The ‘Tar Baby’ Colorado Republican is at it again. From the Denver Post:
Gah, I don’t know how many friends on FB post pics of their kids in a bathtub. In case you were wondering, here is the picture in question.
:dubious:
I’m not very good at Pittings, so I hope it’s in the right forum. What’s obscene is the water, not the child. Has our government always been such a fucking joke?
According to the photographer, here’s the background to the story:
The photographer who snapped the photo of the ‘napalm girl’ certainly wasn’t questioned about child pornography. In fact, deprived children do well when getting a point across. See here, here, here, and here.
Direct link to picture.
Frack is an environmentally hot topic, referring to an extraction technique with debatable environmental impacts. Frack is also a non-related, television-friendly explicative used in Battlestar Galactica.
Well I know what fracking is, but I thought the actual story referred to would have something to do with fracking, which it does not appear to. Hence, my question.
Ok, it’s almost amusing, but now I’ve clicked on that picture twice and both times it was a different picture, that has nothing to do with your post. What is with that site???
ETA: Every time you click on it new pictures come up!
“Napalm girl,” was taken during a time period that didn’t have the [del]hysteria[/del] extra concern we have today over child nudity. My parents took pictures of me and my brother bathing together when I was 4 and he was 1. No one thought anything of them.
Today, those pictures are questionable and apparently required the manager of the local Rite-Aid to give his OK before they could be reprinted from negatives.
I don’t take any position on the coal business – I am just pointing out that an effort to compare today’s reaction to “Napalm girl” is not useful.
Kid is nude, but nothing is showing. So how could it possibly be child porn? It’s the equivalent of a kid in a bathing suit.
Haven’t the courts ruled that in order for it to be child porn there needs to be a sexual component?
Otherwise I know a couple of evil child pornographers. Mainly my mom and my Grandma who have pictures of tiny baby Kinthalis reaching for the toilet paper with his little bum showing.
I’d agree that there may be more concern now, but the sentiment at the time was not exactly, “Oh, she’s a kid, ain’t no thing.” That said, they made the right call then, and that photo was far more “revealing” than this one. I can’t understand how anyone could object to this.
And the thing is, not only did Lamborn defer to the judgment of his staff without even looking at the photo himself… he was the one who invited this woman to speak, and this was the second time he’d done so!
You’d think he’d at least extend his invited guest the courtesy of looking at the materials she brought, and considering whether, at bare minimum, an apology for the actions of his staff might be in order.
That’s gracious of her to say, and there probably is a “he was just doing his job” component to this, but whether the decision was his or someone else’s or was forced by a policy somewhere, the questioning of Grunnoe was in itself a serious mistake. There is nothing about the photo which should even cause suspicion of child pornography. No questioning should have taken place.
