Bergen Jet Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 ...and the parents are now listed as sex offenders over pictures that a judge has called harmless. Upon watching the news this morning, I was made aware of the plight of A.J. and Lisa Demaree. Who are they? According to Peoria, Arizona, they are sex offenders (potentially child pornographers). And why, might you ask, are they sex offenders? Well, because a photo developer at their local Wal-Mart didn't like the pictures of their three daughters (all five years and younger) playing in the bath. And because that Wal-Mart employee called the cops, for more than one month, three little girls were taken away from their parents. Who among us does not have photographs of our children in various stages of undress? Whether it's in the bath, in a pool, running around the yard -- it doesn't really matter -- most of us have these images without an ounce of malicious pornographic intent. With two little ones at home, I snap photos of every meaningless occasion. I snap them for posterity, I snap them because my children look beautiful, I snap them because they grow so fast and if I don't snap them then I wind up missing something. Sure, with the advent of digital cameras I wind up deleting most of my photos (and I don't intend for the world to see them). But nonetheless, when I photograph my children, I do it because I love them and want to document their lives. Any of us could be the Demarees. Any of us could receive a knock on our door because someone at a local photo developer can't decipher whether photographs are innocent or malicious. Meanwhile, real child pornographers aren't getting their pictures developed at Wal-Mart. However, perhaps we should really recognize that the minute a photo store employee looks at a child and deems an image as being pornographic, it is that person who sexualizes a child. It is that person who takes away their innocence. Don't get me wrong. There are definitely some people out there who don't have a child's well being in mind. And there are special places in hell reserved for them. But this isn't that case. Granted, I suppose that this is again America's fear of the naked body and sexuality in general. We have a hard time distinguishing what is natural from what is exploitative, what is innocent and what is pornographic. Hopefully we can all learn from the Demaree's experience. Don't be quick to judge. Let there be better procedures for determining obscenity (if you can even call it that). And seeing as obscenity is subjective to begin with, watch what you take to your photo developer. Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-logan-levkoff/kids-and-bathtubs-wal-mar_b_293221.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 i hate walmart so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergen Jet Posted September 22, 2009 Author Share Posted September 22, 2009 [quote name='Blackout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatic Bus Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Does anyone know any good lawyers? I need to sue my parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gun Of Bavaria Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Welcome To The United States Of Nanny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Thats why I started taking pictures of my kids taking craps instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatic Bus Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Thats why I started taking pictures of my kids taking craps instead. Some creep somewhere (southernjet) is touching himself right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 I loathe them at this point also. They should buy a digital camera and print their own pictures. F' Walmart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gun Of Bavaria Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 If this is the only reason you hate Walmart, you're not paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 You guys are kind of missing the point here. Walmart might have called the police but the Govt is the one that took their kids away. The cops could have just took the photo looked at it and said this isn't a crime and went on his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jbro22 Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Ha, Theres a picture hanging in my den of me in the tub with a doody floating around the tub. It's awesome, I hope Jbro22 Jr. has the same sense of humor as I did when I was 2 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 I hope the parents sue for a gazillion dollars, and that particular film developer winds up having his wages garnished for the rest of his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 I hope the parents sue for a gazillion dollars, and that particular film developer winds up having his wages garnished for the rest of his life. I don't blame Walmart or the employee at all for this. The department of social services it the bad guy. Aboslutely nothing wrong with calling the cops when you suspect a crime might be occuring. But Walmart isn't the ones who choose to take the kids away. That was the goverment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Straight to dumb indignation. What a surprise. Do you really think this all happened because of the sort of innocent bathtime pictures you take of your kids? Some of the pictures showed the kids spread-eagled, holding their butts open, and other stuff that is clearly and objectively suspect. Then one of the kids told the investigator that mommy touches her down there. So if it's all the same to the gun nuts, I think it's probably appropriate that big brother followed up a little on this one. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=a.j.+lisa+demaree&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Straight to dumb indignation. What a surprise. Do you really think this all happened because of the sort of innocent bathtime pictures you take of your kids? Some of the pictures showed the kids spread-eagled, holding their butts open, and other stuff that is clearly and objectively suspect. Then one of the kids told the investigator that mommy touches her down there. So if it's all the same to the gun nuts, I think it's probably appropriate that big brother followed up a little on this one. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=a.j.+lisa+demaree&aq=f&oq=&aqi= If that's true the first thing the paper should have said was they were inappropriate photos, they were making it sound like it was just normal pictures that everyone has of their kids. If the kids were doing sex acts in the photos it's a big difference then if they were sitting there with bubbles on their head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 If that's true the first thing the paper should have said was they were inappropriate photos, they were making it sound like it was just normal pictures that everyone has of their kids. If the kids were doing sex acts in the photos it's a big difference then if they were sitting there with bubbles on their head. The paper's job is to sell papers. The website's job is to generate hits. Neither is especially concerned with the possibility that a bunch of yahoos are going to read the headline and accept it as the sum total of available information on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 They came for my home, they came for my guns, and then....then they came for my pictures of spread-eagled children holding their butts open... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsis Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Straight to dumb indignation. What a surprise. Do you really think this all happened because of the sort of innocent bathtime pictures you take of your kids? Some of the pictures showed the kids spread-eagled, holding their butts open, and other stuff that is clearly and objectively suspect. Then one of the kids told the investigator that mommy touches her down there. So if it's all the same to the gun nuts, I think it's probably appropriate that big brother followed up a little on this one. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=a.j.+lisa+demaree&aq=f&oq=&aqi= I followed that link and looked at the top 5 pages and did not see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 The paper's job is to sell papers. The website's job is to generate hits. Neither is especially concerned with the possibility that a bunch of yahoos are going to read the headline and accept it as the sum total of available information on the subject. I read the article in the first link and it says nothing about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Straight to dumb indignation. What a surprise. Do you really think this all happened because of the sort of innocent bathtime pictures you take of your kids? Some of the pictures showed the kids spread-eagled, holding their butts open, and other stuff that is clearly and objectively suspect. Then one of the kids told the investigator that mommy touches her down there. So if it's all the same to the gun nuts, I think it's probably appropriate that big brother followed up a little on this one. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=a.j.+lisa+demaree&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Maybe you could link the article you're referencing instead of an entire google search, because all I see is that a judge threw out the criminal case against them, and now their suing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 I hope the parents sue for a gazillion dollars, and that particular film developer winds up having his wages garnished for the rest of his life. Yeah. Take that 15% of $8.00 an hour for life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Maybe you could link the article you're referencing instead of an entire google search, because all I see is that a judge threw out the criminal case against them, and now their suing. That's the same thing I was thinking when I clicked on his link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Yeah. Take that 15% of $8.00 an hour for life! It's the thought that counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 "However, perhaps we should really recognize that the minute a photo store employee looks at a child and deems an image as being pornographic, it is that person who sexualizes a child. It is that person who takes away their innocence." well said I guess I'm going to jail, I have a pic of my son and daughter in the same tub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergen Jet Posted September 23, 2009 Author Share Posted September 23, 2009 Straight to dumb indignation. What a surprise. Do you really think this all happened because of the sort of innocent bathtime pictures you take of your kids? Some of the pictures showed the kids spread-eagled, holding their butts open, and other stuff that is clearly and objectively suspect. Then one of the kids told the investigator that mommy touches her down there. So if it's all the same to the gun nuts, I think it's probably appropriate that big brother followed up a little on this one. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=a.j.+lisa+demaree&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Actually... Good Morning America showed the pics and none of them met your description.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Yeah. Take that 15% of $8.00 an hour for life! Shoot that ain't so bad. Thats almost $10 free dollars everyday for life. Hopefully they get a couple cost of living raises and in no time thats one free Old Country Free Buffet per day. That sound you here is Crusher getting his camera and kids together for bath time, getting ready to go to Wal Mart. In this economy thats practically financial planning. Thanks EY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Actually... Good Morning America showed the pics and none of them met your description.... Glad to see Aten just pulled that out of his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Straight to dumb indignation. What a surprise. Do you really think this all happened because of the sort of innocent bathtime pictures you take of your kids? Some of the pictures showed the kids spread-eagled, holding their butts open, and other stuff that is clearly and objectively suspect. Then one of the kids told the investigator that mommy touches her down there. So if it's all the same to the gun nuts, I think it's probably appropriate that big brother followed up a little on this one. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=a.j.+lisa+demaree&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Was this the whole point of you making up the story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verde Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 This whole story is for sh!t. I feel bad for those parents and I hope they get a hefty settlement after they sue Walmart. This country is going in the crapper with all of the pc nutjobs out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garb Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 This whole story is for sh!t. I feel bad for those parents and I hope they get a hefty settlement after they sue Walmart. This country is going in the crapper with all of the pc nutjobs out there. Amen, Sistah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Actually... Good Morning America showed the pics and none of them met your description.... Yes. Good Morning America showed the pics, excepting nine of them which the parents' lawyer admits would violate child pornography laws if distributed. http://www.handelonthelaw.com/home/news_details.aspx?News=7377 Innocent bathtime pictures do not fall within that ambit. The parents were cleared on lack of intent, which obviously is not something that is apparent on the face of the pictures in question, which weren't the ones you saw anyway. Can't find the rest of what I read yesterday, but this should really be common sense. Why, of all the parents who take naked pictures, were these two singled out for persecution? Why would I make something up for the privilege of having an argument with a guy who blames public schools for making him an idiot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Yes. Good Morning America showed the pics, excepting nine of them which the parents' lawyer admits would violate child pornography laws if distributed. http://www.handelonthelaw.com/home/news_details.aspx?News=7377 Innocent bathtime pictures do not fall within that ambit. The parents were cleared on lack of intent, which obviously is not something that is apparent on the face of the pictures in question, which weren't the ones you saw anyway. Can't find the rest of what I read yesterday, but this should really be common sense. Why, of all the parents who take naked pictures, were these two singled out for persecution? Why would I make something up for the privilege of having an argument with a guy who blames public schools for making him an idiot? Because you've become bored of owning CTM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Yes. Good Morning America showed the pics, excepting nine of them which the parents' lawyer admits would violate child pornography laws if distributed. http://www.handelonthelaw.com/home/news_details.aspx?News=7377 Innocent bathtime pictures do not fall within that ambit. The parents were cleared on lack of intent, which obviously is not something that is apparent on the face of the pictures in question, which weren't the ones you saw anyway. Can't find the rest of what I read yesterday, but this should really be common sense. Why, of all the parents who take naked pictures, were these two singled out for persecution? Why would I make something up for the privilege of having an argument with a guy who blames public schools for making him an idiot? Who ever blamed public schools for making them an idiot? And next time try posting the link to the story instead of a google search, no one but you can seem to find the story you were talking about in your first post. Edit: You think the US education system is doing a good job? Are you ****ing nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Who ever blamed public schools for making them an idiot? And next time try posting the link to the story instead of a google search, no one but you can seem to find the story you were talking about in your first post. That wasn't you? Anyway, as I have no doubt that the irony of a guy who revels in striking the cliche antiauthority pose while simultaneously insisting that all information be spoon-fed and explained to him is totally lost on you, I can't really imagine that there's going to be a next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsis Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Yes. Good Morning America showed the pics, excepting nine of them which the parents' lawyer admits would violate child pornography laws if distributed. http://www.handelonthelaw.com/home/news_details.aspx?News=7377 Innocent bathtime pictures do not fall within that ambit. The parents were cleared on lack of intent, which obviously is not something that is apparent on the face of the pictures in question, which weren't the ones you saw anyway. Can't find the rest of what I read yesterday, but this should really be common sense. Why, of all the parents who take naked pictures, were these two singled out for persecution? Why would I make something up for the privilege of having an argument with a guy who blames public schools for making him an idiot? I know reading comprehension and understading must get tedious for someone of your immense stature and standing but there were 8 or 9 pictures in total and GMA showed 4 of them. The other 4 they did not show because of lawyers advice. There is no way to assume they were pornographic in nature when the quote from the judge was that they were "harmless." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.