...because they had the means and the ability to defend themselves. Think of what happens to people who can't afford lawyers, don't have connections, and aren't able to present a 'nice' front to social workers.

IMO, child abuse hysteria is part of the war on poor people in this country. Probably their real crime was to take their kids camping, which is considered a low class activity.

"I think the LW got what he deserved. I have never seen a normal family photo

album that showed anyone other than babies nude."

BLISS, MAYBE YOU'RE THE ABNORMAL ONE. LOTS OF PARENTS TAKE PHOTOS OF

THEIR CHILDREN AT BATHTIME - YOU KNOW, TWO KIDS IN A TUB SQUIRTING

WATER IN EACH OTHER'S FACES. MY DAUGHTERS HAD MANY GOOD TIMES

IN THE TUB UNTIL THEY REACHED THE AGE WHERE THEY WANTED THEIR

PRIVACY. AND MY HUSBAND AND I TOOK MANY FANTASTIC PHOTOS OF THEM.

WE HAVE JUST AS MANY OF OUR GIRLS RUNNING NAKED THROUGH THE LAWN

SPRINKLER ON HOT SUMMER DAYS. NAKED!!! AT SIX AND SEVEN YEARS OF

AGE. WHAT PERVERTS WE MUST BE.

It also strikes me as deeply inappropriate for a 3 year old girl to

be the lone female out in the woods with two adult men and several older

boys, all nude, especially in an environment where alcohol is being

consumed.

GEE BLISS. DO YOU THINK THAT LITTLE THREE YEAR OLD GIRL WAS

IN DANGER OF BEING GANG RAPED BY HER DAD AND SIBLINGS? WHAT KIND

OF SICK GODDAMNED WORLD DO YOU INHABIT?

Although none of that is illegal, maybe it should be.

OH TERRIFIC. LET'S MAKE ANOTHER RULE TO PRESERVE FAMILY VALUES

IN AMERICA. "YOU CAN'T TAKE A FEMALE TODDLER CAMPING IF HER

DAD'S A GUY AND HER BROTHERS ARE BOYS, WHICH THEY ARE, SO

NO CAMPING FOR GIRLS BELOW A CERTAIN AGE.

YOU'RE ANOTHER ECKERD EMPLOYEE WAITING TO BE HIRED BLISS. GOD HELP

YOUR CHILDREN IF YOU HAVE ANY.

I work part time at an adult bookstore. It's a pretty cool place, with a broad scope of literature which could be described as "counter culture". Books on piercings, tatoos, underground comics, and a significant collection of pornography. We cater to all tastes, selling books which feature erotica of all kinds.

We also carry a modest selection of DVDs and videos which covers a broad selection including japanese anime style porn to Bettie Page pin-up stuff. Recently, I had an older man come in and purchase a couple videos we had which I was totally unfamiliar with.

They were nudist colony videos, and I think they they were from Europe. Initially, I thought it an odd quirk.

"This guy is into nudists. OK. Nothing wrong with that."

But then I realized, it's the only way to legally obtain naked pictures of children. In fact, that's the main reason that the store carries it. They're nudist families, on camping excursions, and playing games, and doing things that any normal family does, just doing it without clothes.

When I came to that realization, just as the man was leaving, it made me feel kind of horrible. But then something else occured to me.

Let's assume that this customer was a pedophile, and he was sexually aroused by children. That is not a crime, in an of itself. People are allowed to be aroused by anything. We may not like it. We may not agree with it. We most certainly don't want it for ourselves, but there's no law against thoughts or feelings.

The children in these videos are not being subjected to any harsh treatment. They're with their families, doing fun activities (I think one of them has them river rafting, while another is like baseball or something), and enjoying themselves. They're safe, not being mistreated, and are among their friends and families.

So, what's wrong with a man utilizing that material for his own enjoyment? There's no victim here. Isn't that a far better result than him lingering around playgrounds or the like?

The reason that child obscenity laws are in place isn't because the world thinks children should always be clothed, but rather because we want to protect children from being taken advantage of, and mistreated.

I guess what I'm saying is, why isn't child services looking at these photos and saying, "These children aren't being abused. They aren't being mistreated. That aren't being taken advantage of."

But I felt violated and exposed and vulnerable.

The response of the author to the actual events seems to be bizarre.

Am I missing something? When you remove the extraneous details, here are the facts:

• Pictures were taken of children, at least one or two the children were naked
• Someone alerted the police that a crime may have been committed
• The police referred the case to the appropriate agency for investigation
• The members of the family in question were interviewed by a non-police investigator
• The case was closed with no charges

What else?

What would cause the author to drop into bouts and fits of uncontrollable crying and sorrow?

I sympathisize, but no one called anyone a child pornographer. There were no charges. There weren't even any solid accusations.

Some of these responses, that is. So, your family didn't take pictures of you naked when you were three or eight, so hey! That must mean somethine wrong was going on with this family. 8 is not 18 folks, and only in our over-sexed culture in the good old USA makes it that way. If you think there is something sexual about an 8 year drying underwear over the fire, then please, get help soon, because the only person these kids would have to worry about is you!

And one more thing. Does every fucking issue have to boil down to "Liberal vs. Conservative?" I really wish people would knock that shit off.

Accusing someone of child pornography is a life-destryer.

Having detectives investigate you, questions your employer, your co-workers, your children, your neighbors?

The problem is that even if the cops decide you're not one of the .0001% of the population that is sexually deviant -- all those people that we questioned by the cops about your "very, very suspcious behaviour" will assume that there must be something to it!

"Gosh! Those cops wouldn't have bothered to interview us unless they knew something! I guess they didn't have enough to win the case this time!"

"If your innocent they don't send detectives to your work place! I guess that sicko must have covered his tracks well enough to avoid jail, but he'll never work here another day!"

Let's all be mature and admit -- let's just come out and admit -- that we all assume that if the cops are asking you questions about a neighbor or a co-worker we assume the cops must be right. Let's just admit it! all of us assume the cops must "know something" if they go far enough to question neighbors and co-workers. And if the accused says it's all "a big mistake" -- well isn't that exactly what a pervert would say?

So just the accusation will destroy a life.

So wouldn't the smart thing, the prudent and common sense thing be to put in place a system that vets "suspicious behavior" well in advance in the early stages BEFORE it spirals out of control?

Why couldn't the cops just hand the photos over to experts who actually KNOW what actual child pornography looks like, have the experts make the determination of whether to proceede with the investigation and then have the child pronography experts interview the parents?

it seems like the current system is set up so that the experts are brought in only at the END of the investigation after the parents have all but been thrown in jail and their kids taken away. And then, at the last minute, after everyone believes they raped their kids, oh, sorry, our bad! you're free to go. Like any of their neighbors or co-workers or teachers would believe them after things had already gone so far!

If we're gonna do this, let's do it inteligentlly, professional and sensibly. Having K-Mart photo clerks basically put a husband and wife in jail (almost) and then putting them in the position of having to prove they aren't guilty sounds more like Communist China than democratic America.