Nude photo of toddler on beach considered pornographic?

[Davin]

A New Zealand woman took a photo of her nude toddler at the beach (http://www.3news.co.nz/News/HealthNews/Nude-photo-of-toddler-on-beach-causes-controversy/tabid/420/articleID/89149/cat/58/Default.aspx) and entered the image into an online snapshot competition, where it as rejected because it "could be construed on the Internet as being pornographic.". Despite that insane logic, the photo won another competition sponsored by a local newspaper.

[Nude in the North]

Not only do we have to raise our children in "Plastic Bubbles", But we need to make them Opaque so nobody can see them.

Breaks over! Everyone get your heads back in the sand.

[luvnaturism]

There really, truly are a LOT of sick people out there. You can't be too careful, because you never know when you're going to run into one. Here's a clue: many of them judge photo contests.

[Bob S.]

Tell me about it luv. As I posted elsewhere on this board, my local paper did a student art contest in connection with a local art gallery. The judging was agreed to be independent and all parties would accept the decision of the judge. The Virginian Pilot, however, went against their own stated rules and disqualified the first painting because it contained nudity (the back of a nude teen girl sitting--showed nothing you wouldn't see on a beach--self-portrait style). They got another judge who picked a scu;lpture of a pregnant torso (no intimate details) but that was also disqualified due to nudity. They finally handpicked a judge from their own paper and got a comfortable pick.

The people at Air New Zealand have become perverted by society's fixation on pedophiles. When one cannot even look at a nude back of a toddler without beiong concerned about sex, then one is officially thinking like a pedophile.

Bob S.

[Boreas]

Ah, it isn't the bare bum that is the problem. Don't you see the ferry in the picture? The airline did not want another form of trasnportation in their photos. ;)

All kidding aside, it is silly. That is a lovely, non-sexual picture. As if a picture of a toddler could be sexy anyway......

[Pete Knight]

As if a picture of a toddler could be sexy anyway......
To a right thinking person no! But to someone with a vile, perverted, twisted mind it can, if guys can get their rocks off over pictures of shoes, then anything is fair game. What IS wrong is cosseting our children, confining them as though they have done wrong, they should be able to live their lives normally, and the perv's punished for their wrong doing.

The problem with the do gooders and PC crowd is that they've tipped the world on its head, instead of living our lives normally and punishing the wrong doers, we're now told that it is we who are wrong for creating a situation that encourages these sicko's to go astray.

I lay the blame for this firmly at the door of America, this PC and litigation culture started in the US, has spread to the UK and is currently infecting Australia. There are too many so called experts telling us how we should live our lives, controlling us, manipulating us, and it has to stop. What happened to common sense, when did the physiologists and psychiatrists take over from common sense.

Pete Knight

[walter05]

I was thinking of the old famous Copper Tone add. The dog pulling the bottom part of a swimsuit revealing the little girl's white bottom to contrast it with the rest of her tan skin.

This add was everywhere including billboards and no one thought it was pornography.

[Pete Knight]

I was thinking of the old famous Copper Tone add. The dog pulling the bottom part of a swimsuit revealing the little girl's white bottom to contrast it with the rest of her tan skin.

This add was everywhere including billboards and no one thought it was pornography.

That's because the PC do gooders have changed our collective mindset, fueled of course by the media who are always on the look out for sensationalism, and between them they have fueled the peadophillia paranoia.

peadophiles will get their kicks wherever they can, but the limiting of family photos harms only the innocent, the pervs will find a way no matter what, so lets fight for what is right, the right to be normal and deal with the pervs when they come out of the woodwork.

No more ruined childhood, no more living in fear of what might happen, otherwise the next thing you know is we'll be forced to keep our children in cells to protect them from all and any harm. Catch the pervs and put THEM in the cells so our children can be free to be themselves.

Pete Knight

[eagle59]

This is totally rediculous! Just about every mom has the naked baby photo in the album that she loves to show the new boyfriend/girlfriend. There is nothing pornographic about it, it is just good natured fun. There is nothing more beautiful than a innocnet child and a tasteful nude photo can express that beauty in a wonderful way. Today's society really needs to get a grip and wake up and start worring about more important issues.

[Arnabas]

That's because the PC do gooders have changed our collective mindset, fueled of course by the media who are always on the look out for sensationalism, and between them they have fueled the peadophillia paranoia.

peadophiles will get their kicks wherever they can, but the limiting of family photos harms only the innocent, the pervs will find a way no matter what, so lets fight for what is right, the right to be normal and deal with the pervs when they come out of the woodwork.

No more ruined childhood, no more living in fear of what might happen, otherwise the next thing you know is we'll be forced to keep our children in cells to protect them from all and any harm. Catch the pervs and put THEM in the cells so our children can be free to be themselves.

Pete Knight

But you *do* know they changed the Coppertone ad now as well, right? Actually, it was a few years ago. You no longer see two "cheeks" on the girl's bum. Now it's just a solid round bump.

[Yuppers]

I lay the blame for this firmly at the door of America, this PC and litigation culture started in the US, has spread to the UK and is currently infecting Australia. There are too many so called experts telling us how we should live our lives, controlling us, manipulating us, and it has to stop. What happened to common sense, when did the physiologists and psychiatrists take over from common sense.


Pete Knight

There is truth in this however, most of this fear of the body comes from organised religion who have taught society to see themselves as evil sinful beings so that they are fully controllable by corrupt church leaders.

Then, there is society who has opted to live life where they are scared of everything. Too many parents won't let their children play outside without adult supervison including as teenagers, and then there those parents who won't let their kids play sports or climb trees for the fear of being injured. Children are also barred from family events and ceremonies these days including weddings and funerals. Funerals because they are fearful of an upset child but this only prevents children from developing coping mechanisms and the emotion of experiencing 'loss'.

Also, instead of dealing with the child sex offenders with something cheap and simple such as a dangling length of rope with a loop at the end, we hide our children and see sex in everything.

Yes, society is sick. It is terminally ill.

[Peter B]

This happened in my country and the publication and condemnation was entirely predictable, as all bases need to be covered and all possible risks needed to be eliminated.....advice of a lawyer, no doubt
Then another publication just sees a complete diiferent picture with another stsndard of public responsibility and prints it.

One publication risks it, the other backs off for fear of.....what?
Apicture of a naked toddler on a beach, while at the same time showing a picture of two teenage girls with low riding shorts, that being acceptable. as it does no t show acompletely bare bottom?


Political corrctness gone ape sh11t!

[walter05]

I was working for the Georgia State House of Representatives when we were working on legislation to limit child pornography.

The First Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution can't be limited with few exceptions, and protection of children is one of them. However, the limitation must be minimal.

The pictures in a grand mother's album, etc. would not be considered child pornography under Georgia law.

If the image is published, it probably would not either.

I suspect this may be more of an issue of self-regulation. The penalties for child pornography are quite drastic. A fear of legal action could lead to over self-regulation.

I know this is New Zealand and not the U.S. None the less, I think that is what happened in this case.

[Fitz1980]

The First Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution can't be limited with few exceptions, and protection of children is one of them. However, the limitation must be minimal.

The pictures in a grand mother's album, etc. would not be considered child pornography under Georgia law.

If the image is published, it probably would not either.

I suspect this may be more of an issue of self-regulation. The penalties for child pornography are quite drastic. A fear of legal action could lead to over self-regulation.


That's exactly what it is. Here in the US we've also had Wal-Mart employees who call the cops and report suspicious photos when they get a naked pic of a toddler in the bath.

[walter05]

The problem is that the law requires them to report suspicious photos.

They are often afraid not too.

When in doubt, they report it.

However, a police officer should be able to tell that the photo is innocent.

[Pete Knight]

That's exactly what it is. Here in the US we've also had Wal-Mart employees who call the cops and report suspicious photos when they get a naked pic of a toddler in the bath.
Wal-Marts UK subsidiary ASDA had a major embarrassment a couple of years ago when they refused to reproduce a photo of a naked child on a cake. The photo was a classic baby on a rug with a bare bum, and the cake was for that child's 25th birthday, yes the photo was an old one.

The newspapers had a field day with that one, and ASDA were inundated with calls and e-mails protesting at the shear stupidity.

Pete Knight

[walter05]

It would appear that ASDA was trying not to make a bum on a cake.

Instead they made an bum of themselves.

Forgive the attempt at humor. I could not resist the wise crack.

[Pete Knight]

It would appear that ASDA was trying not to make a bum on a cake.

Instead they made an bum of themselves.

Forgive the attempt at humor. I could not resist the wise crack.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

They made a complete arse of themselves, to put it bluntly.

Pete Knight

[walter05]

I have a feeling that if I could get you to meet me at Apollo Beach, and I bring a cooler with some beer, we could have a great time together.

[Pete Knight]

I have a feeling that if I could get you to meet me at Apollo Beach, and I bring a cooler with some beer, we could have a great time together.
Well you've just said the magic word, if there's beer on offer I'm definitely up for it.

Errrm, where's Apollo beach?

Pete Knight

[Naturist Mark]

I lay the blame for this firmly at the door of America, this PC and litigation culture started in the US, has spread to the UK and is currently infecting Australia. There are too many so called experts telling us how we should live our lives, controlling us, manipulating us, and it has to stop. What happened to common sense, when did the physiologists and psychiatrists take over from common sense.

Pete Knight

I am with you on the evils of a litigious culture. But I don't think that is to blame here. This is misuse of law, not of lawsuits. If anything litigious people would file suit over the interference with their freedom (and rightly so IMO). This is the result not of litigious culture, but of authoritarian culture. It isn't even a left or right thing - this sort of authoritarianism comes from either side - especially when applied to the tendency to see nearly everything through a pedophilia filter. Which is a big part of the reason why male teachers have nearly disappeared (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/20/Number_of_male_teachers_declines/UPI-28921224549586/) from elementary education in the US.

-Mark

[Pete Knight]

I am with you on the evils of a litigious culture. But I don't think that is to blame here. This is misuse of law, not of lawsuits. If anything litigious people would file suit over the interference with their freedom (and rightly so IMO). This is the result not of litigious culture, but of authoritarian culture. It isn't even a left or right thing - this sort of authoritarianism comes from either side - especially when applied to the tendency to see nearly everything through a pedophilia filter. Which is a big part of the reason why male teachers have nearly disappeared (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/20/Number_of_male_teachers_declines/UPI-28921224549586/) from elementary education in the US.

-Mark
Yes, well I accept that, big words and all, but litigation has a major part to play in society being afraid to do anything that might attract money grabbers, and the authorities have a bottomless bank account. The direct result of too much litigation is to draft laws, and laws have loopholes the litigious loonies take advantage of, and before you know it we're on a merry-go-round of laws and litigation.

These days life is like being in a minefield, your average Joe is afraid to take a step for fear of stepping on a lawsuit.

The teacher scenario is crazy, and sexist, as I've pointed out before women can be, and are paedophiles too.

Pete Knight

[walter05]

I was hoping you would bring some single malt scotch.

[Pete Knight]

I was hoping you would bring some single malt scotch.
I think you'll find it's more expensive here than on your side of the pond, all to do with double taxation on our booze.

I can get it cheaper in the tax free lounge at the airport though.

Pete Knight

[Fitz1980]

Here's another one, this time in Australia.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24973917-5008620,00.html

It's not even nudity. It's a 3 year old girl with no shirt on. If you covered her face you wouldn't even be able to tell it was a girl. SHE'S 3 YEARS OLD!!!!!! She doesn't even have breasts.

[MoonShadow]

I am with you, Fitz! People are just getting out of control with their paranoia. Absolutely nothing wrong with that picture. It's a classic one of children being children. Nothing remotely about nudity or sexuality.

People who are offended with such a picture have some serious issues and issues that are detrimental to them and those around them and dear heavens, if they have children, their children.

[walter05]

I would not consider this to be nudity or sexuality either.

At that age, it is just normal.

It must be paranoia.

[Yuppers]

One of my brothers was taken to court by the idiot social workers for having a photo of his daughter in a bath. She was in early years of primary school and, the water was coloured which prevented any viewing of the girl's body below the water surface. The police refused to back these idiots and the Judge threw it out, leaving room to verbal the social workers for the wasting the time of the father, the police and himself.

[Bob S.]

Reminds me of a story a few years ago where a couple didn't like that another mother had her toddler daughter on the beach naked! How scandalous! :rolleyes: I think the police may have been called, but nothing major came of that other than a local columnist highlighted the absurdity of it all.

Some people are just too perverted to know how to live in society.

Bob S.

[Boreas]

I wonder what these people would think of the nine-ish year old happily playing naked at the beach in Dominican Republic we saw last year.

Yuppers, those social workers were idiots. Not all social workers are idiots, nor would all social workers do what these people did. They may have actually been just child protection workers, which is different from the profession of social work. (take a look at my profile) :)

[Yuppers]

I wonder what these people would think of the nine-ish year old happily playing naked at the beach in Dominican Republic we saw last year.

Yuppers, those social workers were idiots. Not all social workers are idiots, nor would all social workers do what these people did. They may have actually been just child protection workers, which is different from the profession of social work. (take a look at my profile) :)

The only people who can do these things in Australia are police from the Child Protection Squad and, social workers who work for the relevant state department of family services. I would like to see it so that only the police can do these things.

All too often do we see social workers holding more powers than the police and not held accountable. Not to forget the cases of fabrication yet no punishment nor media frenzy. Had cops acted like this, there would be howls of disgust.

[Boreas]

The only people who can do these things in Australia are police from the Child Protection Squad and, social workers who work for the relevant state department of family services. I would like to see it so that only the police can do these things.

All too often do we see social workers holding more powers than the police and not held accountable. Not to forget the cases of fabrication yet no punishment nor media frenzy. Had cops acted like this, there would be howls of disgust.

I agree that sometimes it seems that child protection workers do not seem to be held accountable. Here there are some checks and balances for child protection workers. If they were to do something like that there would be howls. They do work with the police when they remove children. Police should not be responsible for this work alone. The people who do this work here have to go through a process in order to be qualified to remove children from their families. It is a huge responsibility that is not taken lightly. I have a MSW and 20+ years of experience working in addictions and mental health (including children's mental health). I have never worked in Child Welfare, just beside it. I could get a job there and would still be required to go through training before I would be fully "delegated" or qualified to do the work.

Social work is a profession. It requires professional degree, either Bachelor of Social Work or Masters of Social Work, or both. Child protection is provided by the provincial family services agency. In my province, it is the Ministry of Child and Family Development. In other provinces, it might be agencies who have been approved by the province to do the work. The people who are hired to do the child protection work may or may not be actual social workers. The general requirement for employment is a bachelor's degree in something like child development, child and youth care or a BSW. Someone with a BSW is supposed to have a certain framework of practice, including a knowledge of the systemic and political forces which act on families. They are also supposed to be aware of their power and its impact. The university in my town has an "anti-oppressive, structural" framework as do many Canadian universities. Of course, just because a person has this education, does not mean they will use it well. People who have a bachelor's degree in child and youth development will likely have a narrower perspective. They have not had the ethical discussions to the same degree as someone with a BSW, and they are unlikely to have the anti-oppressive framework. Also, some agencies have hired people with less than a bachelor's degree because this is extremely thankless work. It is important to hire well qualified people to do this difficult work.

Often the term "social worker" is used to describe any person who works with people and who is a helper. This is not the appropriate use of the term.

One of the leading social work academics right now is an Australian named Janis Fook.

[Pete Knight]

One of the leading social work academics right now is an Australian named Janis Fook.
This is often the root cause of the problem, when academia supersedes common sense we see children dying and being separated from their blood family. Yes it's great to have well qualified people, but without experience of life their certificates count for nothing.

Here in the UK some really bad decisions have been made, all done according to the book, but absolutely no common sense was displayed.

What sickens me are the number of children dying unnecessarily, and the outrageous situation where children taken into care because the mother was unable to care for them, but the social services decided that the grandparents were unsuitable. The children were distressed, they wanted to be with their grandparents, and a social worker even told the one child to do as he was told quite curtly.

Life experience and common sense are worth a bundle of college certificates.

Pete Knight

[walter05]

http://www.wtoc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9803869 is a link to an odd story. For over 20 years, parents were denied their kids. This was because of grand parents that kidnapped their own grand children.

I wonder how many times someone calls the social workers to get ammunition for a custody battle, to get even, etc.

[Boreas]

This is often the root cause of the problem, when academia supersedes common sense we see children dying and being separated from their blood family. Yes it's great to have well qualified people, but without experience of life their certificates count for nothing.

Here in the UK some really bad decisions have been made, all done according to the book, but absolutely no common sense was displayed.

What sickens me are the number of children dying unnecessarily, and the outrageous situation where children taken into care because the mother was unable to care for them, but the social services decided that the grandparents were unsuitable. The children were distressed, they wanted to be with their grandparents, and a social worker even told the one child to do as he was told quite curtly.

Life experience and common sense are worth a bundle of college certificates.

Pete Knight

Do you truly think that people have either life experience or college certificates? Yes, kids are removed unnecessarily from their blood family. Others like Sherry Charlie http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/10/20/bc-charlie-report.html?ref=rss were left with family who killed them. It is not an either or situation. Here is a report on her death: http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/about_us/pdf/summary_dcr_sc.pdf

The sad fact is that there is not the financial support for child protection services. They have unbelievable caseloads, and there is no political will to find them properly.Our province has created the BC Representative for Children and Youth http://www.rcybc.ca/content/home.asp The mandate of the Representative for Children and Youth is to improve services and outcomes for children in B.C. through advocacy, accountability and review. This is staffed by some pretty amazing people. I have met Mary Ellen Turpel Lafond, and she is a good example that you can be well educated AND have common sense. She and her office have made some recommendations which will have some difficulty being implemented for a variety of reasons. I hope they can make improvements in the system. They have published several reports on the progress being made. Hopefully these will help hold service providers accountable, as well as holding governments who fund and direct these programs accountable.

You see what makes it to the media. I am guessing that you learned of the situations you cited from the media. Have you seen any of the situations that were successes? These do not get reported.

Using black and white thinking is not useful. We need to continue to improve services to children and families. We also need to build on the successes and highlight them. Academia does have a place. Common sense and life experience have their places.

[Boreas]

I wonder how many times someone calls the social workers to get ammunition for a custody battle, to get even, etc.

Sadly, it is human nature and it happens often. Hopefully the folks who investigate these calls have some sense and can see through these calls. Quite often these calls are fairly obvious. Other times, they are not. It is a tough judgement call too when children's well-being is at stake.

[Lord Drakkus]

Since we're talking about Social Workers, I can't help but put in my 2 cents here. I know that, for the most part, you're all talking about England, but here in the states, things are right fouled up in many places.

When I lived in Oregon, I knew a lot of people who were dealing with Child Protective Services on a regular basis. Some of them had absolutely nothing wrong with them, and had their kids taken away as wards of the state. Others were drug addicts, alcoholics, child abusers (with documented evidence) and were allowed to keep their kids. There were, in fact, many times where I myself called to report an issue that seemed fairly serious to me. Then when the workers showed up, they actually agreed that I was right in calling. They agreed the situation was bad, but that it was not anything they could do anything about.

Seems to me, at least in Oregon, the rules are set up to take children away from the good parents, and "rehabilitate" the bad parents who should be banned from being around children at all...

I hope I'm wrong about that, but in my experience, somewhat limited as it is, that's how it seems.

[Fitz1980]

http://www.wtoc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9803869 is a link to an odd story. For over 20 years, parents were denied their kids. This was because of grand parents that kidnapped their own grand children.

I wonder how many times someone calls the social workers to get ammunition for a custody battle, to get even, etc.

That's incredibly common. Off the top of my head I remember reading about a case where a father called CPS because his estranged wife walks around topless in front of their four year old son. Of course that didn't seem to bother him when they were together but now that they were in the middle of a bitter custody battle suddenly it concerned him enough to call CPS. Of course we all know that even in textile homes when children are below school age mothers often have a hard time even getting to pee with the bathroom door closed, so who cares if she doesn't always wear a shirt.

I have a good friend who's mother actually took out a fake restraining order on her father when she was a kid, just to try to deny him parental rights.