facebook: where to draw the line with pictures of your children?

[Deleted]

I wasn't talking about adult law. Non-sexual photos of children in the nude are simply not illegal, it's just a really challenging area to define.

that's the problem though. It's one thing if its your own child. But when its not,and you see it on the internet of all places. No matter the intent you are posting naked pictures of a child on an open domain.

The issues you could cause for other people can be insane. Innocently browsing facebook in work on break when bam, naked child. What happens next could end you because of something stupid someone else did

[imabanana]

Also FYI it's actually illegal. Very illegal. Not to mention you're also getting your FB friends into trouble as well since the photo of your naked child is now in their browser's offline cache.

Do you have any proof of all that? Never found anything really clear about it.

[ButterBeast]

kinda seems like naked kids online is what gets OP excited.

[Deleted]

that's the problem though. It's one thing if its your own child. But when its not,and you see it on the internet of all places. No matter the intent you are posting naked pictures of a child on an open domain.

The issues you could cause for other people can be insane. Innocently browsing facebook in work on break when bam, naked child. What happens next could end you because of something stupid someone else did

I've never heard of this happening, ever.

[Revi]

"Seeing a naked baby photo on Facebook will get you labeled a pedo"

From where I stand this is absurd paranoia, but it might be/feel true where you live. Glad that's not my reality.

[Deleted]

I have no pictures of my children on my FB account. I was just discussing not putting any of my personal info on my FB account in another thread. My family members are also all aware about me not wanting any pictures of my daughters on their accounts - none have any.

So, yeah, I'm sure none are floating around.

How old are your kids? Do they take school pictures? They are often put on the internet, sometimes by the school or parents whose children are also in it. It's not uncommon.

[KOMO1211]

The issues you could cause for other people can be insane. Innocently browsing facebook in work on break when bam, naked child. What happens next could end you because of something stupid someone else did

i would like some actual proof/story of this happening. you either would have to have a really shitty lawyer or get railroaded by a really biased judge to convicted for something like that. i search google and the only instances i can find are of actual photos i.e. developed by someone elese where naked baby photos are taken and some of them are...questionable at best. granted i did not search too hard

OT i agree with the general sentiment that you should just not post nude photos of your child on line if for nothing else then decency. we have apps on our phones that if we post a naked shot of our son we have things we can add to cover him up. however without reading through a bunch of congresional pdf files on my phone the best statistics i can come up with are from 2006 stating a total of 3661 people were refered to us attorneys office for child sex exploitation. of that child porn consisted of 69%. 60% of those were prosecuted with 90% being convicted. with the population of 2006 being 298mil people that is a grand total of .00045710455764075% of the population. i dont think this is as big of a threat as this thread makes it out to be

[PosPosPos]

i would like some actual proof/story of this happening. you either would have to have a really shitty lawyer or get railroaded by a really biased judge to convicted for something like that. i search google and the only instances i can find are of actual photos i.e. developed by someone elese where naked baby photos are taken and some of them are...questionable at best. granted i did not search too hard

OT i agree with the general sentiment that you should just not post nude photos of your child on line if for nothing else then decency. we have apps on our phones that if we post a naked shot of our son we have things we can add to cover him up. however without reading through a bunch of congresional pdf files on my phone the best statistics i can come up with are from 2006 stating a total of 3661 people were refered to us attorneys office for child sex exploitation. of that child porn consisted of 69%. 60% of those were prosecuted with 90% being convicted. with the population of 2006 being 298mil people that is a grand total of .00045710455764075% of the population. i dont think this is as big of a threat as this thread makes it out to be

Basically, a case of "if it doesn't happen to me, it's a problem that doesn't exist".

Humans.

[Revi]

Basically, a case of "if it doesn't happen to me, it's a problem that doesn't exist".

Humans.

You're not fighting pedophilia by censoring your own baby pictures. You're just censoring your own baby pictures.

[nevermore]

Do you have any proof of all that? Never found anything really clear about it.

Well it's definitely a gray area and the outcome may depend on the judge you get (or the state/country you're in, obviously).
Taking photos of your own child is okay as long as it's done with good intentions, but when you share it on facebook you basically force the file on to the computers of other people who are not related to your kid... which could very easily be used against them.

I mean, there was a case just a few months ago in the US where a teenager got arrested for creating 'child pornography' because she took nude pictures of herself.
So yeah.

[Wildtree]

when it comes to photoigraphic nudity of children though. Its not the same as an adult within the law.

Nude babies aren't child pornography.....
Someone already posted the Nirvana album.... Absolutely zero legal problems for that matter..... Even in the US the album was released with that cover.

[MatadorMedia]

There are cases of teenagers texting/sexting each other which have resulted in charges of child pornography. When a 16 year old sends another 16 year old a nude photo of themselves, they have "legally" participated in the distribution of child pornography. It seems ridiculous but real life trialas have happened.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sexting-...ges-for-teens/

[Septik]

I would never post pictures of my childrens` faces, let alone nudes. Those who want to see pictures can see them by other means, the rest can fuck off. On facebook? Never.

"if you love someone, you remember what they look like."

[Varabently]

I always found it strange that child pornography seems to stop at a certain age (toddlerish) and earlier. I don't want to see naked babies, so if someone posted that, I would just make it where I couldn't see their posts again. Seems in poor taste. Maybe not "offensive" (what exactly does that word mean anyway?), but certainly stupid and not anything I'd want to see.

- - - Updated - - -

Nude babies aren't child pornography.....
Someone already posted the Nirvana album.... Absolutely zero legal problems for that matter..... Even in the US the album was released with that cover.

I think we know that, but the question is...why not? Why is it OK to post pictures of naked kids, but then it arbitrarily becomes wrong at some later age? Is there an age limit in the child pornography laws or is it just some arbitrarily set limit? Or is it just some socially acceptable level we set? Just seems odd.

[imnotatroll]

Okay, I understand not being bothered by naked babies/toddlers, and I understand being squicked by it.

What I don't understand are the bizarre number of people in this thread telling the latter group that there's something wrong with them.

Personally, I don't like looking at kids period. Naked is markedly worse.

[Wildtree]

I think we know that, but the question is...why not? Why is it OK to post pictures of naked kids, but then it arbitrarily becomes wrong at some later age? Is there an age limit in the child pornography laws or is it just some arbitrarily set limit? Or is it just some socially acceptable level we set? Just seems odd.

babies are considered asexual for that matter... they're are THE symbol of innocence. Untainted, not manipulated, raw gems more worth it than any diamond ever could be.
And that's how pretty much everyone sees them.

Now one could argue about protecting babies against pedophiles.... And that would be an argument..
Yet, the statistics show how sex crimes against minors, or even in general, are overwhelmingly committed by someone who is known, or even related to the victim. And that predates social networks like Facebook.

[MatadorMedia]

babies are considered asexual for that matter... they're are THE symbol of innocence. Untainted, not manipulated, raw gems more worth it than any diamond ever could be.
And that's how pretty much everyone sees them.

There has been some new research in neuroscience that may indicate why some individuals find small children attractive. Everyone is hard-wired to find babies cute, that's simply an evolutionary thing for survival. Cute baby = I should take care of this child (even if it's not mine, or not even my species). The research suggests that "paedophiles" have the brain chemistry mixed up between 1) cute child,, must protect and 2) attractive adult, must try to have sex with. So if this were true, those persons brains are simply confused. Not that this forgives behavioral choices to assault children, but an interesting look into current and future research.

[Wildtree]

There has been some new research in neuroscience that may indicate why some individuals find small children attractive. Everyone is hard-wired to find babies cute, that's simply an evolutionary thing for survival. Cute baby = I should take care of this child (even if it's not mine, or not even my species). The research suggests that "paedophiles" have the brain chemistry mixed up between 1) cute child,, must protect and 2) attractive adult, must try to have sex with. So if this were true, those persons brains are simply confused. Not that this forgives behavioral choices to assault children, but an interesting look into current and future research.

yes, that's so far known now.
But has little to do with someone sharing cute moments with their friends on FB...
Using the crime data however would indicate that you expose your child to a much higher risk when you have pictures in a family album and show that to RL friends and family members.

There is indication that the problem isn't a problem per as such, but rather "victim" to the usual internet exaggeration.
A great example for that would be the famous Scorpions album cover of their 1976 album Virgin Killer..
http://imagizer-cv.imageshack.us/a/i...9751/f93n2.jpg
It caused some problems when the album was released, yet those problems were limited to the usual suspects, like the US, where nudity as such is a problem...
Good for the Scorps though, since that controversy helped to propel their popularity particularly in the US. So called Streisand effect.

There's a great article about it in German.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/sc...oesse-1.368403

While I too think that the photo does push the envelop, and is borderline... It still did not cross the line.
Especially not when one reads the lyrics of the title song..

[mizeri]

it would just take one person to report your friend to CPS and boom they are in jail for something thats completely innocent

[dwightyo39]

There has been some new research in neuroscience that may indicate why some individuals find small children attractive. Everyone is hard-wired to find babies cute, that's simply an evolutionary thing for survival. Cute baby = I should take care of this child (even if it's not mine, or not even my species). The research suggests that "paedophiles" have the brain chemistry mixed up between 1) cute child,, must protect and 2) attractive adult, must try to have sex with. So if this were true, those persons brains are simply confused. Not that this forgives behavioral choices to assault children, but an interesting look into current and future research.

Speak for yourself. I find babies to be very unpleasant. When someone asks if I want to hold a baby I politely say "no", but actually think "there is nothing I would dislike more than holding your disgusting, vomiting, shitting, screaming sex trophy".