# When do baby pictures become kiddie porn? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 10, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916 "2005-09-10T01:07:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![yerba\_buena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/7ea924/32.png) [@yerba\_buena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yerba_buena)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/1 "2005-09-10T01:07:00Z")
I would Google this, but I’m :eek: of what I might find. So, everyone takes cute little pictures of their baby, right? First temperature reading, first diaper change, etc, etc. And the baby is butt nekkid. At what age does it become a felony? Does it need to be erotic in order to be illegal? In that case, is it okay to take non-erotic nude photographs of a teenager? There are two assumptions I make – correct me if either one is wrong. Assumption #1: Taking pictures of a naked baby is not illegal. Assumption #2: Taking pictures of a naked teenage son/daughter is illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/2 "2005-09-10T01:11:10Z")
> [@yerba buena](#): > > Assumption #2: Taking pictures of a naked teenage son/daughter is illegal. It is not, at least under federal law. Some states vary, of course. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography) has this to say: > [@](#): > > A court case in 1999 determined that mere nudity involving minors does not come under the federal definition of child porn, nor does it necessarily qualify as obscene, as the Supreme Court had ruled previously that mere nudity in and of itself does not constitute obscenity. This ruling does not specifically address state laws, which may differ. For example, broader definitions in some states have created controversy when parents were arrested for taking photographs in which their small children were depicted nude during usual daily activities, such as bathing. ---
**Author:** ![Susie\_Derkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47774/32.png) [@Susie\_Derkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susie_Derkins)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/3 "2005-09-10T02:18:35Z")
Not sure of the answer to your question, but I remember when my daughter was maybe six months old we did the “shampoo hair-horn” thing and took photos. She was of course naked in the tub, and I took the first picture from too far away. I thought to myself that her little hoo-ha was probably showing, and if I wanted to put this picture in her scrapbook it needed to be hoo-ha-less. I got closer (so that the lip of the tub obscured what needed to be obscured [hoo-ha]) and snapped another photo. When the drugstore processed the pictures, they developed the second picture but not the first. It made me wonder if there was some sort of law regarding this, or if was up to the discretion of the developer. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/4 "2005-09-10T02:21:28Z")
> [@Susie Derkins](#): > > When the drugstore processed the pictures, they developed the second picture but not the first. It made me wonder if there was some sort of law regarding this, or if was up to the discretion of the developer. There have been stories of people getting into trouble because the developer deemed certain photos (like your first pic) to be pornographic or, at least, _possibly_ pornographic. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/5 "2005-09-10T02:52:47Z")
> [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > There have been stories of people getting into trouble because the developer deemed certain photos (like your first pic) to be pornographic or, at least, _possibly_ pornographic. [One story like that](http://users.rcn.com/kyp/hsangeli.html) ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/6 "2005-09-10T02:54:22Z")
These incidents have almost always been because some overzealous photo shop employee decided to do some personal censoring. There is no basis in law for this, but a few people have been hounded by overzealous (or publicity-hungry) law enforcement personnel. Not that long ago, a couple (poor and non-white - and yes, I do believe without hard evidence that that made a difference) had their children taken away by social services for “indecent” photos before finally getting them back months later. As stated, mere nudity should never be legal cause for concern. It should never happen. But it sometimes does. ---
**Author:** ![Sierra\_Indigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f0a364/32.png) [@Sierra\_Indigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sierra_Indigo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/7 "2005-09-10T03:15:42Z")
Slightly on a tangent from the OP, but it’s getting depressing that (in Australia at least) parents aren’t allowed to take cameras to their kids sports days/swimming days/plays etc., especially if they’re going to be put up online, because the photographs might then be found by kiddiediddlers and put up on indecent websites. So many schools around here have been banning cameras all together, so parents can’t even have pictures of their little suzie or jimmy getting a silver medal for the 50 metre backstroke relay, or whatever they’ve won. ---
**Author:** ![Thalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f475e1/32.png) [@Thalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thalion)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/8 "2005-09-10T03:17:57Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > These incidents have almost always been because some overzealous photo shop employee decided to do some personal censoring. There is no basis in law for this, but a few people have been hounded by overzealous (or publicity-hungry) law enforcement personnel. hmmmmm . . . you don’t have any strong feelings on this topic, do you? In Washington state, the law **requires** anyone who develops film or repairs computers to report any depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. [Cite](http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=9.68A.080&fuseaction=section) While “sexually explicit conduct” can be a judgement call, it certainly is in the best interests of the developer to make the report if there is any doubt. When I was a detective, I had the local film lab make reports on two occasions. In the first instance, the parents took pictures of a four-year-old girl posing naked in the tub. The poses could, to some, appear somewhat provocative (I didn’t think so myself, but we always err on the side of caution). A Child Protective Services caseworker and I interviewed the parents and the little girl and determined that nothing inappropriate occurred. Case closed. In the other case, two sixteen-year-old girls posed for pictures in various stages of undress and with a large dildo. The pictures were obviously taken by a third party (possibly the father of one of the girls). This was clearly a case of [Sexual Exploitation of a Minor](http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=9.68A.040&fuseaction=section). So, it isn’t always “overzealous (or publicity-hungry) law enforcement personnel” creating these incidents. Sometimes there is a real problem and we have to do our jobs. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/9 "2005-09-10T04:51:58Z")
> [@Thalion](#): > > hmmmmm . . . you don’t have any strong feelings on this topic, do you? > > In Washington state, the law **requires** anyone who develops film or repairs computers to report any depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. > [Cite](http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=9.68A.080&fuseaction=section) > > While “sexually explicit conduct” can be a judgement call, it certainly is in the best interests of the developer to make the report if there is any doubt. > > When I was a detective, I had the local film lab make reports on two occasions. In the first instance, the parents took pictures of a four-year-old girl posing naked in the tub. The poses could, to some, appear somewhat provocative (I didn’t think so myself, but we always err on the side of caution). A Child Protective Services caseworker and I interviewed the parents and the little girl and determined that nothing inappropriate occurred. Case closed. > > In the other case, two sixteen-year-old girls posed for pictures in various stages of undress and with a large dildo. The pictures were obviously taken by a third party (possibly the father of one of the girls). This was clearly a case of [Sexual Exploitation of a Minor](http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=9.68A.040&fuseaction=section). > > So, it isn’t always “overzealous (or publicity-hungry) law enforcement personnel” creating these incidents. Sometimes there is a real problem and we have to do our jobs. Real child molesters hould be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but the fact that anyone is brain dead enough to ring the child porn bell for _pictures of naked kids in a tub_, and that the police would then feel it was necessary to “interview” these hapless parents is asinine in the extreme. At some point simple common sense has to come into play, and overzealous law enforcement certainly does “create” these incidents in many cases, and then tries to wipe it’s hands after the shitstorm that ensues if the parents have money and legal resources, with the weak bullshit of “Well, we’re just doing our job.” The job of being a law enforcement official hopefully requires some basic level of judgement. If some wound up photo clerk handed me pics of naked, soapy kids in a tub, and my first inclination as detective was to roust the parents for and interview instead of telling the clerk the difference between abuse and ordinary home life, I would have to wonder at that officers real world level of common sense or intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/10 "2005-09-10T06:00:38Z")
Well- what to you, oh OP is “illegal”? Do you mean “arrested, prosecuted, convicted and lose all the appeals”? If so, then likely just plain nudity won’t cut it. But to many- just the arrest & prosecution will ruin their lives forever- and in that case the answer is 'whatever a developer then a cop then a prosecutor _thinks_ is porno". Which can indeed be a completely innocent “baby picture”. Thalion- in your scenario " In the other case, two sixteen-year-old girls posed for pictures in various stages of undress and with a large dildo. The pictures were obviously taken by a third party (possibly the father of one of the girls). This was clearly a case of Sexual Exploitation of a Minor." I disagree strongly with the word “clearly”. SOME 16yo girls are perfectly capable on their own of knowing what a dildo is, choosing to use it, and choosing to have a picture taken. True- some are, and some aren’t. But even though the Law thinks that at 17yo and 364days a person is incapable of making an informed sexual choice, and magically one day later they are fully mature- but we all know better. Thus, while I agree that this is something that needed investigating, it wasn’t “black & white” IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Daylon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/45deac/32.png) [@Daylon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daylon)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/11 "2005-09-10T09:01:56Z")
I think people do tend to get a little overzealous. When I was at IBM, I had an Anne Geddes picture in my cube that I had to take down. It was of two naked kiddos sitting up, you couldn’t see anything at all and it was very tasteful, but I was told that “someone might get the wrong idea or be offended” If you get offended by a baby picture, I think there’s some deeper issues of concern that should be addressed. D. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/12 "2005-09-10T16:01:42Z")
**Thalion** , I think your post emphasized mine rather than contradicting it. There is a clear distinction between “sexually explicit conduct” and mere nudity. I don’t know how a “provocative” picture of a four-year-old is defined, but it appears that there was no crime involved. How an investigation could determine “provocativeness” is unclear to me, but it’s an unfortunate fact that in some places the child would have been taken away from the parents for this. To make the obligatory statement, I am against child abuse in any and all forms. However, the criminalization of mere nudity without understandable guidelines for further investigation or prosecution is itself a crime, or better a sickness of our society. It hurts the underlying problem rather than helping it. And it shows that there is no good answer to the OP. Baby pictures become kiddie porn when… Whenever. Whenever some third party with authority decides to make it so. This is not a good answer socially or legally. ---
**Author:** ![Thalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f475e1/32.png) [@Thalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thalion)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/13 "2005-09-11T05:10:57Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Real child molesters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but the fact that anyone is brain dead enough to ring the child porn bell for _pictures of naked kids in a tub_, and that the police would then feel it was necessary to “interview” these hapless parents is asinine in the extreme. “Brain dead”? I see it as being caring and careful, and not taking a chance with the safety of a child (not to mention their own legal liability). I didn’t think those particular pictures were a problem, but I had to investigate to be sure. > [@](#): > > The job of being a law enforcement official hopefully requires some basic level of judgement. Indeed, but that judgement has to be based on facts and investigation, not supposition. I couldn’t just look at those pictures, assume everything was fine and not investigate. If I was wrong, it would be beyond terrible. I did a basic investigation, actually _determined_ (rather than assumed) everything was OK, and no one was traumatized. You need to remember all those cases we read of abused children where no one did anything to protect them. I just won’t take that chance. ---
**Author:** ![Thalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f475e1/32.png) [@Thalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thalion)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/14 "2005-09-11T05:20:25Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Thalion- in your scenario " > SOME 16yo girls are perfectly capable on their own of knowing what a dildo is, choosing to use it, and choosing to have a picture taken. True- some are, and some aren’t. But even though the Law thinks that at 17yo and 364days a person is incapable of making an informed sexual choice \ Well, we are talking about the law here, not opinions. The law **clearly** defines the type of picture that I described as illegal to produce and to possess. End of story. This is not a gray area, legally. An interesting highjack - in Washington, the age of consent is 16. So those two 16-year-old girls were perfectly within the law to have sex together. However, it is illegal to take pictures of it. Even if there weren’t a third person taking the pictures, they couldn’t take pictures like that of themselves. Another twist is that it is illegal in Washington to “Communicate with a minor for an immoral purpose”. So technically, it is legal for a 40-year-old to have sex with a 16-year-old, but he can’t talk to her about it. It just goes to show the difficulty in legislating morality. Pretty damned impossible, really, and it shouldn’t be done. ---
**Author:** ![Thalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f475e1/32.png) [@Thalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thalion)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/15 "2005-09-11T05:35:33Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > **Thalion** , I think your post emphasized mine rather than contradicting it. There is a clear distinction between “sexually explicit conduct” and mere nudity. I agree (though I have seen some cases that are definitely in a gray area). > [@](#): > > I don’t know how a “provocative” picture of a four-year-old is defined, but it appears that there was no crime involved. How an investigation could determine “provocativeness” is unclear to me The investigation wasn’t to determine “provocativeness”. It was to determine if those pictures were a clue to something far more. There was never any question that those pictures were perfectly legal - we just had to make sure that they weren’t part of something that was illegal. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/16 "2005-09-11T05:36:26Z")
How did you know they were 16 and not 18? Was it tattooed on their asses? ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/17 "2005-09-11T05:39:10Z")
> [@Thalion](#): > > The law **clearly** defines the type of picture that I described as illegal to produce and to possess. Actually, it does not, at least not at the federal level, nor in Washington State, per your link, AFAICT. See [Title 18 USC Part I, Chapter 110](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_110.html). Nowhere is mentioned otherwise nonexplict nude photography which include a dildo or other sex aid. The same applies to the statue you linked to, as well. See the [definitons](http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=9.68A.011&fuseaction=section) for the statute, particularly: > [@](#): > > (3) “Sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated: > > ``` > (a) Sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex or between humans and animals; > > (b) Penetration of the vagina or rectum by any object; > > (c) Masturbation; > > (d) Sadomasochistic abuse for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer; > > (e) Exhibition of the genitals or unclothed pubic or rectal areas of any minor, or the unclothed breast of a female minor, for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer; > > (f) Defecation or urination for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer; and > > (g) Touching of a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or breast area for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer. > > ``` Nothing about merely _posing_ with a dildo. That photograph may have been distasteful, but it was not illegal, as I’m reading the statute. ---
**Author:** ![initech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/439d5e/32.png) [@initech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/initech)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/18 "2005-09-11T05:43:15Z")
> [@Thalion](#): > > "I didn’t think those particular pictures were a problem, but I had to investigate to be sure. Wait a second. If, in your judgment there wasn’t a problem with the pictures you saw, why did you investigate? Was there other, compelling evidence? If not, how is that different from interrogating people at random? ---
**Author:** ![bouv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@bouv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bouv)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/19 "2005-09-11T05:53:50Z")
> [@initech](#): > > Wait a second. If, in your judgment there wasn’t a problem with the pictures you saw, why did you investigate? Was there other, compelling evidence? If not, how is that different from interrogating people at random? Because his (her?) superior said so? Because the law says anytime a photo technician makes a report they have to follow through? The laws are usually not written so that an individual detective can make judgement calls like that. Eliminates sticky situations. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916/20 "2005-09-12T02:35:04Z")
When the **Man-Cub** was about…hmm…9 months old? A year? Something… I took a bath with him. Now, this child detested having his hair washed. Always did. Always has. Heaven knows how he got over it but he does emerge from the shower now clean from head to toe. ( he’s 15 now ). I yelled for my wife, because I was having trouble NOT laughing. His head covered with shampoo. MY head covered with shampoo. He’s sitting in my lap, he’s screaming with tears. I fake a similar expression and she snaps the photo. I say BEFORE she takes it, " make sure you frame out our laps, ok? ". She doesn’t. We did get the prints back from the lab, but I knew the lab guy pretty well. He was only 2 blocks away, and I hung out there a lot. There we are. Soapy. Crying or faking crying. With son’s little swienstukker in plain view. I took scissors and cut it out of the image by cropping along the bottom. Still have that photo somewhere. I just had this talk today with a gal at a new photo stop for me- CVS Drugs. I took my CD, chose prints, they were sent to her printer and an hour later I got em. I commented upon how easy it was, and did she ever see prints she was grossed out by. She said, and I am paraphrasing, " I have seen things come out of that printer that I really should not have to know about. EEeech. " 😃 Cartooniverse [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-do-baby-pictures-become-kiddie-porn/320916.md?page=2)