for millions if we see something and let it go by.
And for the record, I know that there are no naked pictures of me as a kid out there. Certainly not when I was 5 years old. At that age, I was NOT running around town naked and posing for cameras in the buff. And speaking as guy that worked with kids that age, that's not age appropriate and I'd have reported it if some kid had told me about naked playtime with dad at that age. And I'm far from prudish.
so ... you're saying this is all about making sure the walmart didn't get sued!?? ... i would say that's a bigger leap than the one i'm taking ...
maybe you are proving my point in your second point because here at the beaches and public playgrounds - kids run around naked all the time ...
let me get this straight - are you saying this family's kids should be taking baths by themselves at their age!?
Clearly, you're not a US citizen. You wouldnt believe the shit we have to do in order not to get sued. They got sued anyway though it seems... can't win you see?
Where is here? That does raise an interesting set of questions I think. The US stats are something like 1 out of 4 girls will be sexually harassed or abused before adulthood. Kinda frightening. I wonder if we just have more problems to worry about than wherever you live... I mean, we do also lead the world in homocides, shootings, violent crime, and any other number of things. But I can assure you if I ever have children they will not be running around public parks buck naked at 5 years old. Too many creepy perverts out there.
I don't remember being 5 very well. i suppose now that i think of it, it may be too young to handle bathing alone. but i dont get why parents would want to take pictures of it. that's weird to me. but then, becoming a parent makes people act very weird. so maybe it's an issue of the employee being single and thinking anyone snapping photos of their kid in the bath is a weirdo, like i do.
i'm in toronto ... i know all about crazy lawsuits down there ... i still find it difficult to believe that this wal-mart's employee's motivation was not to get sued ...
maybe it's this conservatism that breeds the perverts ... is it strange that so many child abuse cases are reported within the church and these so called priests?
often parents make bathtime "fun" otherwise kids won't want to take baths ... and in this day and age where digital cameras makes taking pictures so easy and more common ... i don't find it shocking at all that they want to capture a moment when the kids are having a fun time ...
it's plenty strange, and there may be some merit to conservatism breeding perverts. but we lead the world in a lot of criminal activity and i find it hard to believe all of those are tied to conservative values, so i don't see any reason to single out sex crimes as being caused by conservatism. i think poverty and abuse and marginalization play a much larger role than the church you had to go to as a kid.
as to bathtime, i suppose there's some sense there. but i dunno... im having fun when i have sex with my gf, yet i doubt she'd be cool with me snapping a bunch of photos and taking them to walmart for the developing guy to peek at. which is why i say parents do weird things
I mean, if we're all so prudish about nudity, why don't you send me some naked pictures of you right now? Or are you not comfortable with that?