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.

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

"You can have zero tolerance for [child pornography, child abuse, violence in schools, terrorism] or you can have people investigated only when it's obvious they're guilty. You can't have both."

That's a false choice, and it's this type of lack of reasoning that both child abuse and false accusation can increase.

Zero tolerance is not a principaled stand because you can never be free of anything, including child abuse and child porn. This doesn't mean that its existence means it is tolerated.

What rational and ethical policy demands is that we reduce the incidence of such behaviors with as little harm to the innocent as possible.

The Doctor's creed of "first do no harm" applies to other policies as well.

"No one wants to be the one who made the wrong judgment call. Do you want to be the photo lab technician who learns years later that a kid was being molested and didn't report the warning signs? Do you want to be the DCFS worker who has to explain years later that they gave a free pass to a child abuser?"

That is exactly why current policy is unethical, because it does not take others into consideration. It's a selfish policy designed solely to alleviate one's potential guilt or job, yet it doesn't concern itself with what harm might be caused by the accusation.

Ethics requires understanding that your action can cause harm as well as prevent it, and those have to be balanced. Otherwise, why not simply report any picture of a child or why would DCFS ever release a child? There's always a chance the child is abused and there's always a chance the parent is unfit, but you can't simply decide that the harmed caused by false accusations causes no harm.

In this case the family was harmed, and the children were harmed. In an attempt to do what you advocate, children who were suffering no harm were hurt. Greater harm resulted of this unethical policy that you are defending.

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

How about the humiliation he and his wife must have felt when they had to call their family members, employers, friends, and neighbors - all to explain that they are being investigated for child pornography. How about the legal bills? How about the fear of having their children taken away? Or the fear of having their children emotionally damaged by 'well-meaning', overzealous detectives?

A few of the posts on this talkback should make others question this country's jury system.

I can honestly say that I am astounded that anybody would find anything wrong with either the pictures or behavior described by this article. There is nothing wrong with nudity -- either for kids or adults. Bodies without clothing do not imply sexual abuse. Go to any beach in Sweden or other places in Europe and one will find a multitude of nude bodies, but not much in the way of abuse. Many parents (myself included) find absolutely nothing wrong with letting kids run around naked -- it would never occur to me that I could be investigated for it. Moreover, boys urinate on open fires. I have absolutely no idea why (not being a guy myself), however, I have witnessed this behavior over and over with many different guys of many different ages. Urinating on a fire simply does not indicate or imply any type of abuse. It seems to me that people who could infer some type of abuse or neglect from kids running around naked in the woods need to broaden their horizons. Such people often argue that corporal punishment and/or spanking kids is perfectly appropriate and that those of us who don't condone such parenting techniques should keep out of the family dynamic. I really can't see that letting kids run around naked could possibly be worse for them than getting hit with a switch as a punishment. If a kid is not being abused (and the pictures described cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered abuse), then protective services should stay out of a family's life. This story describes a nightmarish event that none of us could live through unscathed.

I think this falls in the innocent but stupid category.

There is certainly a need to prevent the exploitation of children and while a nude picture of an 8 year old may not appeal to the prurient interest of the average adult - a pedophile might find it arousing. Society therefore has an interest in preventing the creation and proliferation of these images. The through investigation was justifed.

Possesion of nude pictures of pre-pubescent children is either sick or indicative of a shockingly stupid disregard for the potential legal consequences. A prudent person would refrain from taking nude pictures of a child beyond infancy - say from 2 yrs to 18 yrs old.

To put it bluntly - this guy got the investigation he deserved and I can't believe Salon gave him headline article space.

What a horrifying story, and what horrifying responses are recorded here of the 'you were doing something weird' variety.

I can only conclude that in every society there are the crazies who lead everyone on a witchhunt and then there are the crazies who love to follow them.

Yes of course there are terrorists and there are peadophiles and child abusers in our midst. However, there are far fewer than the public response to them warrants, and I very much doubt that they are about to drop off their happy snaps to a public photo lab any time soon. Of far greater danger to our children en masse are the everyday yet ubiquitous problems of poverty, inadequate health care and education, and lack of opportunity. While so much energy and time and expense goes in to following up such stupid investigations as this one the children really in need of urgent intervention will go on being neglected.

I find it offensive, as well as incredible, that the words 'child abuse' - which have a very real and terrible meaning, can be so corrupted that they can be made to include photographing ones own children naked on a camping trip.

I sympathise fully with the author and think I would have had a very similar response of depression afterwards. We recently had a very frightening experience with doctors misdiagnosing my son and I was interested to see the parallels in our response afterwards. I too have been feeling helpless and depressed and am wondering if perhaps I too should write about it. Hmm, not yet - not until it's a very faint bad memory.