George put on your britches...now this picture should be outlawed...LOL
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.
The despair is about Freepers, and they should know better.
That's the object and the purpose.
The remaining 25% will be elected officials, government bureaucrats and their law enforcement arm(s).
They, of course, will be exempt.
The presumption of innocence is a construct, a state of mind that was destroyed by the war on some drugs and the current crop of DWI laws.
Well, you could limit the size and scope of government, but apparently that is just a dream - even on this forum.
This nation is done.
Hope the kids aren’t wearing skimpy bathin suits, you can be arrested for perpetrating child porn..;)
You can post that a thousand times a day on every thread and it just won't sink in.
Thank you.
George put on your britches...now this picture should be outlawed...LOL
My grandson, my three sons....bathtub pictures, nekkid pictures on the bed when they learn to puc themselves up (one with a Santa Cap), pictures when they were running around after their baths....
Maybe we can share a cell :-)
It must suck to have a father with a 2 x 4 up his ass. He might make his daughter wear a burka.
Bingo - that was my thought when I read this.
I remember George Carlin’s anti-Nun wise crack question of if God could build a rock so big that even he couldn’t move it.
Anyways, we keep building a more complex, less manageable, more costly, more opaque, more forced based society and thus it seem to me that it will collapse of it’s own weight and contradictions. I think we are seeing that now.
There are fifty, at least failed cities in the US. Soon to be joined by failed states such as Michigan, California.
Just think, what could the average Roman do when the many invasions happened? Or a Russian in 1920 with the Communists coming to power, or a German in 1938 with a bad feeling about Hitler.
History is common with things happening and not much the individual could reasonably do other than experince the experince.
We are all criminals now.
We went from a English common law, where a real person had to complain about a real event, to German law where everything is forbidden that is not expressly permitted.
Sadly, you are correct. KYPD.
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.