Walmart sued over childrens' nude bathtub photo

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: rudder
Tough call on this one. The parents were stupid for getting those developed at wal-mart. but the whole idea that these are child porn is ridiculous. Does anyone believe that the town's pedobear goes to walmart to develop his digital smut? No he uses a personal printer.

Walmart probably did the right thing, I would rather them be wrong than miss a real pedo. The fact that child services and DA got involved is what is ridiculous. And no this is not a pics request... but without actually seeing the pics it would be hard to make a determination into what exactly authorities were thinking.

I think it will play out as another government entity without the balls to admit they made a mistake so the whole thing had to be played out with child services through court.

Why shouldn't they get the pictures developed at WalMart? They are not pornographic in nature.

to be coorect there was nothing to get developted. they were digital photos, they should have just bought a photo printer for a hundred bucks and printed them themselves.

Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree's three young daughters were taken away by Arizona Child Protective Services last fall when a Walmart employee found partially nude pictures of the girls on a camera memory stick taken to the store for processing, according to the suit.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: waggy
[...] you are a idiot if you take such photos and have them devoloped at such places and NO walmart shouldnt pay for it.

What? Pray tell, where should people go to develop their pictures instead?

Must I go to an expensive dedicated studio, just because some low-paid corporate scum-sucker decided that my children's pictures are child pornography?

It seems everyone else in this thread has shown their disagreement with you.

Originally posted by: Brovane

Why shouldn't they get the pictures developed at WalMart? They are not pornographic in nature.

who here is saying they are pornographic in nature?

What i am saying (and seems others agree) is that its silly to ask anyone else to devolop them.

people need to use some common sense. people are so uptight about nudity as it is. throw in the fact that the picture is of a child and some are going to have a hissyfit.

why take the chance of something happening like this?

Your logic here is absurd. . .If you are of middle eastern decent, why fly on a commercial airliner in this post-9-11 world where other people MIGHT racially profile you and come to the hasty and mistaken conclusion that you are a terrorist and have you arrested. Better to just walk or drive wherever you need to go rather than use a form of rapid mass transit where you might be mistaken for a hijacker. . .

Why ever open your mouth and utter a single sentence or word for the risk that somebody might overhear what you said and take it out of context and or misunderstand you and interpret what you said as a racial slur or obscenity or insult and beat the snot out of you. . .

Why the fuck ever do anything for that matter because there's a chance that any given thing you do might offend some random idiot and they might sue you for hurting their feelings?

See where I'm going with this??? You can't go through life living in fear of offending hypersensitive or ultra-stupid idiots by doing perfectly reasonable and legal every day things. People all over the country. . .nay, all over the world. . .have been getting perfectly innocent photos of their sometimes naked children developed in photo shops all over the place for pretty much as long as there have been cameras. . .WHAT in the HELL makes this case any different other than the apparent complete breakdown of any logic and common sense on the parts of all the accusers involved?

 

[Exterous]

Having had to deal with finding questionable material on a customers computer (years in the past) I was instructed by our lawyers to call the police but make no judgement calls as to the nature of the material. That was for the authorities to decide.

If Walmart just called and asked the police to investigate then I can see no wrong doing on Walmart's part. It was not their decision to take the kids away.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: waggy
[...] you are a idiot if you take such photos and have them devoloped at such places and NO walmart shouldnt pay for it.

What? Pray tell, where should people go to develop their pictures instead?

Must I go to an expensive dedicated studio, just because some low-paid corporate scum-sucker decided that my children's pictures are child pornography?

It seems everyone else in this thread has shown their disagreement with you.

Originally posted by: Brovane

Why shouldn't they get the pictures developed at WalMart? They are not pornographic in nature.

who here is saying they are pornographic in nature?

What i am saying (and seems others agree) is that its silly to ask anyone else to devolop them.

people need to use some common sense. people are so uptight about nudity as it is. throw in the fact that the picture is of a child and some are going to have a hissyfit.

why take the chance of something happening like this?

Your logic here is absurd. . .If you are of middle eastern decent, why fly on a commercial airliner in this post-9-11 world where other people MIGHT racially profile you and come to the hasty and mistaken conclusion that you are a terrorist and have you arrested. Better to just walk or drive wherever you need to go rather than use a form of rapid mass transit where you might be mistaken for a hijacker. . .

Why ever open your mouth and utter a single sentence or word for the risk that somebody might overhear what you said and take it out of context and or misunderstand you and interpret what you said as a racial slur or obscenity or insult and beat the snot out of you. . .

Why the fuck ever do anything for that matter because there's a chance that any given thing you do might offend some random idiot and they might sue you for hurting their feelings?

See where I'm going with this??? You can't go through life living in fear of offending hypersensitive or ultra-stupid idiots by doing perfectly reasonable and legal every day things. People all over the country. . .nay, all over the world. . .have been getting perfectly innocent photos of their sometimes naked children developed in photo shops all over the place for pretty much as long as there have been cameras. . .WHAT in the HELL makes this case any different other than the apparent complete breakdown of any logic and common sense on the parts of all the accusers involved?

yea getting questioned by TSA for a few minutes is the same as getting your kids snatched by CPS and examined for sexual abuse.

:roll:

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
Why do we, as a society, equate nudity with something sexual? That, IMO, is the core problem here.

I second that motion.

I know someone who is fighting an indecent exposure charge, in which he will have to register as a sex offender, because his friends got him super drunk one night at a bar (he doesnt drink often) and he wondered off. A cop found him stumbling around and then peeing on a tree. The guy was so drunk he couldnt even tell the officer his name or address. For christ's sakes, as drunk as he was, he at least found a tree to pee on. Granted there were people outside the bar that could see him, but still. He was just a funny drunk doing something stupid. The guy doesnt' even remember it happening.

WTF? How is taking a leak, even if in public, have anything to do with a sexual offense?

 

[TechBoyJK]

I'm starting to see the logic in that Walmart shouldn't take the bulk of the blame here. An employee probably over reacted by reporting the photos. Perhaps they have their own issues.

However, it's the DA and CPS that screwed the pooch here. THey should have been given the case, look at a picture, and closed the case and told Walmart thanks. The parent's should have never even heard about this.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
Why do we, as a society, equate nudity with something sexual? That, IMO, is the core problem here.

I second that motion.

I know someone who is fighting an indecent exposure charge, in which he will have to register as a sex offender, because his friends got him super drunk one night at a bar (he doesnt drink often) and he wondered off. A cop found him stumbling around and then peeing on a tree. The guy was so drunk he couldnt even tell the officer his name or address. For christ's sakes, as drunk as he was, he at least found a tree to pee on. Granted there were people outside the bar that could see him, but still. He was just a funny drunk doing something stupid. The guy doesnt' even remember it happening.

WTF? How is taking a leak, even if in public, have anything to do with a sexual offense?

stupid isnt it?

in boulder every halloween there is a naked pumpkin run where people put a damn carved pumpkin on their head and streak through boulder around 10pm. last year the cops cracked down on it and 13 people out of a couple hundred got arrested and were charged with public nudity which means they would have had to register as sex offenders.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I'm starting to see the logic in that Walmart shouldn't take the bulk of the blame here. An employee probably over reacted by reporting the photos. Perhaps they have their own issues.

However, it's the DA and CPS that screwed the pooch here. They should have been given the case, look at a picture, and closed the case and told Walmart thanks. The parent's should have never even heard about this.

:thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
Why do we, as a society, equate nudity with something sexual? That, IMO, is the core problem here.

I second that motion.

I know someone who is fighting an indecent exposure charge, in which he will have to register as a sex offender, because his friends got him super drunk one night at a bar (he doesnt drink often) and he wondered off. A cop found him stumbling around and then peeing on a tree. The guy was so drunk he couldnt even tell the officer his name or address. For christ's sakes, as drunk as he was, he at least found a tree to pee on. Granted there were people outside the bar that could see him, but still. He was just a funny drunk doing something stupid. The guy doesnt' even remember it happening.

WTF? How is taking a leak, even if in public, have anything to do with a sexual offense?

stupid isnt it?

in boulder every halloween there is a naked pumpkin run where people put a damn carved pumpkin on their head and streak through boulder around 10pm. last year the cops cracked down on it and 13 people out of a couple hundred got arrested and were charged with public nudity which means they would have had to register as sex offenders.

So much for living in a "free country."

 

[mchammer187]

I don't see how Wal-Mart should bear any responsibility. They are covering their own asses. The authorities however should be fired over this for taking the kids away for a month and damages should be paid to the family.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: mchammer187
I don't see how Wal-Mart should bear any responsibility. They are covering their own asses. The authorities however should be fired over this for taking the kids away for a month and damages should be paid to the family.

sounds good.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
Why do we, as a society, equate nudity with something sexual? That, IMO, is the core problem here.

I second that motion.

I know someone who is fighting an indecent exposure charge, in which he will have to register as a sex offender, because his friends got him super drunk one night at a bar (he doesnt drink often) and he wondered off. A cop found him stumbling around and then peeing on a tree. The guy was so drunk he couldnt even tell the officer his name or address. For christ's sakes, as drunk as he was, he at least found a tree to pee on. Granted there were people outside the bar that could see him, but still. He was just a funny drunk doing something stupid. The guy doesnt' even remember it happening.

WTF? How is taking a leak, even if in public, have anything to do with a sexual offense?

stupid isnt it?

in boulder every halloween there is a naked pumpkin run where people put a damn carved pumpkin on their head and streak through boulder around 10pm. last year the cops cracked down on it and 13 people out of a couple hundred got arrested and were charged with public nudity which means they would have had to register as sex offenders.

In oregon it's legal to be naked wherever you want as long as you aren't acting in a lewd manner or something. Colorado sounds super uptight.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
Why do we, as a society, equate nudity with something sexual? That, IMO, is the core problem here.

I second that motion.

I know someone who is fighting an indecent exposure charge, in which he will have to register as a sex offender, because his friends got him super drunk one night at a bar (he doesnt drink often) and he wondered off. A cop found him stumbling around and then peeing on a tree. The guy was so drunk he couldnt even tell the officer his name or address. For christ's sakes, as drunk as he was, he at least found a tree to pee on. Granted there were people outside the bar that could see him, but still. He was just a funny drunk doing something stupid. The guy doesnt' even remember it happening.

WTF? How is taking a leak, even if in public, have anything to do with a sexual offense?

stupid isnt it?

in boulder every halloween there is a naked pumpkin run where people put a damn carved pumpkin on their head and streak through boulder around 10pm. last year the cops cracked down on it and 13 people out of a couple hundred got arrested and were charged with public nudity which means they would have had to register as sex offenders.

In oregon it's legal to be naked wherever you want as long as you aren't acting in a lewd manner or something. Colorado sounds super uptight.

Wow that's crazy. I can even see giving people slaps on the wrist for it but registering as sex offenders? My argument has always been if you put too many people on sex offender lists, it dilutes them and will cause people to not take them seriously. I don't want to know where everyone who has ever committed a crime in their life lives... just the bad ones.

 

[bamacre]

You may find some of this information interesting...
(NSFW Images)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_nudity

 

[DrPizza]

Jury trial? I'd be happy to be a juror at that trial. It's about time people started paying a price for ignoring common sense. I'd award $1 million for what they put the family through & $50 million to send a message.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I blame the Walmart employee that got the woodie looking at the pictures. Who else but a Pedo would look for nikid kid pictures. Better screening in their hiring practice. Hmm? The DA, turned him on too? A bit of overcompensation there? After all the test for porn is if they look at it and get turned on.

 

[Vic]

Good for them, I hope they get a nice settlement, and the DA and the CPS employees involved lose their jobs.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: mchammer187
I don't see how Wal-Mart should bear any responsibility. They are covering their own asses. The authorities however should be fired over this for taking the kids away for a month and damages should be paid to the family.

Covering their ass from what? The ony reason it's an issue is because they even said anything about it to anybody at all in the first place. I guarantee you at least 100 other photo development shops in various other cities around the country were developing bath time or potty training photos that other people took of their own kids at the same time as this genius Wal-Mart employee and guess what. . .none of them are being sued because they applied approximately a half an ounce of common sense by not even bothering to report a non existent crime.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Wow that's crazy. I can even see giving people slaps on the wrist for it but registering as sex offenders? My argument has always been if you put too many people on sex offender lists, it dilutes them and will cause people to not take them seriously. I don't want to know where everyone who has ever committed a crime in their life lives... just the bad ones.

I agree with the latter statement wholeheartedly. Only the worst people should be on the list. The problem comes when it comes time to change the rules. Reduce the amount of people that can be on the list, suddenly you're soft on sex offenders :roll: Increasing the amount of people the list can take also helps DAs get elected: "look at how many sex offenders we locked up."

There really is no reason to have this scarlet letter. You serve the time, that's it. If you're not ready to be released into society, the sentence should be longer.

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: mchammer187
I don't see how Wal-Mart should bear any responsibility. They are covering their own asses. The authorities however should be fired over this for taking the kids away for a month and damages should be paid to the family.

Covering their ass from what? The ony reason it's an issue is because they even said anything about it to anybody at all in the first place. I guarantee you at least 100 other photo development shops in various other cities around the country were developing bath time or potty training photos that other people took of their own kids at the same time as this genius Wal-Mart employee and guess what. . .none of them are being sued because they applied approximately a half an ounce of common sense by not even bothering to report a non existent crime.

How are they at fault at all.

They can bring it up but they(WALMART) have NO POWER. The people in charge are ultimately responsible.

Lets say I call the cops on someone because I hear screaming or something in their house. It turns out it was just a movie. The cops break down the door and beat that person unjustifiably. Suddenly its the person that calls the cops fault not the cops themselves?

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: 1prophet
This is nothing more than one example of zero-tolerance sue happy America having their chickens coming home to roost.

I really don't think so at all, I think it is America's sexual repression and paranoia coming home to roost. First of all I'm not aware of a store ever being held liable for developing pictures like that. (I'm not certain that such a thing has never happened, but I'm not aware of it). As jonks said though, even if that were the case the actions of CPS, etc. were inexcusable.

This is not due to sexual repression since pictures like this would not have raised a legal eyebrow 30 years ago when America was far more conservative.

To quote a famous a famous Supreme Court justice.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.
But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.] ?

? Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Love

Everyone assumes that But I know it when I see it should have been used here but thanks to today's litigious society no one wants to be the one making that decision, instead report it, arrest them and let the experts in the legal system sort it out.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I'm starting to see the logic in that Walmart shouldn't take the bulk of the blame here. An employee probably over reacted by reporting the photos. Perhaps they have their own issues.

However, it's the DA and CPS that screwed the pooch here. THey should have been given the case, look at a picture, and closed the case and told Walmart thanks. The parent's should have never even heard about this.

Agreed. Goes to show that some people can be educated beyond their intelligence. I hope the family sues the shit out the city for pursuing the case.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

In oregon it's legal to be naked wherever you want as long as you aren't acting in a lewd manner or something. Colorado sounds super uptight.

heh, let us hope the seniors don't take advantage of that.

Years ago there was a couple of women that were going around with a petition to allow women to walk around topless. Their reasoning was pretty sound, men can do it , why can't we ?
I signed !



The whole thing is stupid.
Quick someone call the FBI, look at all the nude children !
http://www.purenudism.com/two-moms-with-child.html

Imagine two young boys. One has visited a nudist club many times with his family, the other may have only rarely seen a parent unclothed, and they may have seemed embarrassed when that happened. The non-nudist boy says to his friend, "Look what I've found!" as he shows the nudist kid a copy of Playboy or some similar magazine, which he found somewhere.

As they look at the pictures of scantily clothed, erotically posed women, the boy who has seen hundreds of people of all ages and body types, will probably think, "I've seen lots of naked people before. Why does he want to sneak looks at this?" He might also think, "This isn't even what most people look like."

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: waggy
thats crazy. but i understand WHY walmart did it (can't wait for the walmart bashing!).

anymore you are a idiot if you take such photos and have them devoloped at such places and NO walmart shouldnt pay for it.

I don't understand. Someone should have looked at the pics and realized this was basic family 101 vacation stuff. No big deal whatsoever, and they caused these people great harm by not using common sense.

I think the parents could have been wiser. Damn, they should have a digital cam so they can avoid this, but they didnt.

Looks like they DID have a digital camera...

found partially nude pictures of the girls on a camera memory stick taken to the store for processing

Sounds to me like Walmart and the photo processing people overstepped the bounds of common sense, and that the CPS folks also fell victim to pure stupidity...

From the little bit of information we're given, it sounds like there was NO child porn, nothing that even resembled child porn, and everyone involved in this should be held liable...which means, "HIT THEM IN THE POCKET!" which is the only dammed thing they understand. (I wouldn't be offended if they fired everyone who made these terrible decisions as well.)

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

In a nation where children cry (or so their parents said in complaints) over a mostly covered nipple on the telly i expect nothing sane.