4 ms·

Why wasn't the Clerk investigated for child pornography/molestation? If you look at a picture of naked kids in non-sexual situations and think you're seeing so

Why wasn't the Clerk investigated for child pornography/molestation? If you look at a picture of naked kids in non-sexual situations and think you're seeing something sexual then there is something wrong with you. Full stop. Either you've been abused, you're an abuser yourself or you've been horribly brain washed. Any of these possibilities makes you more of a risk than the person who shot the photos. Taking this a step further, people need to start filing scary "child pornography" charges at judges, lawyers and everyone else who participates in this kind of insanity. If the judge doesn't take one look at the photo, realize it's nothing and dismiss the case then he might well be a consumer of child pornography. Otherwise, why didn't he realize it was innocent? If a few people in power start getting their lives ruined by this nonsense maybe it would stop.

ErrantX 16y ago
That's absurd; there is a distinct difference between seeing something that concerns you and becoming sexually aroused by said image. To suggest they are "consumers of child pornography" is just a bit rude... For the untrained eye such photo's as in this case may have shocked him/her and prompted the knee-jerk reaction of calling the police. You are right in part; I think the main problem is that, absurdly, any images of naked children are starting to worry people. Part of that is founded in fact; you will find people with thousands of images of different children running around naked on beaches/parks/camping trips. But, clearly, in this case it is just a family camping trip and the clerk has either refused or is unable to process that. I recall that a few years ago I was taking pics at a family wedding and happened, while taking shots of my cousins running round playing, to take a shot which included my youngest cousin doing a handstand with her skirt over her head. It was a completely innocent picture; and if I was ever investigated for CP it would never be flagged as CP - but my Aunt was absolutely insistent I should delete the photo. And that is the sort of society we live in.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >That's absurd; there is a distinct difference between seeing something that concerns you and becoming sexually aroused by said image. To suggest they are "consumers of child pornography" is just a bit rude... What is absurd is a situations where natural actions (taking photos of your children) become, randomly, life ruining [1]. You say my suggestion is rude but this is in fact exactly what happened to the author of the story. If one of these two people (the author or the clerk) had to have their life ruined because of the chance that they might be dangerous I would pick the clerk as he/she is actually exhibiting bizarre behavior. Further, having an extreme reaction to natural things indicates some kind of problem. I can't know if the clerk was sexually aroused by the photos, felt guilty and reacted extremely to fight against those feelings that he/she knew were wrong. I can only see the extreme action they took. I can't know what triggered it, but it's definitely a problem and more worthy of looking into than the random innocent by-stander who triggered this persons episode. [1] If this were isolated it might not be such a huge issue, but it's happening quite a lot (relatively). Remember the recent case where photos of a 17 year old girl in a bikini were investigated as child pornography? What about the guy who was naked in his house making breakfast and was accused of being an exhibitionist? Couple this with the insane "child abuser register" the US has and things look pretty alarming.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    If this were isolated it might not be such a huge issue, but it's happening quite a lot (relatively). No it isn't. You hear about some of these cases because, rightly, it occasionally hits the media but in general it is not happening a lot (comparatively anyway). People are getting too cagey over child nudity and prudish in general; but I don't think it is a result of either being a pedophile or sex offender. I would pick the clerk as he/she is actually exhibiting bizarre behavior. Not to my mind. They are reacting irrationally to images that disturb him/her; it does not make them a sex offender. I see what you are saying; but I don't think it comes as a result of people being abused or secretly being pedophiles; it is more a reflection of a society where we are slowly becoming terrified of the "bogeyman" pedophile at every turn. To put your point another way; if you saw, through a living room window, someone strangling another person whilst having sex with them would you call the police? And would it be because you found it sexually arousing? or is because you were worried about the person? See the difference.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      >No it isn't. You hear about some of these cases because, rightly, it occasionally hits the media but in general it is not happening a lot (comparatively anyway). I put on the relatively tag for a reason. I heard of about 7 cases in one year, each one of them completely insane. That's a lot relative to where I'm living in Europe where I've heard of zero such cases. It's also a lot relative to how many should have happened, also zero. >but I don't think it is a result of either being a pedophile or sex offender. No, most people behave this way because they've been horribly and dangerously brain washed into behaving this way. So how do you "fix" them? Imagine some less extreme behaviors that people could do and how it would be greeted. Imagine some intimate situation like a young man proposing to a young lady in a restaurant. Suddenly some jerk walks up and loudly farts in his face. How would this be reacted to? I can think of a lot of potential reactions, all of which would be extreme enough to let the drive by farter know that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. Now lets step it up a notch. Someone urinates on the floor in the middle of a semi-crowded area. Now we're talking jail time, right? Maybe the person grew up in a culture where this was acceptable or even expected. Doesn't matter, they did something more extreme than the last example and will be greeted with a more extreme result. Now back to our clerk. This person looked at some normal family photos and reacted by ruining someone's life. I think this person finding themselves the subject of such an investigation would be appropriate and effective at teaching people that this kind of bizarre behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. >Not to my mind. They are reacting irrationally to images that disturb him/her; it does not make them a sex offender. Neither did the person taking the photos. Remember, my statement was if I had to pick between the two of them. Would you seriously pick the author in that situation? Then I have some bad news for you... >if you saw, through a living room window, someone strangling another person whilst having sex with them would you call the police? Bad example. Enough people are into such behavior that I absolutely would not call the police. Further, if I did I would fully expect to find myself on the business end of a peeping Tom case. But if we changed your example to me just seeing someone being strangled then I would call the police. Because I saw something extreme happening. I would not call the police if I saw two people hugging. See the difference?

ErrantX 16y ago

That's absurd; there is a distinct difference between seeing something that concerns you and becoming sexually aroused by said image. To suggest they are "consumers of child pornography" is just a bit rude... For the untrained eye such photo's as in this case may have shocked him/her and prompted the knee-jerk reaction of calling the police. You are right in part; I think the main problem is that, absurdly, any images of naked children are starting to worry people. Part of that is founded in fact; you will find people with thousands of images of different children running around naked on beaches/parks/camping trips. But, clearly, in this case it is just a family camping trip and the clerk has either refused or is unable to process that. I recall that a few years ago I was taking pics at a family wedding and happened, while taking shots of my cousins running round playing, to take a shot which included my youngest cousin doing a handstand with her skirt over her head. It was a completely innocent picture; and if I was ever investigated for CP it would never be flagged as CP - but my Aunt was absolutely insistent I should delete the photo. And that is the sort of society we live in.

loewenskind 16y ago
>That's absurd; there is a distinct difference between seeing something that concerns you and becoming sexually aroused by said image. To suggest they are "consumers of child pornography" is just a bit rude... What is absurd is a situations where natural actions (taking photos of your children) become, randomly, life ruining [1]. You say my suggestion is rude but this is in fact exactly what happened to the author of the story. If one of these two people (the author or the clerk) had to have their life ruined because of the chance that they might be dangerous I would pick the clerk as he/she is actually exhibiting bizarre behavior. Further, having an extreme reaction to natural things indicates some kind of problem. I can't know if the clerk was sexually aroused by the photos, felt guilty and reacted extremely to fight against those feelings that he/she knew were wrong. I can only see the extreme action they took. I can't know what triggered it, but it's definitely a problem and more worthy of looking into than the random innocent by-stander who triggered this persons episode. [1] If this were isolated it might not be such a huge issue, but it's happening quite a lot (relatively). Remember the recent case where photos of a 17 year old girl in a bikini were investigated as child pornography? What about the guy who was naked in his house making breakfast and was accused of being an exhibitionist? Couple this with the insane "child abuser register" the US has and things look pretty alarming.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  If this were isolated it might not be such a huge issue, but it's happening quite a lot (relatively). No it isn't. You hear about some of these cases because, rightly, it occasionally hits the media but in general it is not happening a lot (comparatively anyway). People are getting too cagey over child nudity and prudish in general; but I don't think it is a result of either being a pedophile or sex offender. I would pick the clerk as he/she is actually exhibiting bizarre behavior. Not to my mind. They are reacting irrationally to images that disturb him/her; it does not make them a sex offender. I see what you are saying; but I don't think it comes as a result of people being abused or secretly being pedophiles; it is more a reflection of a society where we are slowly becoming terrified of the "bogeyman" pedophile at every turn. To put your point another way; if you saw, through a living room window, someone strangling another person whilst having sex with them would you call the police? And would it be because you found it sexually arousing? or is because you were worried about the person? See the difference.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >No it isn't. You hear about some of these cases because, rightly, it occasionally hits the media but in general it is not happening a lot (comparatively anyway). I put on the relatively tag for a reason. I heard of about 7 cases in one year, each one of them completely insane. That's a lot relative to where I'm living in Europe where I've heard of zero such cases. It's also a lot relative to how many should have happened, also zero. >but I don't think it is a result of either being a pedophile or sex offender. No, most people behave this way because they've been horribly and dangerously brain washed into behaving this way. So how do you "fix" them? Imagine some less extreme behaviors that people could do and how it would be greeted. Imagine some intimate situation like a young man proposing to a young lady in a restaurant. Suddenly some jerk walks up and loudly farts in his face. How would this be reacted to? I can think of a lot of potential reactions, all of which would be extreme enough to let the drive by farter know that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. Now lets step it up a notch. Someone urinates on the floor in the middle of a semi-crowded area. Now we're talking jail time, right? Maybe the person grew up in a culture where this was acceptable or even expected. Doesn't matter, they did something more extreme than the last example and will be greeted with a more extreme result. Now back to our clerk. This person looked at some normal family photos and reacted by ruining someone's life. I think this person finding themselves the subject of such an investigation would be appropriate and effective at teaching people that this kind of bizarre behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. >Not to my mind. They are reacting irrationally to images that disturb him/her; it does not make them a sex offender. Neither did the person taking the photos. Remember, my statement was if I had to pick between the two of them. Would you seriously pick the author in that situation? Then I have some bad news for you... >if you saw, through a living room window, someone strangling another person whilst having sex with them would you call the police? Bad example. Enough people are into such behavior that I absolutely would not call the police. Further, if I did I would fully expect to find myself on the business end of a peeping Tom case. But if we changed your example to me just seeing someone being strangled then I would call the police. Because I saw something extreme happening. I would not call the police if I saw two people hugging. See the difference?