http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=48024Last fall A.J. and Lisa Demaree took a memory stick with family photos to the printing center at the Wal-Mart store in Peoria, Ariz. Some of the photos showed their three young girls, all under 5 years old, partially nude in the bathtub. The Demarees say these were innocent pictures that all families take. But a Wal-Mart employee felt otherwise and contacted the police who agreed that this was a child ****ography situation.

The police report read, "The young girl appeared to be posed in a provocative manner." A report issued by Peoria authorities described the photos as "child erotica" and "sex exploitation."

Child Protective Services searched the Demaree home and took custody of the children for a month while the state investigated. The watched family videotapes and found a few in which the children were playing unclothed. Lisa was suspended from her school job for a year, and both of their names were placed on the sex offender registry. The couple spent $75,000 on legal bills.

The Demarees were eventually cleared of any charges and their daughters returned, but they are now suing the state and Wal-Mart for what they call unfair accusations.

This morning the Demarees appeared on "Good Morning America." "I don't' understand it at all," A.J. told "GMA." "Ninety-nine percent of the families in America have these exact same photos."

"It took us a long time to take a picture [again]," Lisa told "GMA." "I even worry about them in their bathing suits now, if I get a shot of them in their bathing suits and they're tilting their heads a certain way or their hips are sticking out a little bit, all I think of is 'Does someone think that it was posed? Or how is that going to be perceived?'"

"Honestly we've missed a year of our children's lives as far as our memories go," Lisa added, "As crazy as it may seem, what you may think are the most beautiful innocent pictures of your children may be seen as something completely different and completely perverted."And people on this forum roll their eyes when I speak of Christian oppression in America. Well, here it is, yet again.

We are putting families in cages, taking away their kids, and ostracizing them from society simply because they're taking pictures of things that make other Christians think about sex. It's barely even aiding and abetting thoughtcrime, let alone thoughtcrime itself.

Just a couple a decades ago I remember toilet paper ads on TV showing a naked baby's ass. Today those people would probably be put in prison for airing that.

Well, I would disagree with you on the christian front, I see little direct evidence. But, I would agree with you, given my previous history on subjects such as these, they are spending allittle bit to much time, energy, as well as money on the sex offender craze. I was walking through a mall a few days ago, they had photography of this guys work. He was trying to sell his services, with a black and white naked picture of a newborn baby, right there for all the public to spank to. Should there be limits on artistic nudity, an ever popular subject to sketch, paint, sculpt?

This reminds me of Full House, it was regarded as a good family oriented television show, the reason I bring it up, John Stamos and Dave Cool(I have no idea how to spell his name) were trying to figure out how to change one of the Olsen twins diaper on the show. Over the course of that scene, a vag shot was shown, nothing explicit, but, yep there it was, just a baby vag. One could make the argument under such laws when they go distribute the dvd collector's set that they are in fact distributing childrens ****ography.

Between the teens getting busted distributing pics of themselves in compromising positions, getting charged with it, it is a bit ridiculous. They would be far better off charging date rapists, rapists, child molestors, and such as sex offenders than to worry about crap like this.

Well, I would disagree with you on the christian front, I see little direct evidence.Why do you think Americans are so paranoid about pictures of naked kids?

Because some sexually repressed Christians, who are both members of legislatures and members of special interest groups who own the legislatures, get off on looking at them. They probably jack off to child pr0n in private, rape kids themselves (e.g., priests), or at least want to do it.

The more someone consciously or subconsciously wants to commit an act they know is wrong, the more zealous and self-righteous they will be in accusing others of the same thing.

Hence, we get "sex offender" laws. They are then marketed to the general public under the guise that they will protect your babies from fat, balding, middle-aged, serial-baby-raping men. And the public, in its infinite ignorance and stupidity, buys them, and votes for them, and is actually convinced they are a good thing.

Even though the term "sex offender," as we've just seen, can cover just about anything, including mere thoughtcrime.

It's sort of like "terrorist," a term which, coincidentally, the right wing Christians also made popular.

Is that why we don't see that little Coppertone girl with the dog pulling on her bathing suit bottom any more? :)

There's a nude picture of me when I was a baby... I'll have to get a copy of that.