I’m searching around WestLaw to find a definition of child pornography. Right now all I’m hitting are cases where the question arises of whether the federal government has the right to enforce child pornography laws.
It seems that they do, if only through the logic that child porn is:
a) taken in one state and developed in another
b) shot with the intention of sharing those photos with people in another state
c) could reasonably leave one state’s borders
and therefore falls under the commerce clause of the Constitution.
I still haven’t found an actual definition just yet, but here’s something else. From 18 USCA § 2252A:
Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography
(a) Any person who–
…3) knowingly reproduces any child pornography for distribution through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer;
What is knowingly? Would seeing a picture of a naked child be enough to reach the level of knowingly? Is it equivilant to “reaonsably should have known”?
In other words, if a film processor at WalMart saw a picture of a naked child, figured it was probably an innocent picture taken by the parents but it could, potentially, be a picture taken for obscene reasons, would that be knowingly? A reasonable person might have thought that, so maybe he’d get in trouble with the law.
So now what? We have two scenarios:
WalMart comes down with the rule that NO nude pictures will be developed. By doing so, they are inconvienencing many but they also have no chance of breaking any laws. When someone sues WalMart, we have a discussion about their corporate policies, but not about the illegality of their actions. We also, for the most part, agree that $75,000 is a pretty large amount to be suing for.
WalMart leaves it up to the individual film processors or, in the alternative, says “to hell with it, anyone can develop anything.”
Now they have the potential for federal laws to be broken and for child porn to be distributed. They open the door to lawsuits from the parents of the child and risk having employees go to jail.
Tell me, what corporate policy would WalMart choose if it were employing common sense?
Look folks, I despise Wal-Mart as much as the rest of you, but come now, they are a private company. If you don’t like it, you can shop elsewhere.
Or you could start up your OWN photo development store right next to Wal-Mart that won’t have such a strict censorship policy.
I don’t believe it does. I’m a strong advocate of civil liberties, but you can’t equate a Company being reluctant to develop naked pictures with Government agents tapping our phones and searching our cars. I think they should put up some notices in their photo lab about their policy, so that nobody gets caught off guard by it, but that’s as far as I’m willing to take it.
Conversly, do you think Wal-Mart should be FORCED to develop naked pictures of children against their will?
Don’t look now, but your excluded middle is showing. It’s possible for employees to use their own discretion without leaving the company open to litigation. If the policy was “Develop no photos which appear to have a prurient purpose,” – no problem. If someone’s film turns out to be nothing but kids posing naked, by all means, get it investigated to make sure no one’s being exploited. Obviously. You don’t need a blanket policy forbidding photos of pefectly normal family life. For christ’s sake, we’re talking about two pictures on a roll which presumably was filled with quotidian scenes. Gasp! A baby girl with no top on! Why, all these other pictures of domestic life must be a smokescreen put in place to allow this wretched filth the slip by!
As for the “You can always shop elsewhere” argument, bollocks.
Never mind the places where Wal Mart is the only option unless you’re willing to go to the next town-- I’m quite certain that Wal Mart doesn’t broadcast their policy to every Brad & Janet that drops their film off. Most people aren’t likely to know that their attempts to document the childhood of their offspring are going to either be expunged from their prints, or possibly result in them being hauled in for questioning.
It’s sick to equate the innocent nudity of children with pornography. Wal Mart is being perverse here, not parents who want pictures of their kids.
I never said that parents who want pictures of their kids are perverse and you are correct that there is a middle ground. The law itself has many shades of gray and one would think that someone at Wal-Mart’s photo center could tell the difference given the scenario you’ve described.
Nevertheless, Wal-Mart’s policy is Wal-Mart’s policy. There is a small chance they can get in trouble with the law but that ever so small chance blows into lawsuits, jail time, and bad PR (place these in whatever order of priority you want) if they screw up just once.
So you can disagree with Wal-Mart’s policy all you want to. Financially, their decision makes sense.
For all of you complaining that $75k is too much, how much would ask for if you had to deal with the embarressment and scorn from your neighbors over being suspected of being a child sex offender. How many of you would be concerned if you received notification of a sex offender moving next door (IANAL but i think kiddie porn convictions are subject to notification rules. any lawyers in the house?)
The $75K, as was stated in the article and as I explained above, is for actual, not punative damages. She must prove that the incident in the store caused her $75,000 in real, quantifiable harm. Being embarrassed isn’t an actual harm. If she racked up $75 grand in psychiatrist bills because of that 45 minute meeting, we could talk.
Sexual offender notification, AKA Megan’s Law, is a state level statute and thus varies from place to place. Not every state requires notification.
Being accussed of trying to develop child porn is not the same as being convicted of it. You don’t go on any lists because a Wal-Mart employee thinks you may be up to no good. Your neighbors don’t find about it unless you bring it to their attention by, say, the national media through a retalitory lawsuit.
Why, exactly, is that argument “bollocks”? Or do you imagine some kind of “right” to have nude pictures developed there, or some “right” to even shop there?
IIRC, Wal-Mart doesn’t carry liquor, either, should you demand that they do?
So what if they’re the only place to develop your pictures? So what if they’re not? Either way, they’re assholes for refusing, and whether or not you can go to another store is irrelevant.
The police involvement is the real problem. A representative of Walmart irresponsibly and mistakenly made this woman and her children suffer great embarrassment and anxiety. In plainer terms, Walmart done fucked up. Now this woman’s going to fuck Walmart up.
Now I see why my SO loves this board so much. So many of the posts dissect a topic into such tiny pieces that the original intent is frequently clouded. She does the same thing.
As for the pictures, I only read one post that I remember had anything really intelligent to add. That was the one that questioned why the local police department even bothered to haul this woman into the back room for questioning. Surely if this was a “roll” of film, it would’ve had a few other pictures of the family which should’ve had some bearing on the idea that these were not kiddie porn.
I really do feel badly for those who are afraid to take those bathtub shots and other such “innocent” pics. I seem to remember a few TV commercials that showed naked toddlers running down the hall trying to escape from mom with the bath towel. I suppose those companies should be hauled in for pornographic videos broadcast over public airwaves?
Lighten up a bit. It’s hard enough keeping clothes on our two year old. He hates 'em just as much as his older sister did when she was that age. Now she can’t get enough of hello kitty outfits!
Hi, Mechanical! I’ve checked your posts, and it seems that no one welcomed you to the board (unless such a post was lost in the crash), so, Welcome! (Who’s your SO?)
The argument that WalMart is your only option is ridiculous. As already stated, there are almost always local alternatives. If not, you can have them developed by mail, or invest in a digital camera, a Polaroid, or a darkroom.
Did the employee make a poor judgement call? Maybe. How was the employee to know the identity of the subjects or the intent of the person taking the pictures? To say these are moot points, that the law is black and white, seems silly in a country where the head of the high court is quoted as saying he “knows pornography when [he] sees it.” The employee who had to make the on the spot decision maybe doesn’t suffer from this kind of ego and decided to correctly cover their own ass. (ironic pun fully intended) Poor decision by the management, the police? Probably. But they didn’t prosecute her. They questioned her.
I think the actual damages amount is ridiculous, but it seems reasonable in punitive. I don’t understand why the lawsuit was filed that way, but it was probably under the advice of attorney, so I guess a judge will decide. I agree that in this case WalMart deserves to be sued. God knows thousands of FAR more frivolous suits are filed…
So hopefully having clarified that I think this instance was ridiculous, and I truly feel for the mom, let me pose this question.
At what age and quantity is it inappropiate/clearly porn? Assuming that there is no obvious sexual content, say just “innocent” frontal/posterior nudity in a “home environment”, where is the line? 2 shots of 3 yr old? 3 shots of a 4 yr old? 4 of a 5 yr old? etc.
Wal-Mart’s policy is to not develop nude pics and to bring suspected child pornography to the attention of the manager, who in turn makes a determination of whether to alert the police. This employee was bothered enough by these pics that instead of just not developing them he told his manager, and the manager was bothered enough to notify the police. The police thought enough of the pics that they questioned her extensively and then brought this to the attention of the county attorney, who declined to press charges.
My point is that they have essentially the same policy as Walgreen’s and as the the rep for Walgreen’s says in the article, “With this policy, several people have to look at it and come to the same conclusion before the authorities even get contacted”. All these people looked at the pics and thought there was something wrong with them. I would think that plenty of people bring in pics of their kids topless in the kiddie pool to Wal-Mart without getting hassled. Without seeing the pics, we only have her word that their as innocuous as she claims.
I noticed that too and was also cynical. To be fair tho, if I were going to give her the benfit of the doubt…after being detained for interrogation for almost an hour, and understandably reluctant to try to explain why to the kids, perhaps she had to reconsider her plans to grocery shop and then go home and cook dinner. ie, maybe the kids were starving and she needed a minute to calm her nerves before she drove.
Or maybe WalMart is the only game in town as far as food goes.
