What kind of sick person automatically assumes any picture of a nude child--context be damned!--is pornographic?

This sentiment, echoed by many posts, misses the point. Of course only a pervert sees something sexually arousing in the image of naked children. Duh. But since the people at the photo lab had no idea under what circumstances the pictures were taken, and therefore had no way of knowing they weren't taken for erotic gratification, it's understandable that someone decided to call the authorities. One of the photos showed a kid with a beer bottle in hand. Only someone who knew the scenario could know it was harmless. And guess what? Real predators have a tendency to play innocent, and to force their victims into backing up their stories. So you can't just ask the suspect "did you molest these children?" You have to investigate.

Jenkins did nothing wrong, but the possibility that he did wrong is understandable. I'm with the people saying "He was never even charged with a crime. Not for one night were his kids taken away from him. It's over."

I understand his being shaken. But to me, this shows the system works. The good guys were not railroaded into jail, the truth was heard and accepted. I'm glad the process was rigorous, because I guarantee you there are people out there who's photos of naked kids were not taken under innocuous circumstances.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. As a matter of fact, what exactly motivates your</> high level of interest here in this forum, Mr. AJCalhoun? I mean, if I were a predator, what better cover might I have than to be married to someone who investigates predators in the first place. And that's exactly what you have just admitted, isn't it? How very interesting, Mr. AJCalhoun. Didn't you also just admit that your wife brings home her work and that you observe it? Now why, Mr. AJCalhoun, would you do that? Just curious? Or is it something else? I'm thinking we may need to speak with some of your neighbors and, of course, your employer and co-workers to verify your "character". Just in case, of course. I'm sure you understand.

"But since the people at the photo lab had no idea under what circumstances the pictures were taken, and therefore had no way of knowing they weren't taken for erotic gratification, it's understandable that someone decided to call the authorities."

The people at the photo lab had the rest of the roll of film, which, presumably, was innocuous enough, to provide context for the pictures in question. In my opinion, it is _not_ understandable; rather there seemed to be very little critical thinking on the part of the person who placed the call to the authorities, and the effects amounted to more than a small inconvenience for those involved.

Seriously, what pedophile has his or her photographs, "taken for erotic gratification," developed at a drug store?

How, in this case, did the system work?

Let me make it clear in case the subject line is misunderstood, people like bgibbons are destroying America and are a danger to everyone around them.

Good to know.

They abdicate any type of actual responsibility by proclaiming zero tolerance and other inane stands.

I think you're mistaking my descriptive statements for prescriptive ones.

When I say that a zero tolerance viewpoint must inevitably lead to innocent people being investigated, that's simply a statement of fact. I'm not saying that it's a good thing. Indeed, I thought it was obvious that, at some point, it's not.

The problem is that drawing a line means standing up and saying that you're against something that leads to a small increase in some good (say, catching a single child abuser) at the cost of some relatively less inconvenience spread over a large number of people (say, being investigated by DCFS).

The author of the article certainly found themselves negatively affected by the investigation. The core question, however, is how many such families are too many, if you believe that following a particular policy will lead to finding a single case of child abuse? If 1 out of 10 of the families they investigate turn out to be abusers, is the policy a good one? 1 out of 100? 1 out of 1000?

You either have to say that some things are sufficiently bad that no cost is too high (which is the usual opinion expressed in public discourse) or that there's a certain point where you consider being unable to save one more kid is unfortunate but not worth the cost.

I would expect that a politican's shelf life would be very short indeed, were he to take the latter position.

And there's nothing wrong with it.

Anybody who fails to understand the simple fact that sexual urges do not start neatly at the age which our ridiculously puritan culture assumes they are supposed to, is pathetically naive.

Kinsey documented the case of a 4 year old girl who habitually masturbated to orgasm, on her own. Humans are designed that way. Get over it.

How about we ask the question the other way: What gives you the right, as an adult, to deny an innocent child the simple pleasure of sexuality?

Arrogance? Inherited prudery? Guilt about your own sexual urges?

What's disturbing and twisted is the way self-important selfish prudes harm children by the ridiculous sort of accusation the article describes, under the guise of "protection."

The "protection" story is a complete lie. The accusers in this case were nothing but self-serving, feeding the fires of their own guilt and pathological tendencies to repression.

The real harm comes to children from the taboos and stifling of natural instincts. The sexuality is just an innocent bystander.

As for this particular story: running around naked in the woods is only an 'erotic' activity in the context of the culture of paranoid smothering of all things natural. Without that, it's just the exuberance of an unfettered state. To go ballistic about it as the authorities did, abandoning all decorum, was cruel, spiteful, harmful, damaging, and completely inexcusable.