Re: [Leica] Re: Pornography?

["Julian Thomas" <mimesis@btinternet.com>]

Thanks Brian, I didn't know that!

Julian
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Pornography?


> 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
> >
> >
>
>