ThePoser wrote:
I find this to be enraging!!! My kids run around nakid all the time, especially now with potty training, I play with them hold them tickle them nurse them and sleep with them, so does that make me some pervert because they aren't dressed? In other cultures, it is expected that children under 4 are nakid, they don't like to wear clothes anyways! I love how it is an offense and considered abuse to kiss a nakid baby but it is perfectly acceptable to circumsise a baby that can't speak for itself......

I was just having a discussion about this when I wanted to take pictures of our girls running around in their dress up shoes with their princess crowns and purses and nothing else, and I ws told not to do that because it could be seen as pornographic. That is cheating my kids out of their own memories, I have a ton of pictures of me nakid as a child and I LOVE those pics!!! It shows who I was and how I was and helps me to see my innocence as a child.

It is just increadible how people veiw nudity and sex and body parts........ It is sad that we can't see the same beauty in a nude protrait of children as we can with adults.......

Who was the female photog, I think her name was Sally? Did all the black and whites of her children in a country setting, alot of them nudes, had it published in a book. I remember seeing it in the bookstore several years ago and thinking how wonderful it was, she had some amazing shots of her daughter, just beautiful, I have not seen one of her books since then....... any one know who she was?

Kaire

i totally agree with you i have a 2 year old and a 5 month old and neither one of them ever want to keep there clothes on. and aren't you supposed to take nekkid picures of them as blackmail for when they turn into crazy teenagers to show there dates? ha ha sorry i had to make light of the subject because i think that the only people who would think that a picture of a father kissing his child would be pornigraphic would be the ones we would should be worrying about being the pervert. as a parent that thought would have never crossed my mind.




BTW IT WAS VERY LOVELY MEETING YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND AT THE MM PARTY.YOU GUYS TRUELY MAKE SUCH A LOVELY PAIR!

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Arrest warrants for Charbel and Teresa Hamaty graphically describe pictures the Raleigh couple took with their two children.

Charbel Hamaty is charged with first-degree statutory sex offense and sexual exploitation of a minor. Detectives arrested his wife, Teresa, on the same exploitation charges.

According to the arrest warrant, Teresa took a picture of her husband in a sexual pose with their 4-month-old son and another photo with their 6-year-old daughter in that same pose with their 4-month-old son.

Authorities became involved in the case after a roll of film with the alleged acts was turned in at a Raleigh pharmacy.

"Based on the evidence that has been presented to us and based on what our investigation has shown, charges that were filed were more than warranted," said Sgt. Stacy Deans, of the Raleigh Police Department.
.....
"I know whatever these pictures look like, it's not what they intended.I grew up seeing these things. It's part of the culture," Saleh said. "But a picture is a bad representation. It doesn't tell you the whole story."

Saleh says the Hamaty's are hard-working, good, clean people who had no sexual intentions when they took the pictures. Raleigh investigators are going by the book and say, legally, the pictures are sexually explicit.

Saleh understands the investigation and agrees the description of the pictures sounds bad, but he hopes to clear up what he calls a cultural misunderstanding.

Hamaty's attorneys argued police overreacted to Hamaty's display of affection for his firstborn son. In one family photo, attorneys said Hamaty held his infant son in his face with his child's backside facing the camera. Raleigh police determined that and other photos involving his stepdaughter constituted criminal behavior.

Go to the WRAL website (better source than Fox) WRAL

Read the Whole story, instead of trying to blow it out of proportion!

C R Photography wrote:
Sally Mann provides beautiful and exceptional photo essays.

Unfortunately some of her incredible photography made its way to the conservative coalitions and has been banned by most main stream book stores (Barnes and Noble, Borders  ...ect).

Specifically the book "Immediate Family", which impressively viewed her children as innocent and free.

There are a few off beat book stores that still carry her books, but the rest deem them porn.

Yet, another example of the decline of western civilization.

I respectfully disagree. While I don't consider Mann's work porn or a criminal offense by any stretch of the imagination, I do find it offensive that she exhibits her own children for economic gain, especially when these children have no way to object and will be faced with these very public displays of themselves for the rest of their lives.

I'm not saying her books should be banned. I'm only saying that I have no respect for her behavior.

By the way, I pretty much have the same problem with Anne Geddes' work, who exploits babies by dressing them up like flowers. At least Mann's work is good photography, while Geddes' work is just plain corny.

JvR wrote:
Ty,

I've read the articles on WRAL, but I don't see the source for the nature of the pictures. I'm not saying you're wrong or that this shouldn't have been looked into, if indeed it appeared a crime.

It is the second link up from that page on the bottom (3rd link down)

The images did appear sexual in nature, and that is illegal.

the only reason the guy got off is that a child expert said that their appeared to be no abuse, and a cultural expert had to explain that the lebanese people do stuff like that all the time (kissing a baby's belly)

What is really bad is if they had taken the picture from the side (instead of the back) then the sexual assault charges would not have been filed, but the sexual exploitation ones might have (it would have shown a penis of a baby)
Go figure.

JvR wrote:
Ty,

I've read the articles on WRAL, but I don't see the source for the nature of the pictures. I'm not saying you're wrong or that this shouldn't have been looked into, if indeed it appeared a crime.

It is the second link up from that page on the bottom (3rd link down)

The images did appear sexual in nature, and that is illegal.

the only reason the guy got off is that a child expert said that their appeared to be no abuse, and a cultural expert had to explain that the lebanese people do stuff like that all the time (kissing a baby's belly)

What is really bad is if they had taken the picture from the side (instead of the back) then the sexual assault charges would not have been filed, but the sexual exploitation ones might have (it would have shown a penis of a baby)
Go figure.

ThePoser wrote:
Yes, I agree, if there ws in fact PROOF that they were mishandling the child in a sexual nature, yes, they should be burned at the stake, BUT I am saying that This kind of issue happens all the time where an innocent display of affection is taken out of proprotion and children are taken away from their very loving parents for no reason what so ever. I dont' want to live in fear that if my children are seen playing outside nakid that I will have them taken away from me if I am seen holding them or nursing my nakid 2 year old. THAT is the issue I was speaking of, in resonse to the possiblity and likliness that these people are innocent.

And I still find it increadible that depecting children in costumes and pictures is perceived as exploitation. I would have been honored for my parents to capture my beauty as a growing child. And even more honored to have it published. Besids, the chances of people actually recognizing the adult form the pictures of a child, is pretty slim if you ask me.

Kaire

We agree on the first quoted paragraph. Totally.

On the last statement, having one or two shots publised, fine. Many pro photographers have one or two shots of their kids, being normal kids, in their books.
But both Mann and Geddes are zeroing in on this kind of work. It's their way to make a buck. I think it exploits the kids, just like I think children's beauty pageants exploit kids. It's about the welfare of the child and the extra protection a child without the power to decide his/her fate, deserves. Whether you think the outcome is crap or art doesn't make a difference in that equation.

ThePoser wrote:
I love how we post things in forums to see people's responses to the subject and then people respond and those that don't agree with the response feel the need to assert their opinion and what they perceive to be the ONLY way and bark out demands such as "Read the Whole story, instead of trying to blow it out of proportion!" Excuse me, TY, I woudl love to hear your opinion on the matter, but I find it highly offensive that you feel the need to dominate the thread with your perceptions.

Yes, I agree, if there ws in fact PROOF that they were mishandling the child in a sexual nature, yes, they should be burned at the stake, BUT I am saying that This kind of issue happens all the time where an innocent display of affection is taken out of proprotion and children are taken away from their very loving parents for no reason what so ever. I dont' want to live in fear that if my children are seen playing outside nakid that I will have them taken away from me if I am seen holding them or nursing my nakid 2 year old. THAT is the issue I was speaking of, in resonse to the possiblity and likliness that these people are innocent.

And I still find it increadible that depecting children in costumes and pictures is perceived as exploitation. I would have been honored for my parents to capture my beauty as a growing child. And even more honored to have it published. Besids, the chances of people actually recognizing the adult form the pictures of a child, is pretty slim if you ask me.

Kaire

Let's See - The Caption of the thread was "Don't kiss your naked baby!!!! and if you do..."
Followed by "only take photos with a digital camera and at home printer or else! "

Then the article is a quick synopsis of what happened that failed to mentioned that the pictures in question WERE ILLEGAL

The poster made it seemed like taking a picture of a naked baby (which btw, the nudity had nothing to do with it) while kissing can land you in jail.

That was not the case.

I am not trying to dominate the thread. I am trying to show that the person in question was WRONG. He violated the laws of this country, regardless of his intent, and that although it was a misunderstanding, it is NOT the Norm.

It is more of the exceptions prompting people to outrage then the rule showing people the truth.

You want my opinion.

My opinion is that everyone gets up in arms over the mistakes made as if the world is supposed to be a perfect place.

the grandmother with the babies in the bath tub, was more outrageous than this.
Her pictures were not illegal based on the supreme court definition, but were illegal based on local jurisdiction.

Who was wrong in that one?
The police?
For enforcing the law that the grandmother and others put on the books (remember we are a representitive democracy here, actually more like a democratic republic....)
The Grandmother for violating a law she probably did not know existed?
The courts for waiting 3 months to clear her name? Especially since people in this country sue over things like spilling McDonalds coffee in their laps...

What about this incident?
Same thing?
Who was at fault?
The pharmacy for turning in pictures that were illegal?
The police for arresting the guy and women for illegal activities?
The couple for not following the law?
the courts for taking a year to get it all settled out the proper way?

WHO!?!?!

You claim this kind of issue happens all the time.

Fine, Back your claim.
Show me 10, Just 10, instances where this has happened.
Show me 5, Just 5, instances where the cops were in the wrong.
Show me 1, Just 1, instance where the result was inappropiate.

This is an EXCEPTION.
It is like the other scare mongeringthat goes on here.

It is time for people to see that we as a country make our own laws, and therefore we as a country are responsible for things when they go wrong.

It is so easy to point out the mistakes, How about just once pointing out the good things......

Ty Simone wrote:
The problem is neither the police, nor the courts, nor is it the system as a whole.

The problem is a society that has gone too far in one direction, and the apathy of most people not to get involved in politics.

Do you know which laws are on the books in your state and local jurisidictions?
Do you know which laws are coming up for a vote in your jurisdiction?

Do you even know how your "elected representatives" will vote on those laws?

This is the problem.

I 100% agree with you here TY At least we see eye to eye on important things. And no, I wasn't trying to fight further with you, just bringing to your attention that maybe you come across that way to some.......

respect works both ways........

No I can't provide documents of said accusations, however I am very good friends with a woman right now who is in the middle of having her children taken from her by DCF on false accusations (nothing photography related, but they are trying to claim sexual abuse because her 6 year old daughter new the word "vagina") and I was referring to people getting falsly accused of sexual misconduct because of the attitude most americans have about nudity. You are right though, it is up to us to elect better people and have the laws written better to both protect and prevent things like this from happening.



Kaire

Ty Simone wrote:

It is the second link up from that page on the bottom (3rd link down)

The images did appear sexual in nature, and that is illegal.

the only reason the guy got off is that a child expert said that their appeared to be no abuse, and a cultural expert had to explain that the lebanese people do stuff like that all the time (kissing a baby's belly)

What is really bad is if they had taken the picture from the side (instead of the back) then the sexual assault charges would not have been filed, but the sexual exploitation ones might have (it would have shown a penis of a baby)
Go figure.

the text of the article 3rd link down.....

where is this proof you speak of?

Warrants Offer Details About Raleigh Couple's Arrest
Couple Accused of Taking Explicit Photos Of Children

POSTED: 6:41 pm EDT August 11, 2004
UPDATED: 9:39 am EDT August 12, 2004

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Arrest warrants for Charbel and Teresa Hamaty graphically describe pictures the Raleigh couple took with their two children.

Hamatys

Charbel Hamaty is charged with first-degree statutory sex offense and sexual exploitation of a minor. Detectives arrested his wife, Teresa, on the same exploitation charges.

According to the arrest warrant, Teresa took a picture of her husband in a sexual pose with their 4-month-old son and another photo with their 6-year-old daughter in that same pose with their 4-month-old son.

Authorities became involved in the case after a roll of film with the alleged acts was turned in at a Raleigh pharmacy.

"Based on the evidence that has been presented to us and based on what our investigation has shown, charges that were filed were more than warranted," said Sgt. Stacy Deans, of the Raleigh Police Department.

"We haven't seen all the evidence, but what we've seen so far demonstrates to us that there is just a big understanding, a cultural misunderstanding, and when all the facts come to light and case fully develops, we're sure these charges will be dismissed," attorney Anthony Brannon said.

On Tuesday, members of the local Lebanese community came to court in defense of the couple.

Mounir Saleh publicly defended his friends. Saleh says Hamaty, who is also Lebanese, was showing affection and pride for his first son.

"I know whatever these pictures look like, it's not what they intended.I grew up seeing these things. It's part of the culture," Saleh said. "But a picture is a bad representation. It doesn't tell you the whole story."

Saleh says the Hamaty's are hard-working, good, clean people who had no sexual intentions when they took the pictures. Raleigh investigators are going by the book and say, legally, the pictures are sexually explicit.

Saleh understands the investigation and agrees the description of the pictures sounds bad, but he hopes to clear up what he calls a cultural misunderstanding.

The children are currently in the custody of social services.

Ty Simone wrote:
Here is the Problem.

The picture in question was not about the baby being nude.

It was about what the image looked like.

The way the image (of the boy) was taken, It appeared that the Father could have been performing oral sex on the boy. (I know, seems unlikely, But in today's society, appearences are everything)

BUT, it was the other pictures that really mattered, One of which showed their 6 year old daughter in exactly the same pose!

There were other pictures of the Daughter discovered that also lead police to the charges.

If an image infers sexual exploitation of a minor, or in this case two, It is illegal in most jurisdictions. (provided it is a real minor and not a computer generated one)

Those pictures were illegal on the face of them.
Both pictures showed what appeared to be oral sex on a four month old by both a father and a daughter.

Neither image showed nudity (except for the baby's butt)

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Arrest warrants for Charbel and Teresa Hamaty graphically describe pictures the Raleigh couple took with their two children.

Charbel Hamaty is charged with first-degree statutory sex offense and sexual exploitation of a minor. Detectives arrested his wife, Teresa, on the same exploitation charges.

According to the arrest warrant, Teresa took a picture of her husband in a sexual pose with their 4-month-old son and another photo with their 6-year-old daughter in that same pose with their 4-month-old son.

Authorities became involved in the case after a roll of film with the alleged acts was turned in at a Raleigh pharmacy.

"Based on the evidence that has been presented to us and based on what our investigation has shown, charges that were filed were more than warranted," said Sgt. Stacy Deans, of the Raleigh Police Department.
.....
"I know whatever these pictures look like, it's not what they intended.I grew up seeing these things. It's part of the culture," Saleh said. "But a picture is a bad representation. It doesn't tell you the whole story."

Saleh says the Hamaty's are hard-working, good, clean people who had no sexual intentions when they took the pictures. Raleigh investigators are going by the book and say, legally, the pictures are sexually explicit.

Saleh understands the investigation and agrees the description of the pictures sounds bad, but he hopes to clear up what he calls a cultural misunderstanding.

Go to the WRAL website (better source than Fox) WRAL

Read the Whole story, instead of trying to blow it out of proportion!

Okay so if there was space on the headline it should read, don't photograph you kissing your baby/child on their belly!   Or anyplace else someone who thinks that way might interpret is pervy!

Or, if you show physical affection, do like I suggest, take digital shots and process them at home....

Sigh.

ThePoser wrote:
I love how it is an offense and considered abuse to kiss a nakid baby but it is perfectly acceptable to circumsise a baby that can't speak for itself......

OMG! You are so right! And the truth is, we don't have any rights until we turn 18. Meaning we (society) can abuse that child by taking it away from its parents

C R Photography wrote:
Sally Mann provides beautiful and exceptional photo essays.

Unfortunately some of her incredible photography made its way to the conservative coalitions and has been banned by most main stream book stores (Barnes and Noble, Borders  ...ect).

Specifically the book "Immediate Family", which impressively viewed her children as innocent and free.

There are a few off beat book stores that still carry her books, but the rest deem them porn.

Yet, another example of the decline of western civilization.

Indeed...
Apparently, people are incapable of seeing innocence.

Honestly, I had a very loving father and he loved kids, but he was a lawyer and smart enough to know that people are very suspicious. I have often heard people make a negative connotation to affectionate parentage. I think what is happening is that the nuclear family is becoming the fragmented family...because we cannot be honest or intimate with each other.

KM von Seidl wrote:
the text of the article 3rd link down.....

where is this proof you speak of?

It think I got them backwards, Try the second link down.

I quoted it above.