| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2005 09:35:23 AM · #51 |
English is not my mother tongue, yet it seems to me that there is a quite clear distinction between touching/kissing/fondling.
Gosh, there's probably some 5000 different nonsexual ways of touching someone's body. And just as many sexual ways.
The watershed is - does either of the persons involved (the toucher or the touched) get sexually aroused or whether that is the intent of the contact in the first place.
If there is no sexuality involved anywhere, why go berserk?
Agressiveness is usually a symptom of fear or sense of inferiority.
The question for me is - what is a society that behaves like this afraid of?
Message edited by author 2005-08-08 09:36:35. |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 10:04:41 AM · #52 |
As someone who works in a photo lab, this subject hits close to home. While working, I've seen hard core porn images come through my lab. Case in point was yesterday. I ended up doing printing on those images, because the person in the lab refused to print them. Then I got the fun of coming home and scrubbing my eyeballs out with a brillo pad.
I've also been in stores where possible child abuse and exploitation shots come through. There is nothing in the world that EVER makes those images leave your brain. These are not images you want to sit there and study. This is why photo lab retailers have a policy related to possible child exploitation/abuse images. Failure to report them to law enforcement may result in termination. It's not the job of the mini-lab to decide if there is criminal intent. That's what police and lawyers are for.
My understanding from coworkers who are in the Raleigh area is that this was a whole series of images, shot from behind. Not one or two, but a series. There's no legal wiggle room on this for folks in a mini-lab. It has to be reported, by company policy and by law. More importantly, very few of us are going to stand there and look at images saying, "hmmm, legal or not legal, offensive or not offensive" when it comes to possible child exploitation.
I really, really feel for everyone who's had bad experieces with false reports of child abuse. But then I think about the guy that was caught abusing his two daughters because he foolishly dropped off a roll of film at one of our stores...
For every BradP, there are 5 guys like that. There's not an easy answer.
Just a counter point for thought. :)
Clara |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 10:08:32 AM · #53 |
There we are again.
Company policy - shoot first, think later, or we'll terminate you.
What's this world coming to? |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 10:15:02 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
There we are again.
Company policy - shoot first, think later, or we'll terminate you.
What's this world coming to? |
Policies like this are designed to remove the pressure from an employee. As I said earlier, we are not legal experts. We are not police. It's incredibly stressful on someone to make a decision to call the police. Most folks don't want to get others into trouble. These policies were put into place in the 80s when it was discovered that child pornographers were using mini labs to print their images and employees were not reporting the images.
Clara
|
|
|
|
08/08/2005 10:21:45 AM · #55 |
Don't get me wrong, Clara, I'm certainly not blaming you.
You guys at the photo lab are just more victims of this distorted system of morality control.
But you're wrong, when you think this system relieves any of you of the reponsibility for your actions. Legally, maybe, yes. But morally they make you accomplices of the judicial (potential) injustice. I can think of a number of analogues from totalitarian regimes, where people were forced to collaborate with the power against their fellow citizens, friends and even family. Whichever way one looks at it, the moral burden remains.
I bet you have stopped and asked yourself - what if I've got it all wrong? What will happen to the guy I pointed my finger at? Who am I after I*ve done this?
Have you?
Message edited by author 2005-08-08 10:23:42. |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 10:32:08 AM · #56 |
| I worked in a mini lab too. I don't want to get into any arguments really besides saying I think this whole thing is rediculous, and Blemt- why did you print out those hardcore images you were talking about? There is another law protecting employees stating you can refuse to deal with/print any photographs you find offensive. |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 10:36:25 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
Don't get me wrong, Clara, I'm certainly not blaming you.
You guys at the photo lab are just more victims of this distorted system of morality control.
But you're wrong, when you think this system relieves any of you of the reponsibility for your actions. Legally, maybe, yes. But morally they make you accomplices of the judicial (potential) injustice. I can think of a number of analogues from totalitarian regimes, where people were forced to collaborate with the power against their fellow citizens, friends and even family. Whichever way one looks at it, the moral burden remains.
I bet you have stopped and asked yourself - what if I've got it all wrong? What will happen to the guy I pointed my finger at? Who am I after I*ve done this?
Have you? |
Now let's look at it from another angle. What would happen if these photo lab people come across a photo that looked suspicious and yet didn't say anything and this child in the photo was actually being malested. It is always good to check. It is not the governments fault for this big mess but the fault of pervs out there who made it hard to take a decent shot of your child nude or kissing them on the belly. (which I do quite often to my own little girls and had at one time to my boys) |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 10:39:32 AM · #58 |
| The clerk at the print lab who turned in the photos should be beaten in the street at high noon. The parents who were arrested should sue his/her pant's off (no pun intended). |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 10:40:05 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Now let's look at it from another angle. What would happen if these photo lab people come across a photo that looked suspicious and yet didn't say anything and this child in the photo was actually being malested. It is always good to check. It is not the governments fault for this big mess but the fault of pervs out there who made it hard to take a decent shot of your child nude or kissing them on the belly. (which I do quite often to my own little girls and had at one time to my boys) |
It's alot more simple than you think. Do you think a real pedophile would take his photos to a minilab? I mean sure they have serious brain problems but I don't think many are that stupid.
Message edited by author 2005-08-08 10:42:02. |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 10:59:27 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
The clerk at the print lab who turned in the photos should be beaten in the street at high noon. The parents who were arrested should sue his/her pant's off (no pun intended). |
huh? They are probably required by their employer to report anything that looks possibly suspicious and they didn't want to take their chances. It's what those with authority did afterwards that is disgusting. |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 11:02:47 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
The clerk at the print lab who turned in the photos should be beaten in the street at high noon. The parents who were arrested should sue his/her pant's off (no pun intended). |
 |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 11:03:14 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Now let's look at it from another angle. What would happen if these photo lab people come across a photo that looked suspicious and yet didn't say anything and this child in the photo was actually being malested. It is always good to check. It is not the governments fault for this big mess but the fault of pervs out there who made it hard to take a decent shot of your child nude or kissing them on the belly. (which I do quite often to my own little girls and had at one time to my boys) |
It's alot more simple than you think. Do you think a real pedophile would take his photos to a minilab? I mean sure they have serious brain problems but I don't think many are that stupid. |
True, but I am sure it happens. |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 11:04:45 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
True, but I am sure it happens. |
Not often enough to worth invading thousands of honest people's privacy and freedom I'm sure. |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 11:14:43 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
True, but I am sure it happens. |
Not often enough to worth invading thousands of honest people's privacy and freedom I'm sure. |
Saving one child would be worth it in my opinion. |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 11:16:56 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Saving one child would be worth it in my opinion. |
I tend to agree, still I think a minilab is not the best place to do that. |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 11:42:18 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Saving one child would be worth it in my opinion. |
I tend to agree, still I think a minilab is not the best place to do that. |
Did the photolab people invade anybody's privacy? I don't think so. They didn't steal the film to develop after all.
So what did they do? They saw questionable pictures and reported them, as they are required.
What happened next seems to be where things really went south - people arrested, kids taken away - until finally an expert looks at the photos and says no, there is no evidence of abuse.
I'm sure many people besides that expert and the photolab people looked at the pictures, yet at each stage in-between the easy answer was, "well, it might be abuse - better play it safe and assume so. After all, all those other people thought so - I'd hate to be the one who lets a child molester off!"
At every stage, it is hard to argue against that logic - it is only when you take a big-picture look that the (in this case) absurdity emerges.
So yes, a photolab isn't the best place to try & convict sex offenders - but they did nothing wrong (in my opinion). I would take a look at the leadership in the agencies that moved the case forward.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2005 11:47:33 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Oh My. They might have thrown us in jail for this shot, taken my kids. It time to get PC folks off our backsides and forget the "Village".  |
Rightly said... If kissing a kid on th belly creates such a rucus what about this one.. 
they are surely bound to throw Imagineer in jail for this....
I think the pervert is in the minds of the people who report such things. They are sick at their minds and probably do not have the pleasure of having a kid themselves.
I have a cute daughter who sleeps with me, sometimes bathes with me, jumps all over me when I go home and I kiss her on her belly as that tickles her and she laughs... but is that me being a pervert? Modern world? No, actually it's an over cautious world.
Friends, don't get distracted with such news. Do what you do best... love your child in every and any way you do.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2005 11:59:38 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Back in the mid-80's I had a friend who raised German Shepherd show dogs. She, of course, had a large crate for each dog, and eachnight they went to their individual crates to sleep; they liked it that way, it was a comfortable den for them. Her 9-year-old daughter was "jealous" of the crates, so mom fixed one up for her, as a sort of a playhouse. Every so often the daughter would actually SLEEP in her crate, keeping the dogs company, with her pillow and her dolls and her sleeping bag. (The dogs' crates were in the house, not out in the run)
One day a visitor came to see the dogs, looking to buy one, and noticed the "human" crate. She asked the little girl, out of her mother's presence, if her moither "made her sleep in the crate often?" The child responded, "Oh, I LIKE sleeping with the dogs!" The visitor reported my friend to Child Protective, who arrived unannounced, took pictures of the crate, took the child away with them, and prosecuted the mother, who went to jail. She never got her daughter back. |
I can understand how this would look like in the eyes of a visitor. Still very sad. Didn't the authorites interview (?) the child? Surely she would have told them, that it was her own idea, and that she was there only to keep company to the dogs. |
She did. They didn't believe her. They said she'd been brainwashed, basically. That she was covering for her mother. That her mother made her feel like it was "normal" to sleep with the dogs, and that she was in reality a "caged child"; she was sent to foster homes, a string of them, from all of which she was eventually removed because she wouldn't "behave properly".
R.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2005 12:03:49 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
True, but I am sure it happens. |
Not often enough to worth invading thousands of honest people's privacy and freedom I'm sure. |
Saving one child would be worth it in my opinion. |
At the cost of other torn up innocent families? Don't you think these children suffer? |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 12:07:27 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
It's alot more simple than you think. Do you think a real pedophile would take his photos to a minilab? I mean sure they have serious brain problems but I don't think many are that stupid. |
Yes they do indeed take their photos to minilabs. And I've seen em.
Clara |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 12:11:03 PM · #71 |
Does it matter WHO takes the photo of the child?
I think not...kiddie porn is kiddie porn......and most people know it when they see it.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2005 12:18:01 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
True, but I am sure it happens. |
Not often enough to worth invading thousands of honest people's privacy and freedom I'm sure. |
Saving one child would be worth it in my opinion. |
At the cost of other torn up innocent families? Don't you think these children suffer? |
OK..let's say it was your child and a relative was taking bad pictures of him/her..woudl it matter? Would you rather the other suffer?
I like what joebok said "What happened next seems to be where things really went south - people arrested, kids taken away - until finally an expert looks at the photos and says no, there is no evidence of abuse.
I'm sure many people besides that expert and the photolab people looked at the pictures, yet at each stage in-between the easy answer was, "well, it might be abuse - better play it safe and assume so. After all, all those other people thought so - I'd hate to be the one who lets a child molester off!" |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 12:19:34 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Does it matter WHO takes the photo of the child?
I think not...kiddie porn is kiddie porn......and most people know it when they see it. |
I'm confused as to whose post you're referring to. |
|
|
|
08/08/2005 12:49:59 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by blemt:
As someone who works in a photo lab, this subject hits close to home. While working, I've seen hard core porn images come through my lab. Case in point was yesterday. I ended up doing printing on those images, because the person in the lab refused to print them. Then I got the fun of coming home and scrubbing my eyeballs out with a brillo pad.
I've also been in stores where possible child abuse and exploitation shots come through. There is nothing in the world that EVER makes those images leave your brain. These are not images you want to sit there and study. This is why photo lab retailers have a policy related to possible child exploitation/abuse images. Failure to report them to law enforcement may result in termination. It's not the job of the mini-lab to decide if there is criminal intent. That's what police and lawyers are for.
My understanding from coworkers who are in the Raleigh area is that this was a whole series of images, shot from behind. Not one or two, but a series. There's no legal wiggle room on this for folks in a mini-lab. It has to be reported, by company policy and by law. More importantly, very few of us are going to stand there and look at images saying, "hmmm, legal or not legal, offensive or not offensive" when it comes to possible child exploitation.
I really, really feel for everyone who's had bad experieces with false reports of child abuse. But then I think about the guy that was caught abusing his two daughters because he foolishly dropped off a roll of film at one of our stores...
For every BradP, there are 5 guys like that. There's not an easy answer.
Just a counter point for thought. :)
Clara |
Blemt,
I know exactly where you are coming from, I am a dental assistant and we are REQUIRED by law to report ANYTHING that looks like child or even spouse neglect or abuse. And trust me, not taking your kids to the dentist or brushing their teeth can be considered neglect. If we have a small child come in with any markings that can be considered abuse it has to be reported and checked out. Sure some may be easy to explain like the child that came in with cut gums and lips from a rope he was trying to hang from by his mouth like the circus performer he just watched had done, but some aren't and that isn't a judgment call most want to get wrong.
I do also feel for the people that have been wrongly accused, I do feel that it is another example of the courts and others going to the extreme to fix a previous problem. I think the same has happened to divorced parents.
In the past most of the time the father really had no rights when it came to raising the child after the divorce but still had to pay out the nose and this was not right. BUT what happened, they changed the laws to the extreme and now have given kids to fathers that have no legal right to have them and possibly put them in major harms way all in the name of fairness to both parents.
I know seen many dads who have had NO role in raising their child and have caused more harm than good to the their own flesh and blood but the court MUST give them a chance no matter how badly they supposedly treated the kids or mother. How does this help the child at all? What ever happened to "in the best interest of the child"? I do also admit that there are a lot of mothers that get the kids and don't deserve too, but it has not been over turned to the extreme like it has against the dads.
They need to take issues like this in strides. Yes the police should have been notified and some basic questioning could have probably prevented so many problems (and I'm willing to bet the rest of the pictures could have shown what was going on at the time.
I wonder how long this story is going to follow and haunt him and how much it will hurt his future at jobs, relationships, etc.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2005 01:58:01 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by blemt:
For every BradP, there are 5 guys like that. There's not an easy answer.
Clara |
You can't be serious? Do you honestly believe that for every caring father in this country there are 5 that will "use" their children inappropriately? I have a hard time accepting that. I believe that abuse is a rarity, in terms of percentages. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I believe by far the majority of parents would do anything to protect their children, and wouldn't dream of pulling deviant crap on them.
R.
|
|
