Child Pornography and the Baby-In-The-Bathtub Cases

[Karen Kraft]

FYI Karen- I do not allow anyone to send me cute pictures of minors period over the internet- dressed or otherwise. If I get a gif or jpeg attactment from some e-mail addy I don't know it gets DELETED. If I get a cutesy pic from someone I do know I chew their ass out after I delete it. With a request to not send anymore. Welcome to the 21st century world of Nancy Grace's America great witch hunt of the American male.

With respect to not receiving "cute" pictures -- that is the saddest post I think I have ever read on here. Talk about a "chilling effect." Children are God's gift to the world. Naked babies - - playing in the back yard pool, sleeping with their little thumbs in their mouths, etc., are part of life's experience. Very sad. It's like the case where the lady was given a lot of b.s. because she breast fed her infant on the city bus. *sigh*

 

[Ishmael]

With respect to not receiving "cute" pictures -- that is the saddest post I think I have ever read on here. Talk about a "chilling effect." Children are God's gift to the world. Naked babies - - playing in the back yard pool, sleeping with their little thumbs in their mouths, etc., are part of life's experience. Very sad. It's like the case where the lady was given a lot of b.s. because she breast fed her infant on the city bus. *sigh*

When I was young I'd go into stores in the heartland. Women would be there with babies at their breast. No one batted an eye about it. Amazing.

Ishmael

 

[Karen Kraft]

It is just common human nature; people with power seek more power. Fear is a great way to get more power. I am not saying that child molesters and child pornography are not something that we need to guard against, but as with anything the reaction can be carried too far. We need to keep in mind that the most dangerous things in the world are government officials without tight restrictions, politicians who know how to use fear to get more power, and a populace who wants to give the government power so they can shirk responsibility.

Yeah, and there actually is a very disturbing similarity with the arrest of a person for having pictures of their 2-year-old with his/her Dr. Dentin's back flap down and TSA ripping the ring from the woman's nipple -- lest her nipple ring down the airplane. When right and wrong are so unclear that the State decides it has to codify them, we are lost. Judges who blow off a case of granny sending such pictures must practice in Federal Court -- where tenure is for life. In states where judges are re-elected, the judge would be branded as being "soft on child pornography."

 

[isthisdesire]

With respect to not receiving "cute" pictures -- that is the saddest post I think I have ever read on here. Talk about a "chilling effect." Children are God's gift to the world. Naked babies - - playing in the back yard pool, sleeping with their little thumbs in their mouths, etc., are part of life's experience. Very sad. It's like the case where the lady was given a lot of b.s. because she breast fed her infant on the city bus. *sigh*

I feel the same way. I know Ish said no one made a fuss about breastfeeding when he was younger, and honestly, it was the same when I was a little kid. I asked my mom what was going on, she explained, end of story. it's sad stuff like that is such a big deal these days.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Why do people take pictures of naked children? I've never been able to understand the rationale for possessing naked pictures of children. Christening pictures, baby's first/second/third birthday, the first day of school, visiting Disneyworld, etc., I can understand. But what's a good reason to take pictures of your children running around stark naked?

IT'S CUTE!!!! That's why.

People see God's beauty in their kids' faces, naked bodies, chocolate cake smeared faces. What can I say?

 

[The Heretic]

Many people think that. However, they are quite wrong. Check out the rules for submitting a story here on Lit., one of the most open and open-minded "real" publications on the Web. Stories where children are involved in any sort of activity that is sexual in nature are either refused or edited to delete violating conent.

I knew that Lit prohibits stories with characters under 18, and I think that is partly because it is easier to enforce, Laurel and Manu are more comfortable with it (and justifiably so - I would have the same rule if I were running Lit.), and maybe because of some questionable laws in California where Lit. inc. is based.

However, ASSTR allows any form of pornography that is written. Moreover, from what I have read, the SCOTUS describes written pornography, including written child porn as speech protected by the First Amendment. It also allows "virtual" child pornography (computer generated child porn, hand drawn, etc.) - you can't get much more virtual than the written word:

Artificially generated or simulated imagery

A small fraction of child pornography is produced without the direct involvement of children in the production process itself. Forms of artificially generated child pornography include: modified photographs of real children, non-minor teenagers made to look younger, and fully computer-generated imagery ( very rare due to technological cost constraints).[citation needed] Drawings or animations that depict sexual acts involving children but are not intended to look like photographs may also be considered by some to be child pornography. An example of this is the cartoon genre known as Lolicon that has been the subject of much controversy regarding whether or not it's presence in the society contributes to child sexual abuse [52][53]
In the United States, "virtual" child pornography, "that appears to -- but does not -- depict real children", was illegal under the federal 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act until the Supreme Court invalidated that portion of the law in 2002.[54][13][55][56][57] Claiming that the pornography was simulated is an affirmative defense which can be raised by defendants, and the National Child Victim Identification Program must use image analysis to prove actual children were used.[citation needed] According to the head of the U.S. Department of Justice's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the availability of the defense that pornography could hypothetically have been computer generated has resulted in defense attorneys using the defense without "any shred of evidence there are wholly computer-generated images being generally circulated and passed off as real children out there." [58]
Virtual child pornography is illegal in the European Union; in Germany it is punishable by up to five years in prison.[15][14] In Australia, it is illegal to publish imagery that "describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexual activity or depicted in an indecent sexual manner or context", however the application of this law to virtual child pornography has not yet been tested in the courts. [15]

The given legal justification for laws prohibiting child porn photos/vids in the USA is that children were harmed during the production of those images.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Pics of naked kids doesn't have to be sexual or shameful. Kids run around naked or near naked because they haven't been saddled with puritan shame yet - and I think that is a good thing.

I like that answer. Yeah, I think the people who get so upset at naked babies's pictures are the same ones who hate all forms of nudity, which is just an expression of Puritan body-hate, self-hate; Adam and Eve Original Sin bullshit.

 

[John Doe]

I have piles and piles of pics of me nude in the tub with my kids when they were infants.

Are there any with just you?

 

[Ishmael]

Yeah, and there actually is a very disturbing similarity with the arrest of a person for having pictures of their 2-year-old with his/her Dr. Dentin's back flap down and TSA ripping the ring from the woman's nipple -- lest her nipple ring down the airplane. When right and wrong are so unclear that the State decides it has to codify them, we are lost. Judges who blow off a case of granny sending such pictures must practice in Federal Court -- where tenure is for life. In states where judges are re-elected, the judge would be branded as being "soft on child pornography."

Some years ago I posted the case of a custodial parent male in Ohio that was arrested for child molestation for bathing his 3 year old daughter. He was convicted by jury sans any forensic evidence. The conviction was overturned on appeal.

His daughter was given over to foster care. It took him another year to get his daughter back. The laws concerning custody being at odds between the courts and the child welfare services.

Needless to say, the first thing he did upon taking care of business was to get the hell out of Ohio. To where? Texas?

Ishmael

 

[Karen Kraft]

I like Kitten's answer. That being said, as a person who's been photographed and videotaped nude on a few occasions, I can't see any non-abusive reason for taking pictures of naked children. Capturing innocence in a photograph is just as easily accomplished by taking a picture of a child in footie pajamas dancing with a broom. Or, using the OP's prior links, taking snapshots of a dog snuggling up with a baby. Those pictures are perfectly whimsical without requiring nudity.

Okay. And people send each other pictures of their puppy taking a dump on the lawn, looking back at the camera with a "so what?" look on their little faces. What is cute to some may be a felony to others.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Some families are naturists. Others are from cultures where clothing is just protection from the cold and not a morality status. Others yet photograph family members as life happens, sometimes it means that people are in the nude.
And it doesn't have to be sleazy or abusive, it's just life.

To treat all nudity as immoral and abusive is blurring the line between normal behavior and inappropriate behavior. And that does a huge disservice to real abuse victims.

Well said. Notice, as a matter of fact, the "naturist" photos and videos are pretty much given a pass in all this. Why? Because such groups have been doing that sort of thing for centuries and there is nothing "sexual" in their happy summer activities. Plus, they do these things in jurisdictions that permit it.

 

[John Doe]

I like that answer. Yeah, I think the people who get so upset at naked babies's pictures are the same ones who hate all forms of nudity, which is just an expression of Puritan body-hate, self-hate; Adam and Eve Original Sin bullshit.

There is no such thing as innocence. Only degrees of guilt.

God has nothing to do with it.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Some years ago I posted the case of a custodial parent male in Ohio that was arrested for child molestation for bathing his 3 year old daughter. He was convicted by jury sans any forensic evidence. The conviction was overturned on appeal.

His daughter was given over to foster care. It took him another year to get his daughter back. The laws concerning custody being at odds between the courts and the child welfare services.

Needless to say, the first thing he did upon taking care of business was to get the hell out of Ohio. To where? Texas?

Ishmael

Don't quote me, please, but:

The Child Welfare or Child Protective Services witches are always at odds with the legal system. They are the Carrie Nations of the nation. Judges hate them but follow their recommendations blindly more often than not. They are power-hungry beasts, often with little more than a high school education who wave their self-rightous badges like they were warding off a vampire with a cross.

 

[Karen Kraft]

There is no such thing as innocence. Only degrees of guilt.

God has nothing to do with it.

No such thing as innocence? Sounds like Old Time Religion to me, right?

And as for God, it is in Her name that most assholes inflict pain on the undeserving.

 

[Mansa Musa]

I like that answer. Yeah, I think the people who get so upset at naked babies's pictures are the same ones who hate all forms of nudity, which is just an expression of Puritan body-hate, self-hate; Adam and Eve Original Sin bullshit.

I'll repeat myself:
I like nudity.
I like nakedness.
I freeball as often as possible.
I've no problem with attending mixed-sex, all ages saunas. I did it in Germany, and I'd do it again if I could readily attend such a place.
My issue with the whole idea is privacy. I have 20 pictures of myself as a baby, half of them being bathtime/pajama flap/changing table pictures. My aunts have the rest of my pictures, with me in all stages of dress. I wasgiven the opportunity to pick which pictures I wanted to be considered public property and which pictures I wanted to keep for myself. I have all of my photos from my first trip to Jamaica, but I had no problem letting my aunt keep my first year bath pictures. However, I also took all but three of my naked as a toddler pictures ( BTW, the pciture of me sweeping the kitchen floor was priceless. I had to let my aunt keep that one ). Bottom line, I had a choice. However, I've met a few people who were literally blindsided by the fact that their parents saw nothing wrong with showing nude pictures of their children to "complete strangers" (For example: me. I'd already seen her naked as an adult, but she screamed like a lunatic when her mother grabbed the photo album and pointed out her baptism pictures).
It's 2008, you don't have to take film to Walmart, so don't. It's common sense, people.

 

[John Doe]

I like Kitten's answer. That being said, as a person who's been photographed and videotaped nude on a few occasions, I can't see any non-abusive reason for taking pictures of naked children. Capturing innocence in a photograph is just as easily accomplished by taking a picture of a child in footie pajamas dancing with a broom. Or, using the OP's prior links, taking snapshots of a dog snuggling up with a baby. Those pictures are perfectly whimsical without requiring nudity.

You know jackshit about children.

And you're a pervert.

 

[Ishmael]

Don't quote me, please, but:

The Child Welfare or Child Protective Services witches are always at odds with the legal system. They are the Carrie Nations of the nation. Judges hate them but follow their recommendations blindly more often than not. They are power-hungry beasts, often with little more than a high school education who wave their self-rightous badges like they were warding off a vampire with a cross.

"It's for the children" don't ya know?

And I'll quote you.

Ishmael

 

[Karen Kraft]

I'll repeat myself:
I like nudity.
I like nakedness.
I freeball as often as possible.
I've no problem with attending mixed-sex, all ages saunas. I did it in Germany, and I'd do it again if I could readily attend such a place.
My issue with the whole idea is privacy. I have 20 pictures of myself as a baby, half of them being bathtime/pajama flap/changing table pictures. My aunts have the rest of my pictures, with me in all stages of dress. I wasgiven the opportunity to pick which pictures I wanted to be considered public property and which pictures I wanted to keep for myself. I have all of my photos from my first trip to Jamaica, but I had no problem letting my aunt keep my first year bath pictures. However, I also took all but three of my naked as a toddler pictures ( BTW, the pciture of me sweeping the kitchen floor was priceless. I had to let my aunt keep that one ). Bottom line, I had a choice. However, I've met a few people who were literally blindsided by the fact that their parents saw nothing wrong with showing nude pictures of their children to "complete strangers" (For example: me. I'd already seen her naked as an adult, but she screamed like a lunatic when her mother grabbed the photo album and pointed out her baptism pictures).
It's 2008, you don't have to take film to Walmart, so don't. It's common sense, people.

Good points. Very well said. However, this is a matter of choice and family ethos, not a proper subject for the local D.A.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Well, I'm off to bed (early start in the morning).

Nite everyone.

I like the posts in this thread. My faith in people is restored.




Hahahahahahahaha

 

[TurdFergeson]

There is no such thing as innocence. Only degrees of guilt.

God has nothing to do with it.

Bit of a jaded view, no?


A line must be drawn somewhere.

I think what MM says is partly right, someone with dozens or hundreds of such photos seems a bit odd. Even if they are all completely innocent photos.

1 or 2, or a naked just after birth or the odd buttcrack or bath pic (as infants), no big deal, whatsoever.

I think there is also an upper age limit. Like 3 or 4, the "baby cuteness" factor is gone, and there is no point.

Case in point, the old corporate logo of the little girl with her butt exposed and the small dog tugging at her "butt flap" pajamas.

I can't remember the brand. Of course it's an illustration and not a photo, but so what.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

that would be so cute. I should do that the next time I take a bubble bath.

*waiting patiently beside a stack of towels*

 

[isthisdesire]

Bit of a jaded view, no?


A line must be drawn somewhere.

I think what MM says is partly right, someone with dozens or hundreds of such photos seems a bit odd. Even if they are all completely innocent photos.

1 or 2, or a naked just after birth or the odd buttcrack or bath pic (as infants), no big deal, whatsoever.

I think there is also an upper age limit. Like 3 or 4, the "baby cuteness" factor is gone, and there is no point.

Case in point, the old corporate logo of the little girl with her butt exposed and the small dog tugging at her "butt flap" pajamas.

I can't remember the brand. Of course it's an illustration and not a photo, but so what.

Coppertone, I think. and it was her bathing suit bottoms. (edit: yeah.)

I don't think it's the number of pictures, but the content.

and I totally agree that there's an age limit on these things. when a kid doesn't feel comfortable bathing/being naked in front of you, no more nekkid pictures. MM said kids don't have a choice. yeah, but some really don't care. there's a picture of me somewhere at about three or four wearing nothing but cowboy boots and posing like it's no big deal.

my family was never really weird about nudity. I've seen my mom mostly naked and she still walks around in her bra & undies in front of me. it was just never seen as a big deal for us not to be wearing a lot of clothes.

and I public, I dress pretty modestly.

 

[Mansa Musa]

You know jackshit about children.

And you're a pervert.

Pot, meet kettle. You chose to use Pedobear as an AV.

 

[isthisdesire]

Pot, meet kettle. You chose to use Pedobear as an AV.

lol, I'm so glad I'm not the only one who knew that.

 

[xxxPEACHxxx]

I like nudism. I have no problem with parents who allow their children to run around naked within certain areas (home/backyard, community pool/FKK area). In fact, I'd say that the world would probably be a happier place if people could walk around naked whenever weather permitted. However, I don't see the point of taking (IME) dozens, if not hundreds, of naked pictures of your children, regardless of how cute the children were, at the time of the picture taking. Besides, I can't help but think of the privacy issues involved in the matter. A person's body is his/her private property, unless they give informed consent. And children can't give informed consent.

And we wonder how people's attitudes toward something that is completely harmless, innocent and natural turns into an object of sleaze and perverted suspicions.