It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Barbie...She's Been a Chef, A Teacher, Now...Pedophile? New Barbie Sparks FBI Warning This Xmas

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by hotbakedtater


I wanted to coment on this. There have been documented cases of parents being prosecuted for having naked baby pictures.


I wonder, if there might have been extenuating circumstances involved. Past history of the "parents", perhaps abusing OTHER children, and then using THEIR OWN as well (vile of course, and certainly prosecutable and NOT defensible....)...but, let's make sure we're in context, please?

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by spikey

I'm from the 90's and my parents have pictures of bath time. Parents see their kids naked all the time, and there is nothing sexual about parents changing a diaper or giving their kids a bath. If you make it sexual your a perv.

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

One of the articles claims thirty minutes recording time, which can then be downloaded to your computer.

Thank you for the article and video link on Mattel, the Barbie maker. It is interesting the company has a newbie at the helm, who seems extremely eager to sell this new doll franchise. The article stated his career could be on the line if he has a bunch of flops.

Hmm. Have we stumbled upon potential corporate espionage?

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Nope there are actual cases back when you had to take your photos developed where they've called the cops and that never goes away circumstances or not. Its sad, and true. People jump the gun make a false accusation and the police take it extremely seriously.

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by Xiamara

I agree 100%.


posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:17 AM

Indeed they could. This spring, Alma Vasquez, a 22-year-old Utah mom, was charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor after, police said, she took photos of the child’s father, 34-year-old Sergio Diaz-Palomino, sexually abusing their infant son.

But charges were later dropped because police determined Diaz-Palomino did not assault the baby. Instead, the couple was giving the boy a bath and after the bath, while the baby was still wet and laughing and the father happily kissed the infant’s body, Vasquez documented the scene as family memorabilia. She took the film to Walgreens for processing into prints, and a technician alerted the police. Arrests, jail, indictments, the child’s removal from Vasquez’s home by the state, followed. Diaz-Palomino, who was in the country illegally, was deported.

Read the whole article, it has a little on a mom who posyed her naked baby picture online, and was horrified to find it had been downloaded three times rather quickly.

Now really, what is the need in today's world, for a naked baby picture? Sure, if they are kept private in the family album, and only brought out for special occasions to be viewed with other pictures, big deal.

But this posting naked baby pictures online is unecessary and frankly I question a parent who would allow the access to their naked baby to anyone for any reason. That is disturbing. Not that the picture or baby is wrong in itself, it is what we all know can and does happen. Like it has been said, it is the parents job to protect their kid from harm.

And Lifetime or somebody had a movie about this subject, naked kid pictures, based off a true story.

Also, on the subject, I recently watched a Brooke Sheilds movie called Pretty Baby. It showed a twelve yr old Brooke naked. Why is this allowed, if naked baby pictures are so taboo anymore?

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by hotbakedtater

This is so evil on so many different levels. What, the #. AHHHH. Kill it.

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:23 PM
I just wanted to add this before the conversation gets too out of hand: just having a picture of a child who is naked, is NOT considered child pornography. So if the doll accidentally films the child it is NOT going to be concidered pornography. In order for it to be considered child pronography the child has to be engaged in some kind of sexual behavior. Be it actual sex acts or posing in a sexual manner.

Now that being said, who knows what the government storm troopers could come up with if they really wanted to get someone but this is how most child pornography laws are interpreted.

Source: parents are both lawyers, one an assistant district attorney. Myself: former cop for 7 years.

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:58 PM
My niece has had a digital camera since she was four years old.

Anyone who goes from "Child" and "Camera" directly to "Pornography" is clearly a pervert themselves. Trying to deflect their perversions by accusing others of it? Sounds pretty typical.

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:15 PM
I saw this article yesterday and thought about posting it.........Then thought to myself what the hell is wrong with people anymore. It seems everything nowdays has a connection to pedorats. I think even more disturbing is that people in law enforcement actually take the time to think the scenarios up!!! Well perhaps it's a safer world that they do. But now that my eyes have been opened to the possibilities of this innocent looking doll I guess it's good to expose these types of evil.

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:39 PM
I most definitely think the authorities are going way overboard on the pedophile bandwagon. Is there really parents out there anymore who are unaware of predators? It is a toy, and like others have said, most kids born nowadays are using computers, iphones, ipods and digital cameras from the time they can hold them I know I have little relatives as saavy as I am on the computer and I have been on here twenty years!

I also want to comment on the naked baby picture thing. Let's say somehow a pervert snaps a picture of your little boy dropping his trousers and peeing on a tree. Is it child porn in his hands? I know naked babies are sweet and innocent and cute but I would never want pictures of my kids to somehow get used by perverts to ge ttheir jollies so I prevented that by never having any of those type pictures taken or made.

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Xiamara
reply to post by Phantom traveller

You can't wirelessly transmit from a device that doesn't have wireless capabilities you can only hack the computer the device loads to. So a pedophile could NOT hack the barbie to transmit wirelessly to their computer.

I agree with you on your opinions on barbie but hey I had them and I'm a woman who feels perfectly secure with myself and I don't agree with what the barbie label sets forth, but that's because I had a good mother who taught me that barbie is a doll and not something to idolize and work to become.

Maybe i went too far with the hacking but all i'm saying is that if someone wants to take advantage of this situation is going to find a way.
I'm a woman too,the family and friends always brought me barbies as presents but for a reason i never liked them.I'm sure about myself and what i can achieve and i look nothing like the doll.Unfortunattely there are many girls out there that feel that they are not going to do anything with their lives unless they look like hollywood stars.I know a few of them and the only thing they care about is how they look like.

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:03 AM
reply to post by hotbakedtater

I suppose most likely a pic like that would be child pornography in that context. It might bring up some questions if one had a picture like that of a random child but really the telling detail would be if a person had many pictures of that nature.
edit on 6-12-2010 by Redwookieaz because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I suppose the FBI is thinking the Ped's themselves will purchase it to lure the child or something convoluted as per their MO.

I think the fuzz have lost it... I mean here we have the FBI on the one hand playing with Barbie dolls and the TSA on the other hand strip searching children at the airports...


But what is funny is this (in light of all the wikileak fuss)

The agency stressed the alert had been intended only for internal circulation.


posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 01:20 PM
I do not know if it is related to the FBI "leak", but here is little tidbit regarding this particular Barbie.

I was shoping at Target yesterday, and on my list was a Barbie for one on the gift list. Of course, Target had an entire display with Video Barbie, so eagerly, I pressed the button to "Try Me!". Nada. Nothing, it did not work!

I laughed, but wondered if it was the Leak, or some teens make nasty videos on it, or something like that. I mean all the other little aisle displays worked, like the Princess Barbies. You pressed their button and it sang a song. Or the lego display, the pieces moved a little.

Thought it was interesting and timely.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in