3 ms·

>>But posting your child's naked photo on Facebook will get you account banned instantly and if you are US based can get you in a lot of trouble Citation on th

by syshum 10y ago

>>But posting your child's naked photo on Facebook will get you account banned instantly and if you are US based can get you in a lot of trouble Citation on the Legal Case law that now lists a Child Bath time photo as Child Porn that can get you into "lot of trouble" in the US

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
I downvoted this for being a lazy comment, just a simple google search would provide plenty of evidence that you asked for (you might not lose in court, but there are plenty of news articles about parents arrested after trying to print their baby pictures at kodak/wal-marts). Being arrested as a parent and potentially having your children taken into protective-services custody until you win or the charges are dropped is unquestionably "a lot of trouble".
pessimizer 10y ago
You don't have to be found guilty of anything to be in a "lot of trouble" in the US. For example: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32904451/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/parents-sue-walmart-over-kids-bath-pictures/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32904451/ns/us_news-crime_and_cour... ---- Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree's three young daughters were taken away by Arizona Child Protective Services last fall when a Walmart employee found partially nude pictures of the girls on a camera memory stick taken to the store for processing, according to the suit. The Peoria couple's attorney said Walmart turned the photos over to police and the Demarees were not allowed to see their children for several days and didn't regain custody for a month while the state investigated. NO CHARGES Neither parent was charged with sexual abuse and they regained custody of their children — then ages 1 1/2, 4 and 5 — but the Demarees claim the incident inflicted lasting harm. ----
soundwave106 10y ago
The problem is not national case law per se (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256). Firstly, there is a bit of a moral panic about this particular issue. The result is that there has been on occasion over-reactions to nothing more than Child Bath Time pictures. (One example from Wal-Mart: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32904451/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/parents-sue-walmart-over-kids-bath-pictures/#.U5sOdXJdXjs http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32904451/ns/us_news-crime_and_cour...). In addition, some states have laws that are much broader in scope. Ohio's rules for instance is merely "pandering obscenity involving a minor" (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.321 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.321) and involves material, not images. Writers have been prosecuted for "child pornography" that was nothing more than written text under Ohio's law. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-write...) Realistically, I don't think a child bath picture gets anyone in "big trouble" if common sense prevailed. But there are definitely moral panic types that would probably "report" this type of picture. (EG: Take this story -- http://www.smh.com.au/national/facebook-bathtime-posting-lands-mum-in-hot-water-20140628-zspdv.html http://www.smh.com.au/national/facebook-bathtime-posting-lan..., also there's a celebrity-gossip-news type story involving a bath photo of Perez Hilton and his two year old son you can Google if you want to witness the fun reactions on this sort of thing...)
ivanhoe 10y ago
Sure, this is the case I was referring to: https://globalvoices.org/2011/01/04/united-states-serbian-couple-struggles-to-get-children-back/ https://globalvoices.org/2011/01/04/united-states-serbian-co...

by syshum 10y ago

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

I downvoted this for being a lazy comment, just a simple google search would provide plenty of evidence that you asked for (you might not lose in court, but there are plenty of news articles about parents arrested after trying to print their baby pictures at kodak/wal-marts). Being arrested as a parent and potentially having your children taken into protective-services custody until you win or the charges are dropped is unquestionably "a lot of trouble".

pessimizer 10y ago

You don't have to be found guilty of anything to be in a "lot of trouble" in the US. For example: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32904451/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/parents-sue-walmart-over-kids-bath-pictures/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32904451/ns/us_news-crime_and_cour... ---- Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree's three young daughters were taken away by Arizona Child Protective Services last fall when a Walmart employee found partially nude pictures of the girls on a camera memory stick taken to the store for processing, according to the suit. The Peoria couple's attorney said Walmart turned the photos over to police and the Demarees were not allowed to see their children for several days and didn't regain custody for a month while the state investigated. NO CHARGES Neither parent was charged with sexual abuse and they regained custody of their children — then ages 1 1/2, 4 and 5 — but the Demarees claim the incident inflicted lasting harm. ----

soundwave106 10y ago

The problem is not national case law per se (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256). Firstly, there is a bit of a moral panic about this particular issue. The result is that there has been on occasion over-reactions to nothing more than Child Bath Time pictures. (One example from Wal-Mart: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32904451/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/parents-sue-walmart-over-kids-bath-pictures/#.U5sOdXJdXjs http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32904451/ns/us_news-crime_and_cour...). In addition, some states have laws that are much broader in scope. Ohio's rules for instance is merely "pandering obscenity involving a minor" (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.321 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.321) and involves material, not images. Writers have been prosecuted for "child pornography" that was nothing more than written text under Ohio's law. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-write...) Realistically, I don't think a child bath picture gets anyone in "big trouble" if common sense prevailed. But there are definitely moral panic types that would probably "report" this type of picture. (EG: Take this story -- http://www.smh.com.au/national/facebook-bathtime-posting-lands-mum-in-hot-water-20140628-zspdv.html http://www.smh.com.au/national/facebook-bathtime-posting-lan..., also there's a celebrity-gossip-news type story involving a bath photo of Perez Hilton and his two year old son you can Google if you want to witness the fun reactions on this sort of thing...)

ivanhoe 10y ago

Sure, this is the case I was referring to: https://globalvoices.org/2011/01/04/united-states-serbian-couple-struggles-to-get-children-back/ https://globalvoices.org/2011/01/04/united-states-serbian-co...