Parents Sue Walmart Over Nude Kids Pictures, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times

Topic started on 18-9-2009 @ 07:04 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Peoria parents sue Walmart, state over kids' nude bath pics

Ok please read the story or the title may be confusing.

What i will say here is that this is utterly ridiculous and our society is beginning to become to paranoid. I remember my parents taking pictures of me in the bath, well when i say remember i mean i have the pictures. They are of me giggling and having a good old time, so why exactly are these parents being brought to task?

Seriously now, can parents no longer take pictures of their children without getting in trouble? Can they not capture moments they want to cherish? Are the days of embarrassing your son in front of his girlfriend by showing him as a naked baby gone? For heavens sake there is a picture of me, tackle out in the bath that my last girlfriend found terribly amusing. Should i report my parents for child pornography? What utter nonsense.

Seriously where are things going.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 07:08 PM by RRconservative

If you don't have pictures of your kids playing in the bathtub, you can't be a true parent.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 07:11 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by RRconservative
If you don't have pictures of your kids playing in the bathtub, you can't be a true parent.

Well technically i could no doubt report my parents for child pornography couldn't i? I mean i was tackle out, in the bath, covered in bubbles and laughing my arse off in the photo and i believe i was 4 years old, (note there is an identical picture when i was 21 years old, not taken by my parents

).

Point being it seems we've gone to far with all this worry about parents and their children.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 07:24 PM by double_frick

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

luckily i was aware of this new rule before i took my kids bathtime pics in to be developed!
i use a home picture printer for those now. :/
it IS sad the world is coming to this...so much fear in the world today.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 07:30 PM by nunya13

ACK!

I can't believe what I just read. I really hope those parents get their justice.

IMO, this is as bad as that girl getting charged with distributing child pornography for sending a nude photo to her boyfriend. Actually it's a bit worse.

I'm at a loss for words to state exactly how I feel about this. "ACK!" is an understatement.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 07:38 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by double_frick
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

luckily i was aware of this new rule before i took my kids bathtime pics in to be developed!
i use a home picture printer for those now. :/
it IS sad the world is coming to this...so much fear in the world today.

I am truly sad that parents like yourself now ave to do this. It raises an interesting question though, should my parents who have these pictures now be prosecuted for creating child pornography? I mean me and my brother are naked in them. In fact thinking about it there is an incident where me and my brother are having a water fight and his shorts fall down. So should my parents be done for this?

I just don't understand it. Twenty years ago this would not be a problem and parents everywhere wuold happily embarrass their sons by showing these photos to their girlfriends............i know this from experience lol.

What is going on now that maens such things can get your children taken away from you, or at the least assessed and very possibly you end up on a register! I'm not a parent and yet i'm horrified by this.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 07:38 PM by Veritas Lux Mea

Parents still *CAN* have picture of their babies getting baths..

Its the digital age! Ever hear of a digital camera and photo printer?

As a mother myself, I have plenty photos of my son playing in bubbles -- looking like a mini Santa. Hehe.. its a MUST have!!

- Mea

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Veritas Lux Mea]

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 07:39 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by nunya13

IMO, this is as bad as that girl getting charged with distributing child pornography for sending a nude photo to her boyfriend. Actually it's a bit worse.

I think it is wrong to compare this to that. Don't get me wrong i think that girl should not have been arrested and prosecuted for that but it's an entirely different situation.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 07:42 PM by jd140

Those parents just got rich.

I guess the parents of the kids who show up on the huggies packaging that Wal Mart sells should be jailed too.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 07:45 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Veritas Lux Mea
Parents still *CAN* have picture of their babies getting baths..

Its the digital age! Ever hear of a digital camera and photo printer?

As a mother myself, I have plenty photos of my son playing in bubbles -- looking like a mini Santa. Hehe.. its a MUST have!!

- Mea

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Veritas Lux Mea]

Why should parents have to use their own printer though! In fact if that is the case then if the police ever find those photos they might prosecute you. This is where i'm not quite understanding things.

I don't usually request for stars and flags, i haven't done it in any of my threads but for this one i would request it simply because of the insanity of the story!

[edit on 18-9-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 07:49 PM by Veritas Lux Mea

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Why should parents have to use their own printer though! In fact if that is the case then if the police ever find those photos they might prosecute you. This is where i'm not quite understanding things.

Well the way I see it is; if it is in fact MY child, and it doesn't show anything inappropriate.. then I could care less if anyone finds them or not. Its not like the pictures show anything perverse or degrading in any way.

Who DOESN'T think their babies are cute sitting in a big tub of bubbles?

Honestly..! Heck, even the people developing the pictures probably thought they were cute. (If in fact, they were strictly innocent -- there IS a fine line, you know..)

- Mea

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 08:03 PM by Sundancer

This isn't the first family this has happened to. Welcome to Christian America, the only place in the world where they find filth in baby nudes.

I would be absolutely furious with Walmart as well as children's services. You can bet your butt if there was anything remotely resembling kiddie porn those kids would never have been sent home, the state loves to steal children from their families.

Who's really the perv here? I think it's the person who turned the family in, as well as the person or persons at the state that would make something dirty out of baby nudes! And how can it take an entire month for the state to decide if a parent should be punished for a baby nude?!?!

This is disgusting. Americans should be ashamed of what their country has become !

Edit to add star and flag.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Sundancer]

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 08:13 PM by jd140

reply to post by Sundancer

Yes lets not blame this on any individual. Lets blame the Christians.

That arguement gets as tired as the race card being played.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 08:15 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Veritas Lux Mea

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Why should parents have to use their own printer though! In fact if that is the case then if the police ever find those photos they might prosecute you. This is where i'm not quite understanding things.

Well the way I see it is; if it is in fact MY child, and it doesn't show anything inappropriate.. then I could care less if anyone finds them or not. Its not like the pictures show anything perverse or degrading in any way.

Who DOESN'T think their babies are cute sitting in a big tub of bubbles?

Honestly..! Heck, even the people developing the pictures probably thought they were cute. (If in fact, they were strictly innocent -- there IS a fine line, you know..)

- Mea

Well this is the problem. These pictures were innocent according to the parents but the police were called because it showed the childs genitals. My parents have numerous pictures like this, and i'm sure you also have pictures like that. Afterall it's kind of hard to avoid such things if your children are having a bath. So if you sent these pictures to a walmart, or this walmart you may very well be arrested!

Obviously those who were developing them did not think they were cute as they are the ones who called the police!

[edit on 18-9-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 08:17 PM by jd140

I have a pic in my year book of when I was being toilet trained.

I'm sitting on the little crapper with a kids toy cowboy hat on reading a superman comic that is upside down.

I'm glad my embarrasment came before all of this PC crap started happening.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 08:20 PM by spiritwomyn

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

have you watched America;s Funniest Video's? They often have funny videos sent in by people of naked, semi naked children, in bath tubs, or pants falling off and bums showing. I don't see any of them being persecuted. And that's national TV.

So will the lay claim against the TV station as publishing child porn, or the parent that sent it in? I mean really our parental rights are under such attack.

If you support Parental rights, check out the work of Parentalrights.org and the work being done to pass the Parental Rights Amendment.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 08:22 PM by spiritwomyn

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

maybe the ones developing the photos got off on them and felt guilty and so they turned them over to the police, but did they make copies first?

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 08:22 PM by spiritwomyn

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

maybe the ones developing the photos got off on them and felt guilty and so they turned them over to the police, but did they make copies first?

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 08:28 PM by Osiris1953

Originally posted by jd140
Those parents just got rich.

I guess the parents of the kids who show up on the huggies packaging that Wal Mart sells should be jailed too.

Speaking of which some of those huggies commercials show children who escape their diapers crawling around on screen completely naked, but that's not a crime. This really angers me, and unfortunately I'll have to leave it at that because I feel compelled to post strings of expletives, and since I'm also compelled to mind the t&c's I'm done.

reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 08:29 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by jd140
I have a pic in my year book of when I was being toilet trained.

I'm sitting on the little crapper with a kids toy cowboy hat on reading a superman comic that is upside down.

I'm glad my embarrasment came before all of this PC crap started happening.

Hey maybe if all this pc stuff came along my ex girlfriend wouldn't have seen me naked as a 5 year old and done the whole *aww so cute" things

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I suppos the difference here is exposure of genitals. Should parents have to carefully frame their photos to not include genitals? I mean once again my parents find it incredibly funny when they show girlfriends these photos of me, tackle out. That i think is the difference in this walmart situation.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^