Re: [Leica] Re: Pornography?

["Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>]

In most states, commercial film processors are "mandated reporters" of
suspected child abuse/child pornography (as are teachers and medical
personnel). This means that they are required to immediately report even the
suspicion of child abuse and are shielded from civil law suits for doing so.
Failure to report can lead to criminal charges being filed against the
mandated reporter. Attempting to dissuade an employee from reporting can
also subject the employer of a mandated reporter to criminal penalties. The
intent of the various state legislatures in passing such statutes is that no
one should be afraid to report even a suspicion of child abuse and that
those in certain professions are in special positions for spotting the signs
of child abuse.

If the photos in question are really of small children in the bath tub, the
problem is with the prosecutor/child protective services agency  who decided
to file charges. I have a hard time believing that such shots would survive
their first appearance before a judge.

Note that I'm not taking a position on the above laws - just reporting them.
The case described here sounds like one in which we definately need more
information.

Bryan


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffcoat Photography" <jeffcoatphoto@sumter.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Pornography?


> There are too many people sticking their noses into everyone else's
business in
> the name of protecting children. I think a little common sense goes a long
way in
> a lot of these cases.
> I would be looking to sue the film processor and the local police. Let's
face it
> child porn is a real problem, there are a lot predators out there but I
don't
> think that a grand mother and her grand children is not a threat.
> There was a smiliar situation with a mother and her 6 yr old. I guess
these folks
> need to do their own processing.
> Let the Witch Hunt Begin!!!
> Cheers.
>
> ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote:
>
> > How about this?  I met a woman at a gallery opening last night and this
is
> > her tale of woe. She's a serious amature photographer and a grandmother
who
> > lives in New Jersey.  She took some snaps of her grandchildren-- age 3
and
> > 6-- in the bath tub and took the pictures to the local one-hour lab.
When she
> > returned to collect the pictures she was arrested, taken to the police
> > station, fingerprinted, photographed, charged as a child pornographer
and
> > locked up pending $50,000 bail.  She was released after paying a $5000
> > non-refundable bond.  Her home was searched, her photos and computers,
CD rom
> > and every floppy disk were  siezed as evidence and her family was
> > interrogated, She was suspended from her 31-year job as a social worker.
Her
> > case is pending, and she says it will cost her $30,000 to defend
herself.
> > For further info see her website:
> > http://members.aol/_ht_a/marianrubin/MariansNewsPage.html
>
> --
> Cheers Wilber GFE
> tel. 803-469-2440
>
> http://www.jeffcoatphotography.com
>
>