Posted on 05/04/2009 4:53:16 PM PDT by ellery
Back in 2005, a WalMart worker in Pennsylvania reported 59-year-old Donna Dull to local authorities after Dull dropped off some film that included shots of her three-year-old granddaughter in and just out of the bath. Dull was arrested—roughly, she says—and charged with producing and distributing child pornography. The charges were dropped 15 months later when a Pennsylvania special prosecutor overruled the local DA. Only Dull, her attorney, and police and prosecutors have apparently seen the photos, which are now under seal. She's now suing.
In this follow-up article from the York Daily Record, state officials seem to be trying to reassure parents and grandparents that they have nothing to worry about—that you needn't fret about having your life ruined and reputation destroyed by false child porn charges for taking nude pictures of your infant or toddler. Problem is, their reassurances aren't very convincing.
Christopher Moore, a special prosecutor in the York County District Attorney's Office, is after "perverts, not parents."
Moore was commenting on the "gray area" between the typical family picture of the 2-year-old getting a bath in the kitchen sink and a picture a pedophile may enjoy.
It can be the same picture, Moore said.
But, Moore added, that is not a reason for parents and grandparents to avoid taking those pictures...
"It's not what the (child protection) law was designed for. Your rights are not restricted in any form by the law."
But it appears that's precisely what Dull was arrested for. And the DA in Dull's case insists he was right. Or at least he's pretty sure he was:
[District Attorney] Rebert said in Dull's case, "What made them offensive was their graphic nature. A little girl with her bare butt showing, kind of looking over her shoulder.
"It's a difficult distinction to make. What's a cute butt and what's pornographic?
"I think what she (Dull) did was stupid and in very poor judgment. It was an interesting case and I think we did the right thing."
So because the photo could have been interpreted as pornographic by someone who was looking for child porn, arresting the woman and ruining her life (or at least severely disrupting it) was the "right thing" to do. From the description, we aren't talking about splayed legs or exposed genitalia, here. It's a kid's butt, and a playful peer over the shoulder. I'm glad Special Prosecutor Moore overruled District Attorney Rebert, but that Dull was arrested in the first place puts the lie to Moore's assertion that this sort of hysteria "is not a reason for parents and grandparents to avoid taking those pictures." It most certainly is. Or at least getting them printed somewhere outside your home. Unless you consider an arrest and 15 months under the label of "accused child pornographer" to be harmless.
It only gets more confusing from there. Here's the prosecutor who initially approved the charges against Dull:
David Cook, now in private practice . . . declined to say if he disagreed with Rebert's decision to dismiss the charges.
He did say, "There was no legitimate purpose for those photographs. I would never pose my daughter or my step-daughter like that.
"It kind of boils down to a gut feeling. If it feels wrong, it probably is."
That sounds . . . ambiguous. How are Pennsylvania residents supposed to follow the law if the state's prosecutors can't even agree on its application?
Here, once again, is Special Prosecutor Moore, again trying to alleviate fears of parents, and again coming up short:
"It's a subjective versus objective standard," Moore said. "You think it's cute. Someone else might think different. That doesn't make it a crime.
"Lots of sexual offenders use the Sears catalog to get off. That doesn't make (the catalog) illegal."
"It's a reasonable person standard with the reasonable person being a juror," Boyles said.
"And reasonable people can disagree," Moore said. "That's the gray area. That's when it comes to us."
Boyles and Moore also agreed that parents don't need to worry unnecessarily.
"Family pictures are family pictures," Boyles said.
"But if more of your pictures of your kids are of them naked rather than clothed, you might have a problem."
So in sum, if you don't want to get arrested and charged for taking nude photos of your infant or toddler, make sure you know what criteria your local prosecutor uses when navigating that "gray area" between a cute butt and a criminally alluring one (note: you probably don't want to actually pose this question to him). Also, if you find yourself under investigation after dropping off a roll of film at the CVS, you might want to bake the prosecutor some cookies, since it appears that his "gut" will be the final arbiter of whether you're a doting parent or an accused child pornographer.
Finally, even if the nude photos you've taken of your kids pass the clear-as-mud "cute butt," "gut feeling," and "reasonable people can disagree/that's when it comes to us" tests, and are deemed innocent as a basket of puppies, you could still be in violation of the law if the state determines that the clothed to unclothed-but-innocent ratio in your family photo albums is inappropriate.
Got all that? Good.
Because they promise, you really have nothing to worry about.
“And the model for that picture was ???”
Cheri Brand
http://www.tvacres.com/admascots_coppertone.htm
As far as I can tell, it was Cheri Brand. In my geriatric mind, I had it confused with the Ivory Snow ad, which is totally different. Sorry.
“She is 14 years old now and for some reason doesn’t think that picture is cute at all and has threatened to disown me if I ever show it to any of her friends.”
Given the current climate of hysteria, being disowned might be the least of your worries. Her friends would probably report you to the gestapo for liquidation. Only kidding a little....
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.”
Quote by: Ayn Rand
(1905-1982) Author
Source: “Atlas Shrugged”, Part II, Chapter 3
This isn't coming from the "liberals", but the "tough on crime" conservative "law & order" types who are as happy as pigs in slop knowing that there must be 500,000 ways now to violate "the law".
I’ve been reading about the asinine laws/rules in schools and in everyday life ... what I read about what’s going on in England will soon be here if not already ....I know dads who are reluctant to hold their daughters hand when strolling through the mall ...
what a jack-butt... who said she posed her granddaughter? it was likely a candid shot...
and she said she refused to put the bikini top on... they could not make her do it... haha!
this girl was a grandma before jodi foster and drew barrimore were born
Those are not conservatives, those are Big Government Lefties operating in disguise.
Of course they are candids, this is very popular with parents. The high school I work for has a long held tradition of featuring the seniors baby pictures along with their usual senior portrait.
We usually have to return 5-10% of the average 170 pictures we receive with a request for a different photo. Most parents are at first angry that we will not use the photo. However, once we explain that the yearbook can be viewed at the public library where anyone can view their child's picture they understand.
Well I have found that they are legion here at FreeRepublic. Ever notice, I did, while growing up I'd hear the phrase "it's a free country" all the time. Now, all I hear is, "there oughta be a law". Makes me want to despair.
Ditto.
I did not think you could post pics of a$$h—=s on FR. :>}
Dispair? H*ll no!
Remember to vote the trash out of office.
‘Nuff said.
Dispair? H*ll no!
Remember to vote the trash out of office.
‘Nuff said.
Good luck, I can only imagine that if anyone came to this poor woman's defense, that they would be dragged through the mud, "What, you must be in favor of child molesters" or some such straw man argument.
This guy no doubt runs as a "get tough on crime" kinda guy, even if he has to manufacture the crime.
unbelievable....no wait. -this is very believable.
HA!!
It does take some practice, doesn't it. :^)
Hey Grandpa, they have the kids. Have had 'em for some time, too. Where'd any rational parent think the hijacking of their parental rights would ultimately windup? Especially left to the Liberal-Socialist's device?
Right here, with stuff just like this.
Not to worry though, there'll be more.
This is really only the beginning. ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.