How hard is it to determine what is an “innocent” family memory and what is actual child pornography?
After a family vacation to San Diego in 2008, Lisa and Anthony Demaree dropped off a memory card at their local Wal-Mart in Peoria, Arizona, to be developed. That should have been the end of the story, but as ABC News reports,
[I]nstead of receiving 144 happy familial memories, Walmart employees reported the Demarees to the Peoria Police Department on the suspicion that they had taken pornographic images of their children. The police, in turn, called in the Arizona Child Protective Services Agency, and the couple lost custody of their daughters for over a month.
They were shocked. “Some of the photos are bathtime photos,” Lisa Demaree told ABC News at the time, ”but there are a few after the bath. Three of the girls are naked, lying on a towel with their arms around each other, and we thought it was so cute.”
A judge in the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that the bath time pictures were not pornographic, a medical exam of the girls, ages 5, 3, and 1 1/2 at the time “revealed no signs of sexual abuse,” and they were returned to their parents after a period of time. But as ABC points out, the damage had already been done. The couple was listed on the central registry for sex offenders, and as Demaree points said, “We’ve missed a year of out children’s lives as far as memories go.”The couple sued the city of Peoria and the State Attorney General’s office in 2009 for defamation, and they have also sued Wal-Mart for “failing to tell them that they had an ‘unsuitable print policy’ and could turn over photos to law enforcement without the customer’s knowledge.” The case is now in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
What do you think?
Could the typical “bath time” photos virtually every parent takes of their child be considered child pornography?
Do parents need to start censoring the types of photos they take of their children no matter how “cute” they may be?
Should general employees be trusted to determine if a photo should be deemed pornographic?
Photo: Matt Cunnelly/Flickr
We’ve managed to create a panic around this that creates this kind of witch hunt. Combined with neo-Victorian thinking, it seems to short-circuit even the most basic level of rational thinking.
I’m against child pornography. But guess what? Nudes of any age aren’t pornographic. This is another example of the idiot repression culture that results from the moral panics we’ve had since the 70s. I hope they win all their lawsuits.
Legally speaking, any nude or semi-nude picture of a child can qualify as child porn. There is really no way to tell what images are harmless and which may be images of abuse, so I do not fault the employees for reporting the images. The law tells them to do that.
However, because of our hyper-vigilance about this issue, it is really unwise to take nude pictures of your children, especially once the children are out of diapers. It can get you into a lot of trouble if anyone finds the pictures, no matter how benign the images are.
Yes, unfortunately this would be considered somewhat of a success story (an unimaginably traumatic success story, but a success story non the less).