A friend of the family has quadruplets, two boys and two girls.

When the quads were babies, and old enough to sit in the same bathtub, many typical naked baby photos were taken.

A clerk at the Mom's neighborhood photo place witheld a roll of film because there was a photo of the dad, who had the tall, strapping build of a Viking, holding four naked babies in his arms.

The clerk thought it was suspicious that a grown man would be photographed holding four naked children.

Fortunately, a manager was able to confirm the identity of everyone in the photos, and they were seen for what they were: the same innocent momento that most parents have taken.

These days, with the advent of digital, I would think that anyone with something to hide would be more likely to skip the trip to the photo lab. With most photo processing done in-house, by neighbors, or the sales clerk who will take your payment when you return, there ought to be an awareness that customers know someone is looking at their pictures. Why would anyone drop of photos of anything questionable?

Americans reap what they sow when it comes to sex crime hysteria. The Federal Rules of Evidence allow for the blanket admission of past convictions (or mere accusations) for only one catagory of crime: sex crimes. (Even past convictions for murder are generally excluded from trial under the same rules.) In many states, individuals convicted of sex crimes remain incarcerated long after they have served their sentence, housed in what amount to modern insane asylums. A due process violation? Cruel and unusual punishment? Not when there's a danger to society, apparently. (Yet murders who have served their sentences are freed every day, no strings attached.) In liberal Massachusetts, there's a major push to abolish the statute of limitations for all child sex crimes, despite the fact that such crimes are always thin on physical evidence and are often muddled by the vagueries of childhood memories. Got an axe to grind with a neighbor or relative? Just file a sex crime complaint, back-dated 25 years. Who'll know the difference? Not a jury, that's for sure.

When it comes to sex crimes, Americans are all too willing to caste aside traditional notions of truth and justice in favor of a tougher brand of enforcement. If innocent people are sometimes picked up in the net, well, that seems like a price our society is willing to pay.

You know you may be right about somethings, but,

1) I didn't intend to talk down to anyone, or "berate" anyone, and I'm sorry if that is what you read in my posts.

2) You're the one who brought "sanity" into the conversation. Ordinarily, I wouldn't use that word in this context; I did so for stylistic reasons and that may have been an error.

3) Of course everyone should do what they can to improve their situation and our government. I expec6t that most Salon readers try to do something to help. And if writing about these events makes the columnist feel better, great. But before anyone publishes here, they should be willing to deal with a spirited debate from the readers. Debate is also a good thing. I simply made a suggestion of a way that this poor man can avoid being overwhelmed by such events in the future-- a fair contribution to the discussion, as I understand it.

4) Everyone has troubles, you know, many of which are far worse than what has been described here. And there are many paths to finding peace with the facts of life in an imperfect society. Most begin with taking responsibility for your actions and the ways you express your feelings, and not with blaming all of your problems on "them".

5) Yes, the system needs improvement and no, throwing money at it is not the only answer, but, I do think that the social services where I live are dreadfully underfunded, and that Bush's 'faith-based initiatives' aren't really helping much. Paying people more could be defended pretty easily, I think, although passing such a law would be difficult. Sometimes, however, you do get what you pay for.

6) And as for me and my friends, we have all faced difficult situations, some that we didn't deserve, and we expect to face more of them. We all have also gotten away with some stuff that we could have been arrested for, as I expect most writers here have. If it doesn't kill you, best to let it go and and go on living life as well as you can, learning from your mistakes along the way. I prefer to believe that people are basically good and that things generally work out okay, in one way or another. You can choose to be a pessimist if you wish. I don't care; as I said, you may be right.

And that's all I'll say. Thank you for engaging me in this interesting discussion.

(Oh, except that in addition to a few other typos, which I regret, I left many letters out of this word earlier: catastrophizing. Is that a real word? I know I've heard it before.)

Some of us are writing about what we would or would not do regarding pictures, nudity, camping, peeing, and several other life-style choices. The real issue related to this story is if there should be any legal consequences for some of the things that we wouldn't do as compared with these things we wouldn't do falling into the live and let live category?

Quite a few of us are writing about right-wingers in relation to the events described in this story. Actually, this kind of issue is a tricky one in terms of political orientation. You might be surprised to find out that it is often left-wingers who express more of a desire to intervene related to sex-related actions when they consider there to be a bad act comitted against someone's will. Also, it is sometimes left-wingers who are more willing to intervene in the family system. It is sometimes right-wingers who express negativity about agencies with a mandate to protect children. There is some interesting research related to the interesting patterns that happen politically when it comes to sexual stuff.

What about naturists or those who are clothes free (often called nudists)? Are they always in a state of vulnerability to arrest, if children are involved?