Walmart thinks "family bath photos" = Child pornography
- Thread starter Xevious
- Start date
I saw the article yesterday on AOL.com. They put online several of the pictures of the girls who were all like under the age of 2. Black bars were put over the girls faces and privates. The pictures were some of the most innocent pictures I have ever seen. It was nowhere close to be child pornography. The family went on a vacation and took pix of their daughters bathing. Those couple of pictures were mixed in with other tons of others from the vacation.
The employees at Walmart should have minded their own business. Everyone has had pictures of them as a baby butt naked and in the tub. Everyone! Plus do the employees at walmart think that people are stupid enough to take pictures there to get them developed knowing it's child porn. Get the hell out of here.
The kids got removed from the house for a month, the mother got suspended from her job for what a year? Legal fees, court fees, lost wages, etc. Who knows what kind of effect it is going to have on the kids long term. Both parents had to register as sex offenders. Walmart, The Police, DA, etc should all be held liable and be sued.
The employees at Walmart should have minded their own business. Everyone has had pictures of them as a baby butt naked and in the tub. Everyone! Plus do the employees at walmart think that people are stupid enough to take pictures there to get them developed knowing it's child porn. Get the hell out of here.
The kids got removed from the house for a month, the mother got suspended from her job for what a year? Legal fees, court fees, lost wages, etc. Who knows what kind of effect it is going to have on the kids long term. Both parents had to register as sex offenders. Walmart, The Police, DA, etc should all be held liable and be sued.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']id like to get msut, level1, nintendokid and adultlink in a room. give them 4 beers each and see what happens.[/QUOTE]
Here's what would happen:
Msut would want to share the beers with everyone.
Adultlink would want to take all the beers and say he earned them and no one else should get one.
Nintendokid would want to dump the beers because God doesn't allow people to get drunk.
Level1 would scream in everyone's face that the beer has been created by the government to enslave them to a drug so they could control everyone.
Chaos would ensue.
Here's what would happen:
Msut would want to share the beers with everyone.
Adultlink would want to take all the beers and say he earned them and no one else should get one.
Nintendokid would want to dump the beers because God doesn't allow people to get drunk.
Level1 would scream in everyone's face that the beer has been created by the government to enslave them to a drug so they could control everyone.
Chaos would ensue.
[quote name='wildcpac']I saw the article yesterday on AOL.com. They put online several of the pictures of the girls who were all like under the age of 2. Black bars were put over the girls faces and privates. The pictures were some of the most innocent pictures I have ever seen. It was nowhere close to be child pornography. The family went on a vacation and took pix of their daughters bathing. Those couple of pictures were mixed in with other tons of others from the vacation.
The employees at Walmart should have minded their own business. Everyone has had pictures of them as a baby butt naked and in the tub. Everyone! Plus do the employees at walmart think that people are stupid enough to take pictures there to get them developed knowing it's child porn. Get the hell out of here.
The kids got removed from the house for a month, the mother got suspended from her job for what a year? Legal fees, court fees, lost wages, etc. Who knows what kind of effect it is going to have on the kids long term. Both parents had to register as sex offenders. Walmart, The Police, DA, etc should all be held liable and be sued.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't try to make sense here, the idiots will bash you like they did me. Walmart and the police should burn though.
The employees at Walmart should have minded their own business. Everyone has had pictures of them as a baby butt naked and in the tub. Everyone! Plus do the employees at walmart think that people are stupid enough to take pictures there to get them developed knowing it's child porn. Get the hell out of here.
The kids got removed from the house for a month, the mother got suspended from her job for what a year? Legal fees, court fees, lost wages, etc. Who knows what kind of effect it is going to have on the kids long term. Both parents had to register as sex offenders. Walmart, The Police, DA, etc should all be held liable and be sued.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't try to make sense here, the idiots will bash you like they did me. Walmart and the police should burn though.
Also, let's put the idea that someone wouldn't take child porn to the Walmart to get developed to rest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sa1HBA1kdk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/14150680/detail.html
Some people *are* that stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sa1HBA1kdk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/14150680/detail.html
Some people *are* that stupid.
[quote name='AdultLink']Eh, alright then, but pics showing sex with minors is ALOT different then pics every parent takes.[/QUOTE]
Care to answer my previous question?
[quote name='UncleBob']Question: If the pictures are not pornographic in nature, why did AOL put black bars over the "privates"?[/QUOTE]
Care to answer my previous question?
[quote name='UncleBob']Question: If the pictures are not pornographic in nature, why did AOL put black bars over the "privates"?[/QUOTE]
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Most crimes can't be convicted if the criminal makes no mistakes.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but one of my favorite sayings comes into play here: criminals are stupid.
http://www.dumbcriminals.com/
Maybe, but one of my favorite sayings comes into play here: criminals are stupid.
http://www.dumbcriminals.com/
DarkNessBear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Man, 
these crazy ass people and their child protection laws. It is getting insane. Being a dude is hard, if there are ever any children around you have to constantly be thinking of your actions so you don't get some insane soccer mom yelling at you. A little kid waves at you and you wave back? Friggen mom stares you down.
I was at a coffee shop waiting in line, when this little kid came up to this guy in front of me. The little kid kept trying to talk to the guy and you could tell the man felt uncomfortable and just kept looking forward and very slightly would acknowledge the kid. Eventually the mom came up and grabbed the kid and gave the poor guy an evil glare.
Agh, people are so over dramatic in these times. Soon I feel we wont be able to give our kids a bath without putting them in protective bathing suits and right as the kid is born the doctor has to instantly put pants on the kid. Why not just permanently attach pants to every child?
these crazy ass people and their child protection laws. It is getting insane. Being a dude is hard, if there are ever any children around you have to constantly be thinking of your actions so you don't get some insane soccer mom yelling at you. A little kid waves at you and you wave back? Friggen mom stares you down. I was at a coffee shop waiting in line, when this little kid came up to this guy in front of me. The little kid kept trying to talk to the guy and you could tell the man felt uncomfortable and just kept looking forward and very slightly would acknowledge the kid. Eventually the mom came up and grabbed the kid and gave the poor guy an evil glare.
Agh, people are so over dramatic in these times. Soon I feel we wont be able to give our kids a bath without putting them in protective bathing suits and right as the kid is born the doctor has to instantly put pants on the kid. Why not just permanently attach pants to every child?
What I find hilarious about this story is that National TV shows like America's Funniest Home Videos can put up videos of naked kids every week supposedly doing 'funny' things and nobody has a problem with it due to a few well placed black bars, yet this family taking photos of their kids gets taken to court for pictures that just about every family takes at some point.
This is a great article in regards to this subject
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/63537
Do y'all have posed naked pictures of you with explicit detail of your genitalia being shown?
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/63537
Do y'all have posed naked pictures of you with explicit detail of your genitalia being shown?
The case is not with Walmart, but with the Court system.
I think I would sue the state of AZ for this, but I don't know about going into court with WM makes sense.
WM is just a whistleblower, anyone could be one, does that mean they should be damned for crying wolf? No.. but it shouldn't take 75k, year off of work, month away from kids, and names on a registered sex offender list to defend yourself.
I think I would sue the state of AZ for this, but I don't know about going into court with WM makes sense.
WM is just a whistleblower, anyone could be one, does that mean they should be damned for crying wolf? No.. but it shouldn't take 75k, year off of work, month away from kids, and names on a registered sex offender list to defend yourself.
[quote name='UncleBob']This is a great article in regards to this subject
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/63537
Do y'all have posed naked pictures of you with explicit detail of your genitalia being shown?[/QUOTE]
I will just say this. At 30 years old, I have seen both sides of cops. I've had friends who were cops, friends and family screwed over by cops. I've seen good cops and I've seen corruption, and a LARGE majority of the time, if the POLICE THEMSELVES file charges and then drop those same charges (Not someone else, the police), you should not trust what is on those charges.
Because usually that means that somebody in the police department filed wrong charges.
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/63537
Do y'all have posed naked pictures of you with explicit detail of your genitalia being shown?[/QUOTE]
I will just say this. At 30 years old, I have seen both sides of cops. I've had friends who were cops, friends and family screwed over by cops. I've seen good cops and I've seen corruption, and a LARGE majority of the time, if the POLICE THEMSELVES file charges and then drop those same charges (Not someone else, the police), you should not trust what is on those charges.
Because usually that means that somebody in the police department filed wrong charges.
[quote name='wildcpac']Because aol is family friendly and doesn't publish nude pictures of any kind. Pornographic or not.[/QUOTE]
So... the "innocent family photos" that "90-95% of families" have aren't family-friendly?
[quote name='AdultLink']I will just say this. At 30 years old, I have seen both sides of cops. I've had friends who were cops, friends and family screwed over by cops. I've seen good cops and I've seen corruption, and a LARGE majority of the time, if the POLICE THEMSELVES file charges and then drop those same charges (Not someone else, the police), you should not trust what is on those charges.
Because usually that means that somebody in the police department filed wrong charges.[/QUOTE]
Again, I'm not sure I'm ready to give the police and the state a free pass on this. But, from the evidence shown, I am ready to give Walmart one.
Just to show that the Demaree's case against Walmart is bull crap...
If a Walmart employee was developing photos and was to see a young child, perhaps baby or infant, being penetrated in both it's anus and vagina with broomsticks, would you expect this employee to notify management and for management to call the police?
I don't think there's very many (sane) people who wouldn't.
Now, the Demaree's lawsuit against Walmart isn't because Walmart acted in bad faith as a whistleblower or made false charges against them...
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/09/19/20090919walmart0919.html
Now, as (I assume) we have all agreed, there are some cases where any sane individual would expect Walmart to notify the authorities (in fact, in some states, they may legally be required to!), I don't think anyone could reasonably expect Walmart to not have such a policy. As far as "not divulging it" - did they ask beforehand? I mean, I'm sure Walmart has a policy that says you can't pee on the candy in the candy aisle - has anyone seen *that* policy posted?
So... the "innocent family photos" that "90-95% of families" have aren't family-friendly?
[quote name='AdultLink']I will just say this. At 30 years old, I have seen both sides of cops. I've had friends who were cops, friends and family screwed over by cops. I've seen good cops and I've seen corruption, and a LARGE majority of the time, if the POLICE THEMSELVES file charges and then drop those same charges (Not someone else, the police), you should not trust what is on those charges.
Because usually that means that somebody in the police department filed wrong charges.[/QUOTE]
Again, I'm not sure I'm ready to give the police and the state a free pass on this. But, from the evidence shown, I am ready to give Walmart one.
Just to show that the Demaree's case against Walmart is bull crap...
If a Walmart employee was developing photos and was to see a young child, perhaps baby or infant, being penetrated in both it's anus and vagina with broomsticks, would you expect this employee to notify management and for management to call the police?
I don't think there's very many (sane) people who wouldn't.
Now, the Demaree's lawsuit against Walmart isn't because Walmart acted in bad faith as a whistleblower or made false charges against them...
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/09/19/20090919walmart0919.html
Now, as (I assume) we have all agreed, there are some cases where any sane individual would expect Walmart to notify the authorities (in fact, in some states, they may legally be required to!), I don't think anyone could reasonably expect Walmart to not have such a policy. As far as "not divulging it" - did they ask beforehand? I mean, I'm sure Walmart has a policy that says you can't pee on the candy in the candy aisle - has anyone seen *that* policy posted?
numbier_wun
CAGiversary!
I was ready to completely side with the Demarees until I read this paragraph in the link that UncleBob gave in post #62:
"Meanwhile, the police report describes the nine photos we haven't seen in graphic detail, with several taken from the rear, the report says, showing explicit detail of the girls' genitals. Some, the detective describes as 'posed', with the girls on their elbows and knees. One is taken from about three feet away."
I gotta tell you. That doesn't sound so "innocent" to me.
"Meanwhile, the police report describes the nine photos we haven't seen in graphic detail, with several taken from the rear, the report says, showing explicit detail of the girls' genitals. Some, the detective describes as 'posed', with the girls on their elbows and knees. One is taken from about three feet away."
I gotta tell you. That doesn't sound so "innocent" to me.
bread's done