Question for cops or attorney types

[LadyShea]

In this thread people are saying it is illegal to posses naked pictures of yourself taken when you were a child. Now, is there anybody here whose family pictures do not contain at least one nude photo of you or your siblings as a baby, child or toddler? I think this talk of destroying the pictures and being busted for "kiddie porn" are insane, but maybe I am off base?

[livius drusus]

There have been instances of people being arrested for possession of child pornography because they photo developers called the cops over bathtub pics, but I think those cases make the news because they're so absurd.

I can't really Google the topic from work, needless to say; I'll look into some more this evening.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now, is there anybody here whose family pictures do not contain at least one nude photo of you or your siblings as a baby, child or toddler?

I don't think there are any nude pics taken of me when I was a child (at least, none that I remember seeing).

But I agree with you that having such pictures is completely normal, and has nothing to do with kiddie porn.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

There have been instances of people being arrested for possession of child pornography because they photo developers called the cops over bathtub pics, but I think those cases make the news because they're so absurd.

It is absurd, almost like the "Satanic Day Care Center" witchhunts of the 80's. Hopefully those people weren't convicted and people are calming down now.

I can't really Google the topic from work, needless to say; I'll look into some more this evening.

Thanks, I am most interested in knowing if my folks could be busted for having nekkid with a hat on or whatever toddler pictures from a quarter century ago....it's ridiculous to me.

[Godless Dave]

My parents' favorite picture of me was taken when I was about two, and it consists of me wearing a life jacket and nothing else. This was the early 70s and among intellectuals and hippies (my parents were the former, not the latter) it was considered silly to buy swimsuits for toddlers. Nudity was the natural state of babies.

Naturally I hate that picture, but not enough to turn my mom in for keeping it.

[lisarea]

At the risk of being charged with impersonating an officer, it's not illegal to have naked pictures of kids (even yourself). Unfortunately, it's a subjective thing, and depends on whether the photos are 'lewd' and 'lascivious,' which also means that even pictures of CLOTHED children can be classified as child pornography because, as I recall, there was some kind of ruling about the 'lascivious display of genitals' or something that concluded that you could display genitals lasciviously even if they were covered. I can't locate this right now, but I'm pretty sure there was some kind of coffee table book recently that had a photo of a clothed young girl standing next to a dead deer in the back of a pickup truck that someone claimed was kiddie porn for some reason.

So there's not really a single clear, objective standard at all, but I suppose that you're more likely to be accused of kiddie porn if you have naked pictures of kids.

I have several naked pictures of my nephew, and somewhere, a picture of the Little Muffin running around with no pants on chewing a Milk Bone, but they're just so entirely unlascivious I've never really worried about it.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Unfortunately, it's a subjective thing, and depends on whether the photos are 'lewd' and 'lascivious,' which also means that even pictures of CLOTHED children can be classified as child pornography because, as I recall, there was some kind of ruling about the 'lascivious display of genitals' or something that concluded that you could display genitals lasciviously even if they were covered.

I actually buy this, because of the pictures I've seen of underage kids dressed in sexy clothes photographed in sexually provocative poses for the enjoyment of pedophiles. There was a thread on this on II, last year I believe. I'm glad to know there are potential grounds to prosecute the assholes who take and market those pictures.

[Dingfod]

Can you imagine a jury convicting someone beyond a reasonable doubt for possessing naked baby pictures of themselves? I can't. That would take one fucked up fuddy-duddy jury. I'd bet that nobody has been convicted in a trial for mere possession of innocently taken pictures of their own naked children let alone pictures of themselves. Arrested? Yeah, that's probably happened, police overreaction. That makes news, it's sensational. But, once again, we need a followup channel to show that they were released without charges because the prosecuter laughed the police out of his/her office. That shit never makes the news because there ain't any money in it. If it were in the newspaper, the arrest would be on the front page and the subsequent release would be a tiny article buried on page A27.

[livius drusus]

That's what I was thinking too, Warren. Some photomat kid gets the standard corporate CYA training that drums into them the need to report anything involving child nudity to the police, and the rest is all procedure until someone asks belligerently why this case is on taking up space on a docket.

So old pics wouldn't even be an issue unless you tried to take them somewhere to get copies made or something.

[Beth]

I have pics of my son's first baths. They show his wee-wee rather clearly. I suppose those might get me in trouble, but I don't care. Only a moron would try to get me arrested on that. My worry is that I still have tons of old film that I develop here and there. Every once in a while, an old bathtub piccie might show up.

[dave_a]

I say let them come arrest me. I have a couple pics of my 5 year old in the buff. He loves to be nekkid and he also loves dressing up in pretty much anything.

I uploaded a couple as attachments to this post, you be the judge whether this should be illegal.

[livius drusus]

Aw hell, if being adorably apple cheeked and donning a really long Morkish scarf is illegal, I don't even want to be law-abiding. He's a gorgeous little boy, dave, and his personality shines through the camera.

[LadyShea]

Ditto what livius' said. He is beautiful and that picture is darling.

[RevDahlia]

Let it read on my epitaph: She Died of Cute.

I mean it, I'm dyin' here. That is one adorable little kid.

[lady cop]

context and intent are everything. clearly innocuous childhood photos are not going to be the subject of a warrant or arrest.

[livius drusus]

They have been, though. Federal law narrowly defines child pornography as involving sexually explicit acts or "lascivious" presentation of the genitals, but some states are not so specific and there have definitely been arrests made based on bathtub pics and the like.

[Beth]

I think sexually suggestive poses could fall into the realm of kiddie porn as well, but not quite sure. I am not sure that the pic of Dave's son could be considerred kiddie porn, but I think a pedophile might find it a pic they would like to look at, unfortunately.
Honestly, I never take pics like that because I am afraid that such pics would fall into the kiddie porn category. I am even careful about the poses that I shoot of my kids. Like, when my daughter does pretzel poses, I no longer shoot pics because I know that pics the kids have taken of me doing the same pose has brought sexual comments from some people. Anyway, I do not take any pics of my kids in poses or garments that people might consider suggestive if an adult were in the shot instead.

Anyway, Dave, I am not trying to say anything bad about your son's pics. I know that you will treasure them forever and I see nothing lewd about your shooting them. So I hope my comment does not offend.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by lady cop

context and intent are everything. clearly innocuous childhood photos are not going to be the subject of a warrant or arrest.

Welcome lady cop! That's what I thought until I started reading about people being arrested at Walmart and such.

[lady cop]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Welcome lady cop! That's what I thought until I started reading about people being arrested at Walmart and such.

paranoia abounds among the hysterical witch-hunting types evidently...i've never seen it done in my venue. i have however, on another board, cautioned people not to post their kids' pictures on the internet due to pornographers altering them. and thankyou for the welcome!

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Beth

I think sexually suggestive poses could fall into the realm of kiddie porn as well, but not quite sure.

They can under federal law, definitely.

I am not sure that the pic of Dave's son could be considerred kiddie porn, but I think a pedophile might find it a pic they would like to look at, unfortunately.

I don't see how it could by any standard be considered kiddie porn unless the bar was set so low plain nudity counted. A pedophile would like to look at any pic of a child, I'm sure, so I don't think that's a reasonable standard either. I mean, it's a good reason to keep those kinds of pics very private (let me know if you ever want them deleted, dave), but not a good legal standard at all.

[lisarea]

While it may be unlikely that anyone would be convicted of producing kiddie porn because of innocent naked pictures, being accused is often enough.

This couple's children were taken away.

I've heard about other cases, too, but I don't have links. There was one woman who actually went to trial for innocent, IIRC, SEMI-nude pictures of her girls. Yes, I'm pretty sure it was pictures of a topless five year old or something like that, but I might be wrong, because I can't find a reference.

I think this is a TV movie about it.

So it happens. It's really very subjective, and when we rely on people's judgement to determine whether something is a crime or not, someone somewhere is going to be screwed at some point. I'm not saying it's avoidable or that there are objective means to determine what's porn and what's just nudity. It's just that that whole grey area can really be a minefield.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I don't see how it could by any standard be considered kiddie porn unless the bar was set so low plain nudity counted. A pedophile would like to look at any pic of a child, I'm sure, so I don't think that's a reasonable standard either. I mean, it's a good reason to keep those kinds of pics very private (let me know if you ever want them deleted, dave), but not a good legal standard at all.

From an article here about a guy in Canada who was accused:

When Minsk asked what was considered appropriate behaviour, the counsellor said nude pictures of children over 2 were taboo unless they were pictured in the bathroom or in a pool. The living room was out. "They were talking about a boundary", Minsk says, "but nobody convinced me that what I did was wrong".

Kind of scary, huh?

[LadyShea]

I think those beauty pageant type pics with tiny tots all made up and hairsprayed ala Jon Benet Ramsey are way worse than an innocent picture of a happy nude child running around the living room acting silly. Those pics make me totally uncomfortable.

And lisarea, that story you linked to above pretty scary considering "attachment parenting" and extended breastfeeding is a very popular parenting philosophy/method today.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by lisarea

While it may be unlikely that anyone would be convicted of producing kiddie porn because of innocent naked pictures, being accused is often enough.

This couple's children were taken away.

And they were ordered to take parenting classes, and they are going to have to take polygraph tests before their kids will be returned to them.

[lady cop]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think those beauty pageant type pics with tiny tots all made up and hairsprayed ala Jon Benet Ramsey are way worse than an innocent picture of a happy nude child running around the living room acting silly. Those pics make me totally uncomfortable.

And lisarea, that story you linked to above pretty scary considering "attachment parenting" and extended breastfeeding is a very popular parenting philosophy/method today.

although i believe the child was murdered by her parents, they did her up as pedophiles dream.