What is Digg?239 Comments
- Mooseknuckle, on 10/12/2007, -17/+342I wholeheartedly disagree... When I was a kid, in my neighboorhood, up until the age of six, I and my neighbors' kids would run around naked in the sprinklers in our front yards, and no one thought anything of it.
My friends's children, including daughters 5 and 8 still run around the house topless or in their underwear in front of guests, and really ... there's nothing wrong about it.
Nudity in ANY form is just plain fine. If you're unconfortable seeing children naked, then there is something wrong with you. We were born naked, and for a long time, our ancestors lived naked. There is nothing 'civilized' about clothing other than its utilitarian use to keep you warm or protect you from your environment.
In proper situations, ESPECIALLY like CAMPING (!!!), you have every excuse to be naked, no matter what age you are. And as for peeing on the campfire, that sounds like a pretty effective method of making sure you dont start a ***** fire.
People who dont get this are boneheads, and they are the reason our society will ultimately end up failing and resetting. Darwinism will always win in the end. Your time is coming!! - tryingmybest, on 10/12/2007, -7/+299A similar thing happened to a woman in Texas (maybe) several years ago. An overzealous 1-hr photo clerk at a drugstore deemed photos of her daughter in a bathtub pornographic. I think it always goes back to the definition of pornography. The most sensible definition says that pornography is material meant for sexual arousal. Photographs of kids swimming naked on a camping trip are certainly outside of this category. If someone finds such imagery sexually arousing that person should be investigated by the authorities, not the parent who took the pictures.
- jo42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+169Further proof that humanity is getting more and more frickin' STUPID.
- bebop717, on 10/12/2007, -37/+191America is full of prudes, it was full of prudes when the mayflower hit the shore and it full of prudes now.
- SimpleBinary, on 10/12/2007, -7/+119I think that the parents should've been able to explain themselves BEFORE the investigation. This would've shown that these pictures were not taken in any sexual manner This is going to end up being even more damaging for entire family, than just some innocent photos taken on a camping trip.
- Clbck, on 10/12/2007, -9/+106@ilyag
No, you read the ***** article. I dunno about the running around naked part, but according to the article... "I took pictures of the kids using sticks to beat on old bottles and cans and logs as musical instruments." - finbib, on 10/12/2007, -2/+94Moral of the story? Don't forget your digital camera.
- dunezone, on 10/12/2007, -5/+86@ilyag
Drinking Alcohol? If you read the article it stated the girl was holding a broken bottle that she was going to use for something else. - trypnotic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+78If you read the WHOLE article, you would have seen that this was a fishing expedition. Guilty until proven innocent, etc.
From the article:
The photo of a "child drinking beer" was actually one of Rusty's daughter carrying a broken beer bottle she had found and planned to put into her makeshift xylophone. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+60Wouldn't real child-pornographers use digital cameras and photo printers at their house? Who would be stupid enough to take that horrible ***** to get it developed?
- gothsquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -11/+67I agree thats why i hate talking to people in public
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+58Our legal system is out of control.
- dhuck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+57weird? sure. but child porno? not by a long shot.
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+50If people are this up tight, why aren't they reporting those diaper ads or baby bath soap/shampoo ads?
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -6/+55One more reason to abandon traditional film cameras and go digital.
It's just like how parents are pulling their kids out of school in record numbers and doing home schooling.
More and more people are abandoning a failing infrastructure/legal system/society. - nikitab, on 10/12/2007, -9/+55This seems like the family may be able to sue the government. Anybody have a comment on that?
- kyriakos, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48actually its not humanity.. its american paranoia.. from my point of view people in the US keep losing their freedom..
- sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42Oh no, nudity! How unnatural, especially in the woods! How grotesque! Are these people not civilized? Where is their sense of humanity?.....
Where is the clerk's? - IceSt0rm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40I think this is a common sense thing. There is an obvious difference between a family vacation video and child porn. I know my parents took their share of videos/photos with myself and my siblings naked. It's not meant to be sexually arousing it's simply capturing those memories. Now if he were to try to sell these videos then it would warrant an investigation. This is ridiculous, some people need to lighten up about nudity especially in situations like this.
- TheAnti, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40Jeff, how could camping pictures mean something much worse? People need to use common sense sometimes, it saves a lot of trouble. Like tryingmybest said, the clerk has something wrong with him/herself if camping photos make the person think of porn. Now if the kids were like together naked and, I dunno, actually like posing or something along those lines, I could see the clerk being justified.
- tslag, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40I hate people like you.
- albatross5000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41I went to this marketing analysis group thingy where they pay you $150 to sit and answer questions with a group of people... They wanted us to look at ads then ask us how we felt about the ad to see if they should use it or not. This kind of thing is quite common.
Well, there was one ad that had a 9 year old boy with no short on making muscles and the muscles turned into popeye-muscles at the forearms. You know, they were photoshopped in or whatever. The kid looked proud, you know, like a frigging 9 year old boy making muscles. Like, we were all born on the same planet right?
ANYWAY, when they ***** ask us how we felt about, at LEAST 10% of the people said "makes me feel uncomfortable because the boy has his shirt off"... like. THEY... these ***** up people SEXUALIZED the 9 year old boy!!!! I mean, not the advertisers but the people who think it's pornographic to show a ***** topless 9 year old boy!!!!!
What the hell is wrong with people... My jaw dropped at the marketing thingy... I seriously gasped when people started reacting this way to a YOUNG BOY without a shirt on... I'm just shocked.
The first digg comment is correct: ". If someone finds such imagery sexually arousing that person should be investigated by the authorities, not the parent who took the pictures." - fugitiveALiEN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38Outrageous, as a father this is just preposterous! Now, in this "day and age" you can never be too careful at who is looking at you (our kids aren't naked in public hardly ever), we watch what we post to our websites, etc. But, the article gives the most outrageous one of all : 2003 a photo of a mother (33) breastfeeding her 1 year old child was charged with "sexual performance of a child" ... WTF?!?!?!?!??!?!EXCLAIMATIONoneONeone!!!! They took her children away for weeks?!?! That is outrageous, I'm mad, indignant, and pissed... my wife had a guy snap a camera photo when she was breastfeeding once, now that sounds pornographic , go get that guy...ow wait, there aren't any upskirt rules... >:(
"According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, nearly 60 percent of child abuse or neglect reports are "unsubstantiated." While there are no separate statistics concerning child pornography, there have been dozens of cases similar to ours documented in recent years.
For instance, in Dallas in 2003, as the result of a complaint by an Eckerd drugstore employee, a 33-year-old woman was charged with "sexual performance of a child," a second-degree felony punishable by 20 years in prison, based on a picture of her breast-feeding her 1-year-old son. Although the district attorney dropped the charges in the case, the parents had to fight for weeks to get their two children back from the Dallas County Child Protective Services. - Eccles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36Hell, more like one more reason to buy your own private island.
- zclip, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Well of course he should be arrested and jailed - if God had felt it was appropriate for us to be naked we would be born naked, right? [/sarcasm]
Really though, having lived in Europe and then moving to America was what I would expect from a time-travel induced culture-shock. Some people are just so uptight. My father would occasionally let me have a sip of wine at the dinner table long before my legal age. My sister and I would run around the beach naked when we were little and there are photos of me crawling completely naked on a big towel - a n adorable picture that hopefully exists in some shape or form in every family's photo album. Lo and behold, despite all this criminal behavior, I turned out to be a perfectly normal individual. Who would have thought? - weisen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33SimpleBinary is totally correct and JeffT is getting buried for a perfectly reasonable comment. The problem here is not the drugstore clerk, but the officials who decided that the drugstore clerk is in control of the criminal justice system. The drugstore clerk sounds like an ass, but who cares? The police/DA/and child protective services should never have taken it so far.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -9/+37Why the hell are photo employees looking at the pictures anyway? Yeah, they develop them, but they have no right to view them. Photo developers need to change their privacy policies, or lose a hell of a lot of business to the home printing market.
- Cyborg771, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28The man didn't take them to get devloped. I think he said that his brothers wife took it in by accident and didn't know what was on the film. But still, I have photos of me taking baths with my siblings at like 4 or 5. It is not a big deal.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30No, Retard.
American values destroy nudity. It drives me up the wall every time these kinds of stories come up. It's just a ***** human body.
These kinds of 'values' have a terrible effect on our society. Artists have to be careful about who sees their studies of the human body otherwise they risk being called a pervert. And as we've seen now, parents can no longer take pictures of their kids naked without the risk of being called a pedophile. I've also heard that some schools have banned photography at events because they're afraid pedophiles might get their hands on it. The fact that they even think about it that way is idiotic because the reason we're suppose to have an issue with pedophilia is not because they find kids attractive but because we don't want them to act on that attraction and hurt kids.
Of course, all of this is because so many Americans can only equate the human body to sex. Pretty soon we won't be able to look at each other without the fear of being arrested and we'll wonder why everyone has such poor relationships with one another. - Clbck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29RTFA.
It said they were beating up old cans and bottles with sticks. Y'know, as their own little drums... - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30If "everyone" really means "everyone," then I'm somewhat curious how the wife and daughter did their part without burning their bums.
- shoover, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29You ass. I reckon this guy has better parenting skills than you by a long shot.
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28"Why the hell are photo employees looking at the pictures anyway? Yeah, they develop them, but they have no right to view them."
Photo employees always adjust the brightness, contrast and color-balance on pictures before printing them, unless you specifically tell them not to. In addition, they usually glance through the pictures to make sure they came out right. - Clbck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26RTFA. "I took pictures of the kids using sticks to beat on old bottles and cans and logs as musical instruments."
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30The great part is that the diaper/naked baby ads only seem to come on when I'm having a snack in front of the TV. Nothing like naked baby butts while you're eating Doritos.
- JWood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Good point. Most of those kids don't have anything on and it's a freakin' commercial. Perhaps we should investigate them, too.
- POKETNRJSH, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27The kids weren't drinking alcohol, they were hitting old bottles and cans with sticks. RTFA.
- aresef, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Wow, what a load of *****. Your tax dollars at work, people.
- shoover, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25There's a large distance between 'weird' and 'child pornographer'. Or at least there should be.
Hell, whats normal? By the sounds of it this 'weird' family was more normal and well adjusted than 95% of America, yet they get pegged with this??? - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Because the police MUST be just. There's no possible way that it could be THEIR fault. /sarcasm
- freeboarder1402, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25and yet another compelling reason to never forget your digital camera and never to trust 1hr photoclerks
- Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27@gothsquirrel
Well that explains why you're posting on digg- you like the focused, highly intellectual discussions on here. - gameguy43, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24the "child drinking alcohol" thing being a kid walking around with a broken beer bottle they found is funny, but the absolute BEST is the "child with his head cut off" where the head is outside the picture! what kind of total moron must this guy have been. yes, this is entirely his fault. how dare he take this family's photos and make assumptions about their character. How dare the government let this family worry without explaining what they are up against, how long their questioning will take, etc. if there is ANY abuse in this situation, its the government's abuse of this family's mental health. the family sounds to me like one of the healthiest ones around.
- shoover, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22@deadbaby - you're a dumb *****, you know that?
- Mooseknuckle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21The kids were not driking ... read the article folks... They were using sticks to make music with mom & dad's empty beer cans. I did the same thing when I went camping with my family.
- zweben, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Exactly. And if you really want to do film, develop your own photos or get them done by a machine not a human. Otherwise, who knows what kind of nosy oversensitive idiot is going to be staring at your family pictures.
- lava, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24Ok, so after you click the sponsor link to read the rest of the story, what's supposed to happen? I just got a full page ad. Hmm...
Eh. I can go through life without reading Salon. - kyriakos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I've been and lived in many countries. Including the US. The problem with the US is that the law is overprotective to the point that people lost their trust in others. I've discussed this issue with verious people in the US and I noticed that those who never lived abroad could not understand what I was talking about - its a matter of experiencing freedom to know how it feels. Maybe there are places with more freedom than where I live but I'm definitely having a better sense of freedom here than I ever had in the US.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27I'm not sure it's all of humanity. We seem to be setting new standards of stupid for the rest of the world to try and attain.
- prammy, on 10/12/2007, -21/+38Unlike many of you, I dont find blame with the drug store employee for reporting this. If the person found it suspicious, he has to report it, which is what the law says. However I do find the police who investigated this to be more inept than anything. The officer even mentioned that he did not find anything suspicious with the pictures and the issue should have been settled right then and there. Yet the police allowed this to go on and almost ruin a family.
Child Protective services can be extremely overzealous in their attempt to protect a child. If an agent is on the 'warpath' as they say, they will go to great lengths to 'protect; a child even if it means tearing the child apart from his/her family and spiriting him/her late in the night to a foster home. Regardless whether it is more damaging to the child to have this done to him/her they will do it anyway. -
Show 51 - 100 of 232 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is