Couple Sues Wal-Mart

Avatar for claddagh49
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Couple Sues Wal-Mart
50
Mon, 09-21-2009 - 9:48am

I saw this on Good Morning America this morning. I think Wal-Mart should have their pants sued off of them! This is ridiculous. Think twice before taking any cute half nude pictures of your children and taking them some place to be developed. None of the pictures shown were child porn. Stupid Wal-Mart!


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/parents-sue-wal-mart-children-bath-time-photos/Story?id=8622696&page=2




Edited 9/21/2009 11:50 am ET by claddagh49
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-17-2009
Mon, 09-21-2009 - 1:27pm
Oops....LOL...that's what happens when I try to read and comprehend something without first having my morning coffee. :-)
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2009
Mon, 09-21-2009 - 1:28pm
It happens. I've done it myself. :-)
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-17-2009
Mon, 09-21-2009 - 1:34pm

((Anybody ever hear of digital cameras?))

I could be wrong about this, but I thought I read something about the clerk getting this info off of a memory stick.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2009
Mon, 09-21-2009 - 1:54pm

I agree.

Avatar for claddagh49
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Mon, 09-21-2009 - 2:28pm
You are right, it was from a memory stick. they should have spent a little extra money and bought a photo printer
Avatar for claddagh49
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Mon, 09-21-2009 - 2:32pm
Well, I hope they do win. That clerk who took it upon him or herself to decide it was child porn should have a suit filed on him or her. Defamation of character. Lots of parents take half naked pictures of their children. The idiot basically ruined their lives, and I hope to heck his or hers gets theirs someday for what trouble they cause for an innocent couple.
Community Leader
Registered: 04-05-2002
Mon, 09-21-2009 - 3:37pm
At what point do you think a Wal Mart clerk should step in when he/she sees naked pictures of children? Never? What definition of pornography would you expect a clerk who could be as young as 16, 15 in some places, to judge? When you come down to it, the clerk passed it on and the law enforcement took over. If it were so cut and dry, the law enforcement is at fault for not letting it go and dragging it out. If I were going to possibly be sued for passing naked pictures of children to the law enforcement, I'd be tempted to let any go through. This is why so many people remain silent in the face of child abuse. They're not sure so they let it go. What the family went through is unfortunate but that's not the fault of the clerk or Wal-Mrt. It's the fault of the system.










iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2009
Mon, 09-21-2009 - 4:00pm

No, the WalMart clerk did NOT and could not make a determination as to whether the photos were child porn.

Community Leader
Registered: 04-05-2002
Mon, 09-21-2009 - 7:40pm
Exactly. Also, we're hearing only from the family's views. We don't know what the pictures were really of, only that they say it was just kids in the bath. But, given that there millions of pictures of kids naked in the bath and not taken to this extent, there must have been something that made them take their children away. I know a couple of people who have had Child Protective Services called and the first response was to question everyone, not to immediately take the children away for a month. They realized they were wrong and let it go. We don't know what really transpired here. If it all happened as the family said, then the villain is the way the law is written, not with some clerk who was following the rules designed to prevent child abuse.










iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2009
Mon, 09-21-2009 - 8:22pm

>>Exactly. Also, we're hearing only from the family's views. We don't know what the pictures were really of, <<


jeanwl, I heard (I think it was on CNN) description of a couple photos of two forils completely naked on the bed (supposedly) posing erotically and then hugging each other naked.