I used to live in Atlanta and remember an instance where they protected one of their male pharmacist's who refused to fill a woman's birth control prescription because of his religious beliefs.

I don't think the writer is a pornographer, but he definitely showed poor judgement in taking those pictures. Would he share those shots with his friends and neighbors? I would not want them shared with me if I was one of those friends or neighbors. Why share them with a photo lab? As for the authorities, if they ignored such a thing and it turned out that it was a case of child pornography, they'd be crucified by public opinion. Chalk it up as a learning experience. There's too much of that stuff going around today, so any hint of it is taken very seriously. As it should be.

two biggies in American culture, terror and incomprehension of sex on one hand, and the increasing power of the state to intervene in our private lives on the other.

As just about everyone knows, family photos of naked prepubescent children are as common as dirt (no pun intended) and entirely appropriate. The very idea of child pornography is that using children to produce pornographic images is and should be criminal, but images of naked children, absent sexual content should not violate any law. The fact that some weirdo somewhere might be sexually stimulated by a photo is irrelevant.

And it often occurs to me lately that a lot of what the police and other governmental authorities do is gratuitous. As the author notes, everyone involved in the case knew the photos didn't violate the law. So why go through the investigation? I think the more the government puts us citizens through things like this, the more we learn to accept governmental intrusion into our lives. So we learn from incidents like these what for the government is a valuable lesson - that our lives and actions are the business of government even when no possible harm can come from them.

Axordil wrote: “If by modesty you mean true humility, an understanding of one's true self worth, I'm with you. But I rather suspect you just mean prudery, in which case I would direct you to the nearest Saudi Arabian embassy.”

Well, no, I don’t just mean prudery. I mean a deliberate reluctance to show one’s private parts – or private acts or private thoughts – to the whole world. Do we all have to do whatever we want whenever we want it no matter who is watching? (If so, then why do we care if the government is watching too? We seem to get all militant about our right to privacy, but then we never exercise it!!!)

Why do you suppose the Abu Ghraib torturers got such good effect out of forcing the prisoners to be photographed in humiliating nude poses? Or that the Nazi death camp guards got such good effect out of stripping prisoners naked for public assemblies? Because they know, as apparently many of us have forgotten, that forced public nudity is a good way to dehumanize people and strip them of their dignity and autonomy.

Too many people seem to think that because they are not embarrassed about their own bodies or their reproductive/excretory functions, it’s perfectly OK to show them to all the rest of us, and we’re not supposed to get the slightest bit disturbed or offended. Sure, behave coarsely, act like a fool, gross me out, and that’s a slur on me, not on you!! People used to get past this stage when they graduated from junior high.

The flawed social services bureaucracy has fallout that goes beyond falsely accused parents. It undermines the foster care system that provides a second chance for kids who really do come from neglectful or abusive homes. My husband and I went all the way through foster parent training before, at the last class, we found out that a biological child can be removed from a foster home because of a false accusation of abuse by a foster child. The allegation doesn't even have to be substantiated first. We pulled out of the program then, and I know other parents who've done the same rather than put their biological kids at risk from a system that has virtually no checks or balances on its power to invade innocent lives.

This situation wasn't the drugstore clerk's fault. The blame lies at the highest levels of our social services system, where serious reform has been needed for a long time.

Suppose a friend of yours was falsely accused of murder. She is not charged, but the good and well-meaning investigators put her through hell for months, running up costly legal bills, putting her in awkward situations with her family and friends.

She has no control over the situation whatsoever, but her record is spotless, and she knows she did not commit the murder. Nevertheless, the stress of the situation makes her depressed and at times incredibly angry.

Do you call her "insane"?

If so, you need to take a step back. People can experience tremendous stress whether they have control over situations or not. Most people, in fact, do not go through life in some kind of happy and carefree state just because they know they have no control over a situation, confident that faceless bureaucrats have their best interests at heart. They are not "insane," though their conditions may require medical or therapetic treatment.

Some may choose to write for therapy.

Perhaps you will choose to write about how you have achieved such inner peace. But in doing so, please be sure to berate all of those who have not. That seems to be your strength.

As for police investigations, yes, innocent people must sometimes endure hardships. But one need not throw one's hands in the air, say "well, those are good folks, salt of the earth, and they're just doing their best, that's the way it goes." You communicate with others about your situation in the hope that you might find ways to improve the system.

P.S. And please do not make assumptions about whether I work in the public or private sector. Perhaps I am more familiar with government bureaucracy than you think.