To: ellery
He did say, "There was no legitimate purpose for those photographs.Who the Hell was he, to make that judgement? Dunno if this guy was elected or appointed but if the former, he should be dumped Big Time in the next election. If appointed, then dump the guy who appointed him.
As a grandparent, I have taken candid shots, although none were naked. How soon before ANY picture of a kid will be considered "suggestive" and "pornographic" because of the DA's twisted mindview? This is a good case of seeing nails everywhere when all you have is a hammer.
12 posted on
05/04/2009 5:02:18 PM PDT by
Oatka
("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
To: Oatka
"...ANY picture of a kid will be considered "suggestive" and "pornographic" because of the DA's twisted mindview?"Excellent point. This has to be unconstitutional and illegal. The DA's gut? What a load of hooey.
Pretty soon, the real estate ads will read, "great schools, good location, DA not sick and twisted."
To: Oatka
And yet if she were actually a sex predator with a student, it’s a slap on the wrist.
37 posted on
05/04/2009 5:40:29 PM PDT by
tbw2
(Freeper sci-fi - "Humanity's Edge" - on amazon.com)
To: Oatka
In England you can be arrested for taking a picture of your own child playing in a park.
I guess America is using foreign law again. Sue their asses.
47 posted on
05/04/2009 6:24:31 PM PDT by
MaxMax
(America's population is 304-Million. Obama must punish America for the other 4.7 Billion)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson