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.
Perhaps the DA found them provocative and sexual in nature. Maybe it is he who should seek help with his “problem”?
THis is not a new thing
From Oliver Twist
If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass, a idiot! If that’s the eye of the law, then the law is a bachelor. And the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience.
This was penned in 1837.... everthing old is new again — when politics gets involved.
I take nakey pics of my little grandsons any time. Lucky for me, the ratio of dressed to naked pics are about 40-1 and also I haven’t printed any of them at an outside source.
The Walmart worker was probably bored, and might have just wanted to stir the pot and tease the local DA.
The DA’s office is the one which chose to file the absurd charges.
I would say that the DA was probably a closet pedophile.
Here is the money quote:
“It was an interesting case and I think we did the right thing”
Spoken like a true bureaucrat disconnected from the carnage his daily “work” creates in the world. He gets up every day with the opportunity to be a blessing or a curse to the community he serves. He is living in a fantasy world of granite floors, imposing statues and oak wood work. Lots of people say “yes sir” and “no sir” to him all day. The little people make for “interesting” intellectual exercises in governmental power.
This my friends is why you should be very leery of placing human beings in power and authority over you. This is why government should be small, underfunded, and incompetent. We have the incompetent part nailed, now work on the underfunded and small component. Yet we live in a democracy that can’t wait to vote new and exciting restrictions upon the heads of each other. Owning a car is the most obvious and aggravating example. I can think of no other everyday activity that requires more expensive Proskynesis to the State and by proxy my neighbors than owing and operating a car. Taxes, stickers, paperwork, and full time omnipresent armed tax collectors everywhere you look. But hey my neighbors want this...
You sound like a sick person. Just kidding. These stories are disgustingly wrong.
You sound like a sick person. Just kidding. These stories are disgustingly wrong.
All the while they are shoving gay this and gay that crap down our throats like it is normal and acceptable, or any other deviancy. They need to go to that DA’s house and check him out. They might just be the one with the real problem.
My first response is where's your pants? Get your pants on!
I'm so damned worried that some perv may take pics of them and post them on the internet and the gov coming back on me!
I hate the way the libs have twisted my peace full world around!
Geesh louise. We’ve got photos of bathtime and diaper changes, even, LOL...I’d be arrested in a heartbeat!
But this reminded me of a female doctor I used to go to when I lived in Toledo Ohio a few years ago. She was the mother of two girls, ages about 2 and 4. She had portraits, some very large, with very ornate frames, of her daughters. They were in her office, in the waiting area, and in the exam rooms. Thing about it...ALL of them were done like glamour shots...hair & lots of makeup done, but, butt naked with carefully placed hats, boas, and highheels...looked like they were playing dressup. Why would you want your patients staring at portraits of your naked daughters?
So much for the pictures I was going to use to blackmail my toddler on his prom nite.....
I guess all the Christmas cards showing Mary and an unclothed infant Jesus, not to mention all the churches that have paintings and statues of that subject, will be the grounds for arrests and prosecutions.
And yet if she were actually a sex predator with a student, it’s a slap on the wrist.
I have one of one of my grand daughters who had just got off the potty completely nude and was looking proudly at what she had just done (She was being potty trained).
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.
By this nitwit DA's definition, the iconic Coppertone ad is child porn.
from the comments
JUNE CLEAVER ARRESTED FOR DISTRIBUTING CHILD PORN!
“Baby Picture” October 31, 1959
Miss Landers asks her students to bring in a baby picture for a beautiful baby contest. Without telling Beaver, June submits a photo of infant Beaver naked on a rug. Beaver is embarrassed but his mother thinks the photo cute. When Beaver requests the return of the photo, Miss Landers gives it to him without looking at it. Later, Ward cuts the photo down to just a headshot.
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.