Recent episode of "Raising The Bar"

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

07/01/2009 07:24:35 PM · #1

So, I haven't ever seen this show before -- Raising The Bar -- it's a series on TNT that appears to be somewhat like Law & Order and The Practice mashed together. Has a couple of great actors I like in it, too, which I was pleasantly surprised to see.

There was an episode which aired recently (I think it was this past Monday night) called "No Childâ��s Left Behind." It was interesting, and has an, albeit somewhat tenuous, link to photography. I was very surprised by some of the character's opinions on the primary case they discussed, and thought it would be interesting to see what some DPCers thought, too. I'll hold my own opinion for later, and simply present the elements of the case I found interesting and/or relevant...

Feel free to ask further questions, or if you've seen the show yourself, feel free to chime in with any details I've skipped over.

Essentially, a father photographed his son, then posted the photo online on some sort of social networking site (many details about the site were not, to my understanding, really fleshed out) which the father described should have been visible to "friends and family" only (it was never clear if the site or photo collection was password-protected and/or how much actual security was in place). The photo was of his son, in a bathtub, making a funny pose, as if hamming it up for the camera, and the father captioned the photo something like "Ta-Da!" (anyone who saw the show feel free to correct me; it was something like that).

The father insists the photo is simply of his boy playing around in the tub, and he wanted to share it with friends and family, showing how cute his kid was, etc.

So, unbeknownst to the father, someone else takes the photo from the site, and begins selling it on another web site. A child pornography web site.

I didn't catch the full run-down of who-found-who and who-did-what to track down the child's father, but the police track the child's photo back to the father. The prosecutor has the father arrested and charged as a sexual predator. The father is jailed, and upon release awaiting trial, is only allowed to see his son under strictly supervised visits.

Other misc. details -- the father is an single parent (again, I missed the detail on the situation with the mother, but they are divorced -- the wife (and child's mother), however, stands by him, saying he did nothing wrong, and had no idea the photo would be used that way, etc). When police spoke to the father, he seemed genuinely shocked to find out what had happened with the photo. The police could find absolutely no connection between the father and the photo-thief, nor anything associated with the web site the photo was posted on. The father was not shown to have received any kind of mysterious payments or other "reimbursement" for the sales of the photo, etc. In short, the investigation showed the father had absolutely nothing to do with the web site selling the photo, and was simply a victim of having his photo taken from the online social networking site.

SO, some questions for possible discussion:
Was it right for the prosecution to go after the father for child pornography and/or sexual predator charges?
Even when trying to reach a plea agreement, the prosecutor insisted the father be registered as a sex offender, no matter what other lessor charges he would agree to -- is that fair?
What, if any, kind of legal action should the father face in light of these events? Is he at fault for what was done with his child's photo?
Does the degree of security on the network site matter? (For example, if the photos were only visible to *strictly* the friends and family, does that make a difference? What if one of his friends was, completely unbeknownst to him, the one who took and posted the photo on the other site?)

[ Standard disclaimer -- this story is fiction and, as far as I know, is not based on real events, etc, etc, etc... ]

I just thought it was a really interesting story, and the very polar opposite points of view of the defense and prosecution were very well written and acted.

Finally, yes I'm starting this thread in Rant, as I figure it would end up there eventually, so why not just start it out there. ;)

[ edited for proof-reading ]

Message edited by author 2009-07-01 19:27:52.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

07/01/2009 07:41:38 PM · #2

That's interesting and a very real possibility.

I used to tease my daughters, telling them that when their boyfriends came around, I would pull out the baby-in-the-bathtub photos. My wife (Their stepmom) who is a lawyers daughter, would always get wound up at my tease, telling me I could get charged with child pornography if I actually did it. (Which I never did, though I found better ways to embarrass my kids)

citymars

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/01/2009 09:49:42 PM · #3

I actually watched the first few minutes of that episode, but I didn't want to get involved in another TV series and turned it off. I think it's probably a true-to-life scenario. It makes me think of one of my family's favorite photos, taken in the 1960s, of my little sister toweling off out of the bathtub. It's an adorable photo, but now would probably be considered inappropriate. The whole change in attitude makes me very sad.

The idea that "the internet" is somehow to blame is too easy.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/01/2009 10:44:34 PM · #4

Strictly my opinion here - to answer your questions:

Yes, the father should have been arrested. However, once the investigation led the prosecutor to the truth, i.e. the father was not promoting child porn, the charges should have been dropped. Chances are, in the real world, the prosecutor would have probably dropped the charges unless an election was coming up and the issue of child porn was hot in the media (yes, media coverage influences prosecution).

I'm not a fan of the sex offenders list. All too often, people look at but don't read it, or don't know enough of the law to understand what the charges/convictions mean. they just yell and scream and generally cause a panic. And no, I don't know anyone on the list or anyone convicted of a sex offense. I did have a friend of mine who was almost convicted of indecent exposure because he peed on the mall on the fourth of July. If the judge hadn't thought it was so funny, he might be on the list now too.

Personally, I think the father would carry enough guilt for the rest of his life to make any punishment the courts could dole out seem mild. We create our own hells...

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/02/2009 12:39:42 AM · #5

i dont understand why perverts get turned on by photos of a naked person
i think the inventor of clothings is to be blamed

Message edited by author 2009-07-02 00:40:17.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/07/2009 05:31:07 PM · #6

I expected this thread to be full of fire, brimstone and lots of harsh language by now.

Nuthin'? :P

How about this -- since this question seems to underlie the original episode theme, as well as comments from Steve and Larry -- what makes a photograph pornographic?

More specifically, why would a photo of a child taking a bath, or doing any other non-sexual activity, ever be considered pornographic?

[ stirs and pot and sits back ] ;)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/07/2009 05:44:16 PM · #7

Originally posted by cdrice:

More specifically, why would a photo of a child taking a bath, or doing any other non-sexual activity, ever be considered pornographic?

Pornography is in the eye of the beholder, plain and simple. *Anything* can be pornographic if it finds the right fetishist for an audience. The photo ended up in a "child pornography website", and that was the stepping-off point for the investigation, eh?

R.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/07/2009 05:57:27 PM · #8

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Pornography is in the eye of the beholder, plain and simple. *Anything* can be pornographic if it finds the right fetishist for an audience.

Aye, there's the rub. I would respectfully disagree, at least as a matter of context.

By that, I mean, taken on a micro-scale (i.e. per-person), I agree that any photo might be considered pornographic to *them*. However, on a macro-scale (per society, and thus what we desire our laws to enforce), obviously a different definition is required.

Take, for example, a photograph of a shoe. To a shoe-fetishist(?), it might be the most provactive, sexual, even "nasty" photo ever. To someone else... It's just a picture of a shoe. Because shoe-fetishists find it arousing, does that mean it's a pornographic photo? Should all online shoe-sales web sites be shut down and have their offices raided and CEOs arrested for pornography?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The photo ended up in a "child pornography website", and that was the stepping-off point for the investigation, eh?

Indeed so. But, does the fact that it was on a child porn website make *that photo* pornographic? If I put a photograph of a bunny rabbit in the middle of a collage of photographs of wolves, does the photo of the bunny rabbit become a photograph of a wolf?

Just stirring the pot some more. I'm not suggesting I have the clear answers, but I think in order to come to clear answers, we need to understand the parameters of what we are discussing. In other words, what *makes* something pornographic? What *is* pornography in the first place? Is the "we know it when we see it" really a valid definition. What are we trying to enforce or save ourselves from by enforcing laws that deal with what we call pornography? To circle that back around to my own OP, how did we end up arresting and charging a father for child pornography by taking a shot of his kid in a bathtub?

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

07/07/2009 06:27:50 PM · #9

the trick is in the definition.

Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

That's why I believe the father should have been arrested but released. He had no intent other than to take an image of his son. nor did he intend sexual arousal when he posted it publicly.

A lot of the law is based on intent - it would seem, in our society, that what you intend to do often (granted not always) outweighs the results of what you did. the person that should be charged with promoting child porn is the person who actually posted the image to a child porn site. He intentionally posted the image to cause sexual arousal, fulfilling the requirements of pornography.

There is a difference between the legal and lay uses of the term though - Bear has a point; in the right mood, kumquats can be pornographic. Though usually, alcohol and juvenile behavior are required...
(hehehe. She said kumquats.)

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

07/15/2009 08:33:39 AM · #10

Perhaps the best real-life comparison would be to the spate of exhibition closures in the last few years where they contain photos of young children naked.

This has happened to exhibitions of works by Bill Henson, Nan Goldin, Tierney Gearon and Betsy Schneider in the UK and Australia (and I am sure more). In most cases, the police swooped, confiscated the images, then a couple of months later realised that no crime had been committed and quietly returned them. However, it creates a media storm, public alarm, and consitutes a form of state censorship.

It is very sad that the default assumption has become that nudity equates to sexuality, especially in children.

UrfaK

Canon EOS-650/T4i Rebel

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/15/2009 11:24:17 AM · #11

I used to intern in a child rights cell of a law firm and we did a little research on child pornography. We went over quite a few sites trying to see patterns and the frequency of the kind of content they have. A lot of them are disguised as kiddy(or preteen girls and boys) appreciation sites which refuse to take responsibility by disclaiming "that all their images are from social networking sites that were publicly available".. So the scenario is quite plausible that an image taken from some networking site is used as porn..

There is an image from this page from theSerious Street Photography thread where the op discussed a situation where the father was not happy with the kid's picture being taken. I kind of understand why the father got upset.

The image looks perfectly normal but all I see is an example of what most of those kinds of websites constitute of... You don't need nudity to assume sexuality. Your fully clothed kid is sexual being for most of those nutters.. The hardcore sites usually have exclusive memberships and whatnot so the more tamer ones have your kid licking a cone or sitting on a bench in the park..

So, if you're putting images of your kids, your dogs, or your grandmother on the internet there is a chance they might end up somewhere strange and creepy... People have strange fetishes and kids probably top the list. And it's a huge, huge market and the chances are not a small as you think. I guess it's up to the individual to decide how much of a 'threat' they consider this to be. Being overly restrictive is obviously a pain and I doubt you can be on strict parent watch 24/7.

Why they arrested the father is perfectly understandable because we also need to factor that parents can and do abuse their children. The police was right to question the father about why his child's pictures were circulating like that. You can't take the chance of assuming innocence because a child's life is at risk. I once read an agony aunt article about a man discovering his boss' teenage daughter's semi naked pictures on the boss' laptop. The Agony Aunt's reply was to report them to the police because you don't not take these things seriously.

UrfaK

Canon EOS-650/T4i Rebel

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/15/2009 11:24:47 AM · #12

whoops

Message edited by author 2009-07-15 11:25:20.