Richard Tallent wrote:

I disagree.

Wal-Mart should train its employees to recognize the difference between innocent family photos and child pornography.

Sure, there's always a gray line where maybe an employee should alert the authorities just in case, and I'm not expecting the average photo lab tech to judicially apply the Dost factors, but that line apparently was nowhere near being crossed in this case.

What if Wal-Mart noticed you bought a package of Sudafed and they called the police, who then came and raided your home, took your children, and accused you publicly of being a drug dealer? Same thing.

And how do you think Walmart will choose that dividing line?  From community standards, and I don't mean the MM community!

Davonroe wrote:

Doctors, teachers, and Walmart employees have been instructed to err on the side of caution.  The decision has been taken away from them.  Can you imagine the uproar if this really were a case of abuse and Walmart did not report it?  The uproar would be far greater, and more widespread, than a creative community forum such as MM.

I can see a business policy to error on the side of litigation prevention, but I havent seen anything that says they are legally obligated too.

That being said the moment someone of authority saw the pictures the whole thing should have been dropped.  We cant opporate on "well if someone would have just done this at this it could have been prevented".  Where do you draw the line. 

Some parent is yelling at their kid in public gets turned in, later beats the kid to death and we say... "well if someone would have just turned that parent in for yelling, we would have saved a child".  Wait until state farm says.. "well your partially responsible for that wreck because if you would have just stayed home it wouldnt have happened right?"

You cant go backwards after a tragic event and say "well if someone would have reacted to every little thing it might have been prevented" because there at tens of millions of "little things" that happen and nothing tragic ever comes of it.

If you want to take that step, start investigating and possibly arresting all the glamour and fetish photographers because they might be potential rapists or all men who like looking at those images.  I mean most rapists probably looked at naked women and fetish images before they attacked.

norm la coe photography wrote:
HOWEVER, let us remember that more than half of all rape victims are childlren, and the average age of a victim for all ages is 12 or 13.  sexual assault of children five and about is common.  the vast majority of assaults on children occur in the family.  so i applaud someone at walmart for being alert, but condemn the over-reaction and what appears to be bad judgment. 

norm

Someone who was really doing such things would most likely be operating "underground" and not printing images at a public business.

GMP Photography - Heinz wrote:
I find it quite interesting that Steven Aiello very obviously has no room for opinions that differ from his and then gets pissed off when people don't subscribe to his overzealous approach to this issue.

okay, let's get real:  one of three girls is sexually molested during childhood, one of seven boys.  one of seven girls is seriously affected, and one of twenty girls is damaged for life.  i would rather the adults of this world were overly zealous than overly uncaring, even though i despise wal-mart uncaring greed.   

where do you think promiscuous girls, prostitutes, nude dancers, etc., come from?  loving families?  the majority of dancers in any club have been sexual abused.  75 to 80% of working prostitutes were sexually abused as children.  forced nudity in the home results in a girl's alienation from her own body.

studio36uk wrote:
L I N K  T O  S T O R Y


Now just imagine if they weren't their [or your] kids.

Studio36

This is always how the pendulum swings.   Activists get very harsh laws passed, defying anyone to challege their efforts as being anything other than soft on pedopiles.

Then power hungry and ambitious lawyers abuse the law and prosecute good parents for taking bath and bear-skin-rug shots.   The children then grow up in foster homes, where their chances of encountering a real pedophile are much higher than if they stayed where they are.

The press declares a victory for the children.

And the pedophiles go merrily along on their way under the radar.

Luminos wrote:

This is always how the pendulum swings.   Activists get very harsh laws passed, defying anyone to challege their efforts as being anything other than soft on pedopiles.

Then power hungry and ambitious lawyers abuse the law and prosecute good parents for taking bath and bear-skin-rug shots.   The children then grow up in foster homes, where their chances of encountering a real pedophile are much higher than if they stayed where they are.

The press declares a victory for the children.

And the pedophiles go merrily along on their way under the radar.

Davonroe wrote:

Doctors, teachers, and Walmart employees have been instructed to err on the side of caution.  The decision has been taken away from them.  Can you imagine the uproar if this really were a case of abuse and Walmart did not report it?  The uproar would be far greater, and more widespread, than a creative community forum such as MM.

That’s a bullshit argument because child pornography is a far cry from taking a few shots of kids in a bathtub.  As another poster said, common sense should prevail.  With that argument, anyone looking at many of the postings here on MM should report the photographers because in many cases it is impossible to tell if the models shown are of age or not.

GMP Photography - Heinz wrote:
With that argument, anyone looking at many of the postings here on MM should report the photographers because in many cases it is impossible to tell if the models shown are of age or not.

And the way that it's supposed to work per that pesky Constitution is that the burden of proof of being underaged is on the government.

norm la coe photography wrote:
cheers to steven aiello.  read his comment. 

i despise walmart, and this seems to me to be a huge screw up.  my daughter's husband photographed their daughters in the tub.  so what?  an yes, i have photographed children nude myself, although only for family and not for many years. 

HOWEVER, let us remember that more than half of all rape victims are childlren, and the average age of a victim for all ages is 12 or 13.  sexual assault of children five and about is common.  the vast majority of assaults on children occur in the family.  so i applaud someone at walmart for being alert, but condemn the over-reaction and what appears to be bad judgment. 

norm

Well, Norm, in that case, you should applaud everyone reporting you to the authorities for the content of your MM site.  After all, the nudes shown do not necessarily prove that all of the models were of age.  Does that make you a child pornographer?

norm la coe photography wrote:

okay, let's get real:  one of three girls is sexually molested during childhood, one of seven boys.  one of seven girls is seriously affected, and one of twenty girls is damaged for life.  i would rather the adults of this world were overly zealous than overly uncaring, even though i despise wal-mart uncaring greed.   

where do you think promiscuous girls, prostitutes, nude dancers, etc., come from?  loving families?  the majority of dancers in any club have been sexual abused.  75 to 80% of working prostitutes were sexually abused as children.  forced nudity in the home results in a girl's alienation from her own body.

So what?  That does not give some zealots; you apparently are one of them, the right to make unsubstantiated claims of child pornography.  That not only hurls the parents into undeserved disarray, but especially the children.  That in itself is child abuse as well.

Richard Tallent wrote:
Wal-Mart should train its employees to recognize the difference between innocent family photos and child pornography.

There are people that think that a bare breast in a picture is pornographic.  Some people cannot tell the difference between art and porn, and child porn and someone's children splashing around in the tub.

My little sister just had a baby 5 days ago (Digress: YEA SIS!!!!), and so far I've taken a few hundred photo's (I haven't been around much to take more).  If I am visiting her and the baby is getting a bath, trust me, I'll shoot that too.  It's not child porn, it's documenting the life of an infant.


Now, on another note....


I had friends whom were married.  He was almost 30, she a couple years younger, but she looked WAY young - like she was 15 or 16.  He took pix of her one night with another girl (they were both swingers).  They took the roll of film to walgreens.  Walgreens saw the pictures, and turned everything over to the police. All 3 of them - my friends, and the woman in the pictures with his wife - had to go to the police department and show proof of age to get the pictures and negatives back.

If I go someplace to have rolls developed, I sit there and I talk to the person in charge.  I ask them what is and isn't allowed.  What won't they print.  I tell them that I am a photographer, and that I will sometimes bring in rolls that contain nudity.  Not porn, not insertion shots, no children, no animals.  Most tell me it's ok.  One place actually thanks me for warning them, so they can make sure discretion is used in developing and printing.  They even told me they've gotten rolls in from people that look like they have sticks up their asses, and it shocks them to see the hardcore explicitness in their pictures.

I guess the smart thing to do is ask the places' policy for nudity.

Aleister Blacke wrote:
I guess the smart thing to do is ask the places' policy for nudity.

Isn't funny that in a country that prides itself on personal freedom, that such an argument even has to be made?

Steven Aiello wrote:
Oh maybe you didn't hear about the convicted pedophile that ran a website and posted pictures of kids online along with the names of the parks he took the pictures at?

Sadly the parents couldn't do any thing because he wasn't making any money off the website, the images where not lewd.

Keep preaching how there's no reason to err on the side of caution, and pedophiles out there will pat you on the back all the way home.

Aleister Blacke wrote:

Have anything of your own to contribute?

Aleister Blacke wrote:

I guess you should be reported because of the content of your MM site.  Not only does it show nudity without any proof that the models were not under age, it is intermixed with photographs of children.

Steven Aiello wrote:
A guy I went to the gym with was in jail for selling cocaine.  He was relate stories that pedophiles in jail would regularly jerk them selfs to these "family" style images.  they run as currency in prisons.

robinpix wrote:
...and before you go there my third party story is as valid as your friend from the gym prison anectote....

Actually, it does happen.  One of my friends had me take some photo's of her, to send to someone she knew in prison.  Next thing she knew, she had a dozen convicts writing her wanting pictures.  They were using her pictures as money and jerk-off material.

Aleister Blacke wrote:

Steven Aiello wrote:
A guy I went to the gym with was in jail for selling cocaine.  He was relate stories that pedophiles in jail would regularly jerk them selfs to these "family" style images.  they run as currency in prisons.

Actually, it does happen.  One of my friends had me take some photo's of her, to send to someone she knew in prison.  Next thing she knew, she had a dozen convicts writing her wanting pictures.  They were using her pictures as money and jerk-off material.

So? What does that have to do with some pictures of children getting a bath?

GMP Photography - Heinz wrote:

I guess you should be reported because of the content of your MM site.  Not only does it show nudity without any proof that the models were not under age, it is intermixed with photographs of children.

Want me to scan and upload all the releases and copies of their picture id's to make you happy?

Sorry, I keep careful records.

And the one child is my grandniece.  Isn't she a cutie?  Shot it at the beach.  Her mom, my niece, was right there too.

Now, want to continue attacking me?

Aleister Blacke wrote:
Want me to scan and upload all the releases and copies of their picture id's to make you happy?

Sorry, I keep careful records.

And the one child is my grandniece.  Isn't she a cutie?  Shot it at the beach.  Her mom, my niece, was right there too.

Now, want to continue attacking me?

You are totally missing the point.  According to you it is perfectly okay for a Wallmart zealot to report parents that took pictures of kids getting a bath.  What's so different with your pictures?

GMP Photography - Heinz wrote:

That’s a bullshit argument because child pornography is a far cry from taking a few shots of kids in a bathtub.  As another poster said, common sense should prevail.  With that argument, anyone looking at many of the postings here on MM should report the photographers because in many cases it is impossible to tell if the models shown are of age or not.

My "argument" is no argument at all.  I agree that common sense should prevail.  The problem is who defines "common sense".  It's the community at large, not the creative community.  Artists regularly push boundaries.  But sometimes, society pushes back.  That's what has been happening since Reagan was elected in 1980.  Art for Art's Sake is no longer the rule in the U. S.  If you're going to push the boundaries, you have to be ready to defend yourself and your art when society pushes back.  It may not be right, but it's true.

Davonroe wrote:

My "argument" is no argument at all.  I agree that common sense should prevail.  The problem is who defines "common sense".  It's the community at large, not the creative community.  Artists regularly push boundaries.  But sometimes, society pushes back.  That's what has been happening since Reagan was elected in 1980.  Art for Art's Sake is no longer the rule in the U. S.  If you're going to push the boundaries, you have to be ready to defend yourself and your art when society pushes back.  It may not be right, but it's true.

Is taking pictures of ones kids in a bathtub pushing the boundaries?  That was the original OP.

GMP Photography - Heinz wrote:

You are totally missing the point.  According to you it is perfectly okay for a Wallmart zealot to report parents that took pictures of kids getting a bath.  What's so different with your pictures?

May want to go re-read, I never said it was ok for walmart zealots to do that.  I said some people can't tell the difference.

Aleister Blacke wrote:

May want to go re-read, I never said it was ok for walmart zealots to do that.  I said some people can't tell the difference.

Then you should have qualified your response where you posted a quote without any input of your own.  As is, it shows total agreement with the poster you quoted.

Magic Lens wrote:
Holy crap... I shoot nude newborns & babies almost every week... how dare I am...

Yep, the right wing moral police is right on your heels.

Richard Tallent wrote:
Nudity in itself, especially in a patently obvious context like a little kids in a tub, is not "questionable" content. It's not "pushing boundaries." It's not "forced nudity."

Wal-Mart should show more discretion, and the police should have laughed in the employee's face and told them to stop being such a Church Lady.

Last year, my sister-in-law painted two big colorful eggs across her baby's bum, then had a photo lab print a bunch of Easter cards on them to send out to family and friends ("Happy Keyster!"). I'm really glad she didn't receive the sort of treatment these other people did.

There's a reason why people who've been through trauma should not make the laws--if they did, we would all live in little padded rooms.

Some police won't laugh. Some welcome the WORK. Unfortunately.

GMP Photography - Heinz wrote:

Is taking pictures of ones kids in a bathtub pushing the boundaries?  That was the original OP.

Not to me, and certainly not to you.  But we're discussing this here on MM.  We are the minority.  Minorities have had to justify their existence to the majority throughout history.  I think many in this creative community do not really understand how much of a minority they are.

Lorin Edmonds wrote:
Read about Jock Sturgess  -- same issues  -- result -- lawyers got rich and they made a exception for him, (Sally Mann also_

Made an exception??? I think you know not of what you speak. Why is there an "exception" when there was no wrong doing?

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
This happened in Drummondvillle Quebec years ago (like 20?).  For a while I was ashamed to admit to living in the same province.  I thought everyone had learned from that mistake by now?!?!?!

This has happened time and time again. I think a child molester is the lowest form of a human, but things like this make me shake my head. What parent does not have a picture of their kids playing in the bath?

Be careful when shooting minors folks!

Lumigraphics wrote:
I rarely take the side of Walmart but I don't think they are the ones at fault. Its not their job to decide whether there are children in danger, that's what the state authorities are for.

I'd say the state is the one to blame. Most states have seriously fucked up priorities- they'll let some kids be abused and murdered while overreacting with other families.

I've posted this link before, it really does tell a terrible story:

http://www.seattlepi.com/powertoharm/

Most likely if the family has money and connections and can make their case to the newspapers, they'll win this one.

I kindof agree with you..but the loser in the Walmart photo booth that called the cops has truly got a couple of screws loose.

And I think those kind of people are, nearly always, struggling with their inner demons that make them overly sensitive to this issue.  It's always the vocal 'family values' types that you seriously gotta watch...just my opinion.

B

Dan Tauro wrote:

Be careful when shooting minors folks!

That in itself is quite an indictment of a society that prides itself on personal freedom..

martinimages wrote:
I kindof agree with you..but the loser in the Walmart photo booth that called the cops has truly got a couple of screws loose.

And I think those kind of people are, nearly always, struggling with their inner demons that make them overly sensitive to this issue.  It's always the vocal 'family values' types that you seriously gotta watch...just my opinion.

B

Not just your opinion, from the post here, the majority shares it.

norm la coe photography wrote:
cheers to steven aiello.  read his comment. 

i despise walmart, and this seems to me to be a huge screw up.  my daughter's husband photographed their daughters in the tub.  so what?  an yes, i have photographed children nude myself, although only for family and not for many years. 

HOWEVER, let us remember that more than half of all rape victims are childlren, and the average age of a victim for all ages is 12 or 13.  sexual assault of children five and about is common.  the vast majority of assaults on children occur in the family.  so i applaud someone at walmart for being alert, but condemn the over-reaction and what appears to be bad judgment. 

norm

True, but then again I think to be accurate we'd really need to examine how the definitions of "rape" have been used in these statistics.  How many of those 12, 13, 14 yr old "rapes" were actually consentual acts with 14, 15, 16yr old peers?

We've stretched many of these "definitions" when it comes to adolecents.  There are many instances and examples when children have been charged with sexual crimes on each other.

Again.. lets keep seperate a violent act using sex as a weapon and sexuality itself.

norm la coe photography wrote:
so i applaud someone at walmart for being alert, but condemn the over-reaction and what appears to be bad judgment. 

norm

GMP Photography - Heinz wrote:
Well, Norm, in that case, you should applaud everyone reporting you to the authorities for the content of your MM site.  After all, the nudes shown do not necessarily prove that all of the models were of age.  Does that make you a child pornographer?

GMP, its better to make the anonomys call, yes they provide anonymous lines in most places to report child abuse, and rather be safe than sorry.  What IF one of those girls in his port is barely under 18, we could be saving a childs life.  I bet you most child pornographers also photographed legally aged girls nude, so people that take legal nude photo's could just be a precurser for a child pornographer as well.

If his home being raided, him arrested and all the electronics confiscated from his home and work for up to 2yrs while they look for "child porn" saves one girl.... then its worth it.

CGI Images wrote:

True, but then again I think to be accurate we'd really need to examine how the definitions of "rape" have been used in these statistics.  How many of those 12, 13, 14 yr old "rapes" were actually consentual acts with 14, 15, 16yr old peers?

We've stretched many of these "definitions" when it comes to adolecents.  There are many instances and examples when children have been charged with sexual crimes on each other.

Again.. lets keep seperate a violent act using sex as a weapon and sexuality itself.

In NYC, at least, the answer is less than you might think.  A few years back, the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene released statistics showing that the younger the age of the new mother, the greater the age difference between her and the child's father.

GMP Photography - Heinz wrote:

Yep, the right wing moral police is right on your heels.

Just look at the broad spread of any type of "pleasure police" thats come about in the last decade.