Walmart thinks "family bath photos" = Child pornography

Xevious

Xevious

CAGiversary!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=48024

Are bath-time photos child pornography?

Last fall A.J. and Lisa Demaree took a memory stick with family photos to the printing center at the Wal-Mart store in Peoria, Ariz. Some of the photos showed their three young girls, all under 5 years old, partially nude in the bathtub. The Demarees say these were innocent pictures that all families take. But a Wal-Mart employee felt otherwise and contacted the police who agreed that this was a child pornography situation.
babies.jpg

The Demaree's lawyer released this photo to show the pictures of the girls are innocent.

The police report read, "The young girl appeared to be posed in a provocative manner." A report issued by Peoria authorities described the photos as "child erotica" and "sex exploitation."
Child Protective Services searched the Demaree home and took custody of the children for a month while the state investigated. The watched family videotapes and found a few in which the children were playing unclothed. Lisa was suspended from her school job for a year, and both of their names were placed on the sex offender registry. The couple spent $75,000 on legal bills.
The Demarees were eventually cleared of any charges and their daughters returned, but they are now suing the state and Wal-Mart for what they call unfair accusations.

This morning the Demarees appeared on "Good Morning America." "I don't' understand it at all," A.J. told "GMA." "Ninety-nine percent of the families in America have these exact same photos."
"It took us a long time to take a picture [again]," Lisa told "GMA." "I even worry about them in their bathing suits now, if I get a shot of them in their bathing suits and they're tilting their heads a certain way or their hips are sticking out a little bit, all I think of is 'Does someone think that it was posed? Or how is that going to be perceived?'"
"Honestly we've missed a year of our children's lives as far as our memories go," Lisa added, "As crazy as it may seem, what you may think are the most beautiful innocent pictures of your children may be seen as something completely different and completely perverted."

What do you think? Were the Demarees treated unfairly? Are bath-time photos innocent or child pornography?
 
I question if it's really "fair" to blame Walmart for this one. By the fact that the police, the courts and CPS were all concerned about what was going on based on these photos, I don't think you can really blame the minimum wage clerks behind the counter for this one.

With that said, I'd like to point out that every single photo processor that I'm familiar with has a policy similar to this. Management makes the decision to call the police and the police take if from there. They might decide to do nothing, they might go overboard. That's up to the police.

But for minimum wage counter clerks, I'd rather them err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting children.
 
One call = 75k.

Something is wrong here.

The call might have been innocent too, protection children and all, but the real case is the cost to defend oneself in our legal system.
 
Oh, and to defend the counter clerks once more...

When I worked in photo, if any such prints ever came through, I simply would not print them and the customer would receive a pre-printed form stating that their order had been returned with some prints unprinted because they were "unsuitable".

The way it was explained to me - and the way I would explain it to new co-workers and customers who would complain - it doesn't matter if the intent behind the photos is child pornography. If the wrong person sees it that way, I could find myself brought up on charges of producing and distributing child pornography for printing and selling the prints.

I am *not* going to jail and being put on some sexual offender's list just so mommy can have nudie pictures of her babies.
 
Walmart did the right thing by contacting police with their suspicion. Whether or not law enforcement acted appropriately is impossible to judge without seeing the photos. How can anyone get outraged over this when it's not even certain there was any injustice?
 
They did the right thing? By putting parents on a sex offender list, suspending them from work, making them pay $75,000?

AND CALLING THIS PROVOCATIVE?

babies.jpg


I'd love to know who thought this was provocative, because they are the real sex offenders.

Everyone involved for fucking over a family should be shot, including the walmart clerks.
 
Walmart Clerk did the right thing, because how the heck are they supposed to know, they just see the picture. The cops really screwed the pooch on this one.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']They did the right thing? By putting parents on a sex offender list, suspending them from work, making them pay $75,000?

AND CALLING THIS PROVOCATIVE?

babies.jpg


I'd love to know who thought this was provocative, because they are the real sex offenders.

Everyone involved for fucking over a family should be shot, including the walmart clerks.[/QUOTE]
"The Demaree's lawyer released this photo to show the pictures of the girls are innocent."




that is ONE PHOTO, from a set of photos (plural).
 
Let me say again, whoever the fuck got off on that picture is the sex offender, and should be shot, including the rest of the idiots who did this shit.
 
[quote name='Koggit']"The Demaree's lawyer released this photo to show the pictures of the girls are innocent."




that is ONE PHOTO, from a set of photos (plural).[/QUOTE]

So what? If the charges were dropped that means something. People take pictures like this all the time.

I suppose none of you remember not living in a police state, but people have always taken pictures of kids like this.
 
You have not seen the photos. None of us have. NONE OF US HAVE THE PHOTOS. End of fucking discussion right there. You have absolutely NO IDEA whether or not any of the people involved acted appropriately. Acting any other way just makes you a jackass.

All you've seen, all any of us have seen, is a single photo released to the press by the family lawyer. Of course the one photo you saw wasn't provocative. How do you know the other photos weren't? It's not just a walmart employee -- even if a lone walmart employee was involved (seems more likely it'd be several, at least one manager/boss involved in a police call) it also includes the investigating officers (it was in the police report) and social services.

Now, I, like you, have absolutely no idea what sort of content they brought in to be developed at Walmart -- we have no idea because we have not seen the photos -- but when the first ~5 people to be exposed to that content feel young children are being sexually exploited, there damn well better be an investigation. Any other stance is short-sighted. Plead for anarchy all you want, I'm glad I live in a country where the suspected abuse of children is taken seriously.
 
[quote name='Koggit'] How do you know the other photos weren't?[/QUOTE]

Because the charges were dropped. If it were child pornography there would still be charges.

Try again.
 
This is exactly why our court system is so fucked up. 75k? Seriously? There are famous photographers who use to make their children pose for nude pictures, and the pictures were even published. A few of them are even very famous (and I must say, well deserved fame). But why can't this family take pictures of their own damn kids? The cops blew this one out of the water. And the Wal-mart clerk should have never said anything. They're BATH pictures. EVERY family has at least 100 of them.

This reminds me of the time a few years ago we went to the doctor for my sisters. They were about 5 or 6 and still peeing the bed. This had been a continuous problem for years. So we make an appointment because one of my sisters had a rash from wetting the bed. Well, we get there, the doctor checks her out, we go home. Then, after we get home, DCFS is at our house wondering why my sister has a rash. They said they were going to have to come back to 'question' my sister. My dad stayed home from work for 2 days and they never showed up. So not only did he miss 2 days of work for no reason, it seems like DCFS didn't really give 2 shits about my sister.

And all this because a doctor thought it was strange that my sister had a rash after peeing the bed. (Gee, way to put that degree to work doc.)

This family got the same problem, only it cost them a lot more. Talk about getting the shaft.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Because the charges were dropped. If it were child pornography there would still be charges.

Try again.[/QUOTE]

The charges were dropped against OJ when he was found "not guilty".
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']And the Wal-mart clerk should have never said anything. [/QUOTE]

At least two employees thought the photos were of significant nature to warrant calling the police... and you're saying they shouldn't have spoke up?

At what point should the clerk say something? Where's the line?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The charges were dropped against OJ when he was found "not guilty".[/QUOTE]

So what? These cops had the proof sitting right in front of them, and it was the pics themselves. If OJ was pictured murdering his wife, that would be proof too.

The cops dropped the charges after realizing the pics WERE NOT SEXUAL, and the proof is in the entire case.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']At least two employees thought the photos were of significant nature to warrant calling the police... and you're saying they shouldn't have spoke up?

At what point should the clerk say something? Where's the line?[/QUOTE]

When it's actually child porn, and not what people take every day.

In case people have become too reliant on the nanny state to know what is child porn, child porn involves sex or a sexual nature. It's alot different then parents taking pics of their kids, and parents have ALWAYS taken pics of kids clothed or unclothed.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']At least two employees thought the photos were of significant nature to warrant calling the police... and you're saying they shouldn't have spoke up?

At what point should the clerk say something? Where's the line?[/QUOTE]

The employees aren't computers, they have brains and the ability to think. Bath pictures? No, don't mention them. Maybe if there's several hundred of them I'd be worried. If it were something like the kids hugging nude in the kitchen, yes, I'd call. But honestly, the kids were taking a bath. They're SUPPOSED to be naked.
 
You might re-read the article. The charges were not dropped because of anything to do with the pictures. The charges were dropped after doing a full investigation of the family setting. It's pretty obvious to me, without seeing the actual photos, of course, that there's a good chance that, taken alone and without context, these photos have a high probability of appearing sexual in nature. If they didn't, it seems to me this case would not have went nearly as far as it did. Obviously, at every step in the process, when someone looked at these photos, they were concerned enough by the content to take the process to the next step.

It all comes down to the fact that, without seeing the photos (which I have zero desire to do), it's hard to make a judgment call on the actions taken by the state in this case. However, in the case of the clerks, I feel confident in saying that they did the right thing based simply on the fact that the photos were "sexual" enough to warrant so much attention from the state.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']When it's actually child porn, and not what people take every day.

In case people have become too reliant on the nanny state to know what is child porn, child porn involves sex or a sexual nature. It's alot different then parents taking pics of their kids, and parents have ALWAYS taken pics of kids clothed or unclothed.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Access_Denied']The employees aren't computers, they have brains and the ability to think. Bath pictures? No, don't mention them. Maybe if there's several hundred of them I'd be worried. If it were something like the kids hugging nude in the kitchen, yes, I'd call. But honestly, the kids were taking a bath. They're SUPPOSED to be naked.[/QUOTE]

So... pictures of naked people in the bath aren't porn?
Because I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that I could find several sites that would disagree with one quick Google search.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... pictures of naked people in the bath aren't porn?
Because I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that I could find several sites that would disagree with one quick Google search.[/QUOTE]

Pics of little kids make you sexually aroused?

How about this then, just because some pervert gets off on kids getting naked, lets NEVER remove our clothes or have sex. In fact, lets use chastity belts.

Sound better?
 
Oh, and you could also try and look up pictures of you as a child. You'll find your family would also have quite a few pics of you naked as a kid.
 
Hopefully these yokels will wise up and buy a photo printer...but the idiots would probably buy it from Walmart anyway, lol.
 
Lemme ask the people defending these actions something:

If your parents had this happen to you when you were younger (Arrest, 1 year of work without pay, $75,000 in bills), would you be on the street or okay today?

At what point does 'protection' have a right to take away people's rights? You are arguing that the police have a right to fuck with families who have taken pics of naked kids since cameras were invented. At what point does this become less about protection from predators and more about rights being taken to you?
 
I'm not saying the police were right in doing what they did. I don't know enough about the situation to make that judgment.
 
There is definitely a fine line here, and it's tough to know where someone has crossed. I think the biggest problem is prosecutors that turn looking for pedophiles into a witch hunt, ruining lives of people like this, who haven't done anything wrong. On the other hand, I suppose that's just the world we live in these days, and you have to watch your every move.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Because the charges were dropped. If it were child pornography there would still be charges.

Try again.[/QUOTE]

You want a 100% conviction rate?

I can't believe I've spent 3 posts dealing with your ignorance. Really, you remind me of why I stopped posting here. Every little detail that should be basic human logic has to spelled out in great detail and then reiterated ten times. The first ~5 people exposed to this suspected unlawful behavior -- and in our country, when unlawful behavior is suspected, law enforcement investigates. Sometimes the investigation concludes the suspect is innocent. Deal with it.
 
This situation is unfortunate but in this day and age you have to be very careful.

I don't blame the clerk at Walmart at all, maybe the police could have done a more thorough investigation from the outset but I don't know all the facts so its tough to tell.
 
[quote name='Koggit']You want a 100% conviction rate?

I can't believe I've spent 3 posts dealing with your ignorance. Really, you remind me of why I stopped posting here. Every little detail that should be basic human logic has to spelled out in great detail and then reiterated ten times. The first ~5 people exposed to this suspected unlawful behavior -- and in our country, when unlawful behavior is suspected, law enforcement investigates. Sometimes the investigation concludes the suspect is innocent. Deal with it.[/QUOTE]

Deal with it? You obviously have never had children, or been a parent, because all of them would share in this 'ignorance'.

Yes, it's obvious why you stopped posting.
 
[quote name='benjamouth']This situation is unfortunate but in this day and age you have to be very careful.[/QUOTE]

I dunno about "in this day and age," I doubt that there has actually been some huge upsurge in child pornography, but I have to agree with most of the other posters here. The Walmart employee did the right thing, the authorities went overboard.
 
[quote name='benjamouth']This situation is unfortunate but in this day and age you have to be very careful.[/QUOTE]

Bush called, he wants your 1st and 4th amendment rights.
 
Just to show that I'm right and the Walmart clerks aren't overly evil people ;)... I e-mailed my good friends over at TheWritingOnTheWal.net. And by "good friends", I mean, we pretty much disagree on just about everything.

http://thewritingonthewal.net/?p=7751

The Demarees are suing the State of Arizona, who prosecuted the case, and Walmart, which reported the photos to the police. I hope Arizonans feel the money pinch when the Demarees win their case, but Walmart was just the good citizen here.
Click to expand...

Trust me, these guys go out of their way to find things "wrong" with Walmart. ;)
 
anyone can cry wolf, but there are steps to prevent such abuse of crying wolf.

I think the WM employee had best interest for the kids. They usually can't defend in situations like this.

Cops/DA/finally courts, all failed, shouldn't have wasted the resources, and spending 75k to defend ones self.

That's where the failure is at.


Adultlink really needs to not type again.
 
I would generally agree that the Walmart clerks are not to blame. It's not their responsibility to tell right from wrong, but from the police on forward they should have known better. Obviously this is just one picture, but I'm sure pretty much every one of us has pictures in a family album of us which are far more embarrassing. As justice Potter Stewart famously said of what constitutes pornography being hard to define: "I know it when I see it." I hope they win their suit.
 
[quote name='Koggit']You want a 100% conviction rate?

I can't believe I've spent 3 posts dealing with your ignorance. Really, you remind me of why I stopped posting here. Every little detail that should be basic human logic has to spelled out in great detail and then reiterated ten times. The first ~5 people exposed to this suspected unlawful behavior -- and in our country, when unlawful behavior is suspected, law enforcement investigates. Sometimes the investigation concludes the suspect is innocent. Deal with it.[/QUOTE]

I can't believe you're still debating him. He isn't the same as me.

...

In keeping with the OP, it appears I'm a child pornographer, too.

I have a picture of my son when he was less than a year old with a strategically placed washcloth.

I also have professional pictures of my daughter taken when she was 4 years old with her wearing nothing but overalls.
 
I'm glad that Wal-Mart made the notice. As the above poster said, they're being a good citizen. I hope the police and the CPS get hit hard though. Clearly their investigation wasn't thorough.
 
For the idiots bashing me: I assume you thought that the patroit act was a good thing? Or maybe you hated it until Obama became president?

At what point does constant monitoring protect the people? How many child porn perverts are going to actually bring photos in to be developed at walmart anyway? Nobody thought of that one, yet you tell me I'M STUPID??

This is nothing more then drm is for games. This only hurts parents because unless the child pervert is a COMPLETE LUNATIC they won't be bringing their stuff in to Walmart, they would be hiding it.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']For the idiots bashing me: I assume you thought that the patroit act was a good thing? Or maybe you hated it until Obama became president?

At what point does constant monitoring protect the people? How many child porn perverts are going to actually bring photos in to be developed at walmart anyway? Nobody thought of that one, yet you tell me I'M STUPID??

This is nothing more then drm is for games. This only hurts parents because unless the child pervert is a COMPLETE LUNATIC they won't be bringing their stuff in to Walmart, they would be hiding it.[/QUOTE]

Most crimes can't be convicted if the criminal makes no mistakes.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Most crimes can't be convicted if the criminal makes no mistakes.[/QUOTE]

I get that, but the mistakes wouldn't be taking photos to walmart! It would be mistakes at home, on computer, etc.

Of all the fucked up ideas in the world, why the hell would people lay down their rights, get treated like criminals, all because some COMPLETE IDIOT OF A CRIMINAL may bring child porn photos to walmart?

And again, I'm the stupid one here?
 
If you guys are this afraid of big bad criminals, why not allow the government to search your home anytime they please? Afterall, it may protect against criminals planting things, or you becoming a criminal...
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Bush called, he wants your 1st and 4th amendment rights.[/QUOTE]

Oh do fuck off.

For one thing I'm not American, so I don't have any of your wanky ammendment rights.

I'm sick of idiots like you who turn every issue into some bullshit crusade on peoples rights.

Yeah, we can't go into Walmart with naked pictures of kids and expect nothing to happen, so get fucking used to it and shut the fuck up.
 
[quote name='benjamouth']Oh do fuck off.

For one thing I'm not American, so I don't have any of your wanky ammendment rights.

I'm sick of idiots like you who turn every issue into some bullshit crusade on peoples rights.

Yeah, we can't go into Walmart with naked pictures of kids and expect nothing to happen, so get fucking used to it and shut the fuck up.[/QUOTE]

And yet people did exactly that for 80+ years. Parents, before the introduction of digital cameras, would go into stores (Not walmart for quite awhile), and get their film developed. And alot of it was naked kids.

Now all of a sudden it's different?

What else does the government need to tell you to get you to bend over for them?
 
Actually, this is bullshit. I used to work in Wal-Mart's photo lab and ya know what they told us? We are not the police of the world. (That was an actual training course :lol:)

We were only to inform management IF there was something extremely blatantly obvious.
 
[quote name='Koggit']You have not seen the photos. None of us have. NONE OF US HAVE THE PHOTOS. End of fucking discussion right there. You have absolutely NO IDEA whether or not any of the people involved acted appropriately. Acting any other way just makes you a jackass.

All you've seen, all any of us have seen, is a single photo released to the press by the family lawyer. Of course the one photo you saw wasn't provocative. How do you know the other photos weren't? It's not just a walmart employee -- even if a lone walmart employee was involved (seems more likely it'd be several, at least one manager/boss involved in a police call) it also includes the investigating officers (it was in the police report) and social services.

Now, I, like you, have absolutely no idea what sort of content they brought in to be developed at Walmart -- we have no idea because we have not seen the photos -- but when the first ~5 people to be exposed to that content feel young children are being sexually exploited, there damn well better be an investigation. Any other stance is short-sighted. Plead for anarchy all you want, I'm glad I live in a country where the suspected abuse of children is taken seriously.[/QUOTE]


Actually, FOUR photos were released under advice of their lawyer. He also explained in the GMA interview that because of the judgment of the investigating officer, releasing the other 4 photos which showed the children in a semi-nude state, could be construed as "delivering" or "publishing" pornographic material by the local law enforcement. He further explained that in the 60 page police report, the investigator described the four released photos in detail and individually determined them to be pornographic in nature. He then asks us to conclude that if these photos were judged inappropriate, it's the officer's judgment that should be in question. Clearly a judge agreed with them and dismissed the charges.

I've no doubt the prosecutor's office will be trying to find an end-around baloney charge to further persecute these people and absolve the city from civil and criminal liability as well.

I say this as I contemplate throwing away my copy of Nevermind and the pic I have of my son and nephews taking a bath together when they were all 3 years old. This is clearly a ridiculous use of police resources. I'm sure there are real criminals that could be gumming up the legal system instead of terrorizing normal, American families.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I've no doubt the prosecutor's office will be trying to find an end-around baloney charge to further persecute these people and absolve the city from civil and criminal liability as well.

I say this as I contemplate throwing away my copy of Nevermind and the pic I have of my son and nephews taking a bath together when they were all 3 years old. This is clearly a ridiculous use of police resources. I'm sure there are real criminals that could be gumming up the legal system instead of terrorizing normal, American families.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, you're right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top