If you don't return the book, we'll charge you with child porn

[Apple Of Sodom]

Yea good luck with that. If you want to ruin your life go for it.

Nice argument. You state that it is child porn. I show you the law. You cannot even concede that you were wrong?

 

[OutHouse]

The person did exactly as Wal-Mart policy calls for. Wal-Mart handed the photos over to the police. Wal-Mart really did nothing wrong. That has nothing to do with my post, which is that the photo developers are supposed to determine what is appropriate to print and notify supervisors of pics of naked kids.

I notice that you have not yet responded to my other posts. Are you telling me that a photo depicting a hand up a skirt is sexually explicit and graphic as defined by the law?

Under cali law yup. http://www.shouselaw.com/child-pornography-crimes.html#define

Bottom line is the cops have classified the pic as child porn so i would say it shows more than a hand up a dress.

 

[Paladin3]

Having worked as a librarian in California elementary and middle schools, I can say the last thing most administrators are concerned with is teaching our children to actually think. School boards love to pass these kinds of zero-tolerance rules that prohibit schools from using any kind of judgement or common sense when incidents like these occur.

Teachers and school staff are required by law to report any possible "abuse", and their definition of "abuse" is obscenely vague and overreaching, or face dismissal and possible criminal charges. If your kid leaves his jacket at home on a cold day and I might have to report you as a bad parent. Your kid gets a black eye in karate class Tuesday night? Be prepared to explain it to the school on Wednesday morning and make it convincing or we will report you to child services to protect our jobs.

Law enforcement is often in the same boat, so I can see exactly why this school and the police are throwing around terms like "child porn" and demanding that the yearbooks be returned. It's classic CYA.

Who is to blame? That would be the overzealous school boards and dumbshit parents who demand these kinds of zero-tolerance rules and laws. Toss in a few "save the children" lawmakers and no wonder the American legal and education systems are an embarrassment.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Under cali law yup. http://www.shouselaw.com/child-pornography-crimes.html#define

Bottom line is the cops have classified the pic as child porn so i would say it shows more than a hand up a dress.

Still, it is not child porn under cali law. It doesn't show any of that. It goes back to my question, if I take a picture of a blanket, and under that blanket two minors are going at it, is that child porn? Prove his finger is inside her.

The description of the pic states the had is up the dress and nothing more. I won't assume it shows more than that so you can feel correct in this. My assumption is that the description of the photo is accurate. If it shows more than that then yes it is child porn, and whoever took the photo and proofed the yearbook should be scrutinized.

 

[thegimp03]

I didn't open the link in the OP to read the full article, but I'm guessing the 15 year old chick didn't like him flicking her bean?

If it was consensual, isn't it legal as they're both under 18?

 

[her209]

One wonders if what really hapened is when a school official saw the photo he didn't think omg child porn but instead, caching!

Why would they think about speeding up memory access times?

 

[Nik]

they're both minors.
the pic was not taken on purpose.
Complain and get the pic deleted from the yearbook, done.

Where's the crime?

That's the whole point.

"Look, there's a problem, turn in your yearbooks so we can verify that the pages have been removed and you can have them back" isn't really very difficult to do.

Fucking momo cops for not doing their real job in finding real criminals.

Fucking momo citizens for whining about losing one single page out of a worthless book that they'll lose or forget or throw away anyway.

 

[Nik]

I didn't open the link in the OP to read the full article, but I'm guessing the 15 year old chick didn't like him flicking her bean?

If it was consensual, isn't it legal as they're both under 18?

You cannot possess pictures that depict an underage person in any sort of sex act and cannot possess pictures that depict an underage person in any sort of sexual exposure. Depending on circumstances, a 10 year old in a bikini can get you in serious trouble even if there are no naughty bits officially showing.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

 

[Jeff7]

...
Teachers and school staff are required by law to report any possible "abuse", and their definition of "abuse" is obscenely vague and overreaching, or face dismissal and possible criminal charges. If your kid leaves his jacket at home on a cold day and I might have to report you as a bad parent. Your kid gets a black eye in karate class Tuesday night? Be prepared to explain it to the school on Wednesday morning and make it convincing or we will report you to child services to protect our jobs.
...

This happened to my supervisor at work. One of his kids tripped on something at home and banged his head against a wall, resulting in a bruise.
A day or two later, his wife at home nearly lost it when she was visited by Child Protective Services, after a teacher at school called them to report possible abuse.
(It did turn out ok, but this is a witch hunt/moral-panic problem.)

 

[shortylickens]

This happened to my supervisor at work. One of his kids tripped on something at home and banged his head against a wall, resulting in a bruise.
A day or two later, his wife at home nearly lost it when she was visited by Child Protective Services, after a teacher at school called them to report possible abuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_County_child_abuse_cases