Walmart sued over childrens' nude bathtub photo

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[spittledip]

From all the tards I have known at DSSs and CPSs, I am not surprised. It is kind of funny, b/c sometimes, as I have seen in the case of Foster Care, when a child should be removed from the home, DSS will fight to get the child back into the home to avoid having to do more work. I guess "funny" is the wrong word.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wal-mart should definitely be made to pay damages, they injured a family (possibly permanently) by their stupidity.

how so? for reporting child porn? even if many don't think it is (i don't. such pictures have been taken for years) it could still be used as such.

Can you imagian the outrage if these picturs ended up on some child porn site? people would be complaining that walmart is pro child porn.

They have the duty to report any such pictures.


If you want to blame anyone blame the idiotic parents for having the pictures devoloped at a public place.

Dude. . .you are so out of touch with reality and off base here it isn't even humanly fathomable. . .

I hope this family takes wal-mart for many millions of dollars. Just because a photograph is of a naked human being does NOT automatically qualify it as pornography.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: jonksyou said people are idiots for having such pictures developed by photoshops. People have been having such photos developed for decades without this becoming a pandemic of false arrests for child porn. Even if walmart felt obligated to report the photos, there was no obligation for CPS to remove the kids from the house based on 5 pics of kids in a bathtub taken by their own parents. At most a visit to the house or a phone call could have resolved the issue.

Yes people have been takeing them for years. I have no trouble with them at all.

I also agree CPS and the DA went far overboard in this. there was no justifcation to take the kids.

I just can't blame Walmart for calling. Not saying they are right or wrong. i can understand why they did.

People are bashing walmart for calling. could you imagian the thread if These pictures were on some child porn page and it was found out walmart knew of the pictures before? there would be many lawsuits from the goverment.

Originally posted by: Citrix
that "detective" needs to be fired. taking nude pictures of YOUR children is not illegal and is not child porn. This so called detective has no business in law enforcement he ruined a family. CPS is no better, the case worker or workers need to be fired for removing the kids. CPS has too much power and no accountability.

i agree. CPS has far to much power and nobody watching over them. When we were going for custody of my wife's sister my MIL made wild accusations of me abuseing her daughter and EVERY child in my town. While i had the parents of the children backing me i was still terrified what DCFS and the police would do.

I am old enough to remember what CPS (and DCFS) did in the late 70's early 80's with accusations of "child molestation".

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wal-mart should definitely be made to pay damages, they injured a family (possibly permanently) by their stupidity.

how so? for reporting child porn? even if many don't think it is (i don't. such pictures have been taken for years) it could still be used as such.

Can you imagian the outrage if these picturs ended up on some child porn site? people would be complaining that walmart is pro child porn.

They have the duty to report any such pictures.


If you want to blame anyone blame the idiotic parents for having the pictures devoloped at a public place.

Dude. . .you are so out of touch with reality and off base here it isn't even humanly fathomable. . .

I hope this family takes wal-mart for many millions of dollars. Just because a photograph is of a naked human being does NOT automatically qualify it as pornography.

actually the actions of this story and others prove me right.

Why take the chance of having a person at a place call the cops on you?

As a business owner why take the chance of the pictures show up on porn sites (and the news) and then ruin your reputation and get sued by the goverment?

teh small cost of the lawsuit this family has is nothing compared to how bad it could be if they ignored it.

 

[bamacre]

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

 

[Gand1]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Pulsar

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wal-mart should definitely be made to pay damages, they injured a family (possibly permanently) by their stupidity.

how so? for reporting child porn? even if many don't think it is (i don't. such pictures have been taken for years) it could still be used as such.

Can you imagian the outrage if these picturs ended up on some child porn site? people would be complaining that walmart is pro child porn.

They have the duty to report any such pictures.


If you want to blame anyone blame the idiotic parents for having the pictures devoloped at a public place.

As opposed to developing them at home, in their own Dark Room? WTF?

Seriously - developing is an automatic system at these places. There's no reason to look at the photos at all. But once you start LOOKING, you now assume responsibility for what you've seen.

Walmart IS responsible for this, as is law inforcement.

No walmart is not and no it is nto fully automatic system.


when you hear of stories like this one and others* you need to protect yourelf. places are nto looking out for you but for themselves. if someone put these pictures on the internet there would be a shit storm.



* this story is facinating. the women takes pictures of herself BREASTFEEDING. she gets teh cops called on her and arrested.

Umm, Waggy... it seems a lot of people put the pictures on the internet

http://images.google.com/image...1g2g-sx1g1g-sx1g1g-sx3

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Gand1

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Pulsar

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wal-mart should definitely be made to pay damages, they injured a family (possibly permanently) by their stupidity.

how so? for reporting child porn? even if many don't think it is (i don't. such pictures have been taken for years) it could still be used as such.

Can you imagian the outrage if these picturs ended up on some child porn site? people would be complaining that walmart is pro child porn.

They have the duty to report any such pictures.


If you want to blame anyone blame the idiotic parents for having the pictures devoloped at a public place.

As opposed to developing them at home, in their own Dark Room? WTF?

Seriously - developing is an automatic system at these places. There's no reason to look at the photos at all. But once you start LOOKING, you now assume responsibility for what you've seen.

Walmart IS responsible for this, as is law inforcement.

No walmart is not and no it is nto fully automatic system.


when you hear of stories like this one and others* you need to protect yourelf. places are nto looking out for you but for themselves. if someone put these pictures on the internet there would be a shit storm.



* this story is facinating. the women takes pictures of herself BREASTFEEDING. she gets teh cops called on her and arrested.

Umm, Waggy... it seems a lot of people put the pictures on the internet

http://images.google.com/image...1g2g-sx1g1g-sx1g1g-sx3

and what does that prove?

I have nto said such pictures are bad or that you shouldnt take them.


I am saying i can see why walmart called. Put yourself in walmarts (and the employees) shoes. he sees pictures that can be considered child porn (naked children). he is told by managment if he sees such stuff to tell them and call teh cops.

if he does not and this gets out both im and walmart can get in trouble. IF the pictures ever ended up on a child porn site walmart is screwed. It is better for the company to error on the side of caution.


I also have said the DA, cops and CPS over reacted. sure the cops talk to them and look at the pics..then that should have been the end of it. but some wanted to nail a "child pornagrapher" to help there carrer.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: waggy

I am saying i can see why walmart called. Put yourself in walmarts (and the employees) shoes. he sees pictures that can be considered child porn (naked children).

Actually, there are specific criteria that have to be met for it to be considered "porn."

Nudity is not the deciding factor.


Now maybe the idiot at Walmart making minimum isnt going to know those criteria, but CPS and the DA should.

 

[miketheidiot]

there was no legal risk to walmart here by not turning them in, as far as i'm concerned

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Ironic that laws intended to protect children from sexual abuse end up forcing them to undergo "examinations for sexual abuse" which is almost the same thing, at least from the perspective of a child.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: waggy

I am saying i can see why walmart called. Put yourself in walmarts (and the employees) shoes. he sees pictures that can be considered child porn (naked children).

Actually, there are specific criteria that have to be met for it to be considered "porn."

Nudity is not the deciding factor.


Now maybe the idiot at Walmart making minimum isnt going to know those criteria, but CPS and the DA should.

i agree. the cops, CPS and DA should have known better. but they couldnt pass up the chance to be able to claim they nailed a child pornagrapher.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
there was no legal risk to walmart here by not turning them in, as far as i'm concerned

i would think so too. but the lawyers for such company's think difrently. the peon at the desk (and manager) fallow what they are told. I can't blame them for that.

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
Ironic that laws intended to protect children from sexual abuse end up forcing them to undergo "examinations for sexual abuse" which is almost the same thing, at least from the perspective of a child.

sad but true.

 

[Deeko]

Ok, so Walmart makes the call to cover their own ass. Meh, I guess that's not a big deal.

Who the hell in the government thought it was a good idea to take the kids away from the parents for a month?? They should have looked at the pictures, went "meh", and moved on.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wal-mart should definitely be made to pay damages, they injured a family (possibly permanently) by their stupidity.

how so? for reporting child porn? even if many don't think it is (i don't. such pictures have been taken for years) it could still be used as such.

Can you imagian the outrage if these picturs ended up on some child porn site? people would be complaining that walmart is pro child porn.

They have the duty to report any such pictures.


If you want to blame anyone blame the idiotic parents for having the pictures devoloped at a public place.

*weeps for humanity and common sense*

EDIT - There's something poetic about that phrase being my Lifer post...I think I'll sig it for a while.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Ronstang]

This world gets dumber every day and the bigger the government grows the more people lack the ability to make judgment calls. So it is now sexual abuse to give your young children a bath? So I am a pedophile because one day when I was babysitting my two grand daughters I had to give them a bath? If the act of giving young children a bath is OK, which it is, then so is snapping a photo for future embarrassment's sake. I doubt you will find anyone that hasn't had a photo or two fo them taken by their parents when they were young and in the bath.

I really cannot believe how dumb the world is getting.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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? i swear i hear of something like this happening every year or so. Enough that there is no way i would devolop such pictures at a such a place.


you want to put yourself and more importantly your children at risk go ahead. don't come crying when soemthing happens (doubtfull).

Walmart is damned if they do and damned if they don't. One one hand people are complaining because they called because they seen pictures of naked children (if as the parents say they are in a bathtub playing and are young kids then it wouldnt bother me). But IF the manager didn't call and they appeared on a child porn ring then people would be saying how walmart encourges child porn and they would be open to lawsuits from the goverment.

i don't blame walmart. I DO blame the cops, DA, and CPS for over reaction. Once it got to the police they should have seen the pictures and seen they were nto child porn but pictures 95% of the population does and told the people to be carefull and have a nice day. it should never got to CPS (though it hink they are called in no matter what) or the DA.

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: waggy


people need to use some common sense. America is 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.

Fixed.

 

[zephyrprime]

I blame America for being so ridiculous in the first place. Sad thing is, the DA is just doing his job and the laws are what they are.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I blame America for being so ridiculous in the first place. Sad thing is, the DA is just doing his job and the laws are what they are.

Huh? Site the law that says that you have to get your kids taken away for bathtub photos.

 

[ahurtt]

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

I agree 100%. This case actually speaks volumes about the inner workings of the sick mind of the person who decided that innocent nude childhood photos of a parents' own children at bath time could be construed as Pr0n. A normal, well adjusted, and psychologically stable adult individual would look at such photos and think nothing more than "how cute, that's adorable and heart-warming." It takes a special kind of perverse mind to see photos of this nature and construe them as pornography. Keep that wal-mart employee, the wal-mart executive who decided to pursue this case, and that DA who took the case no less than 100 yards from my child at all times.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
there was no legal risk to walmart here by not turning them in, as far as i'm concerned

Agreed. They have stirred themselves up a hornets nest of legal trouble now however simply by apparently not even bothering to try and take even one moment to look up the actual definition for something that qualifies as pornography before deciding to make a "federal case" out of it. This is a case where a little bit of knowledge is even more dangerous than no knowledge.