America's Family Home Pr0n

June 7, 2005 12:15 AM

Did America's Funniest Home Videos just broadcast kiddyporn?

I watched a recent $100 000-finalists episode of AFHV. One of the clips showed a naked toddler backing into a water sprinkler, then squatting on it.

How in the heck is this not considered child pornography?

I know damn well that innocent photos of toddlers in bathtubs have resulted in child abuse charges against surprised and horrified parents. I am absolutely certain that if the clip were cut into a porno tape, it'd change the classification from X-rated, but legal, into a highly illegal, throw you in gaol forever tape.

ABC and The Disney Channel are exempt from child pornography rules? Were the producers just blissfully unaware that the clip could be trouble? Or have I been misinformed, and the bizarre hysteria over innocent kiddy activities finally be over? What really gives?

posted by five fresh fish to grab bag (23 answers total)

How in the heck is this not considered child pornography?

Probably because it isn't, and doesn't even remotely sound like pornography. Rather than trying to find out why this particular clip isn't pornography, I would probably reevaluate just exactly how common it is for "innocent photos" to be classified as child porn. Sounds like an urban legend, perhaps based on some strange, isolated incidents.
posted by Doug at 12:30 AM on June 7, 2005

I swear to God that I once saw a baby get hit in the nuts on that show. The audience roared. I hate that show...
posted by herc at 12:36 AM on June 7, 2005

Jeesh my mom used to watch that show, talk about a generation gap...
posted by Dean Keaton at 1:21 AM on June 7, 2005

...I would probably reevaluate just exactly how common it is for "innocent photos" to be classified as child porn.

I tried googling for it without success: there was a case last year or the year before in which a Brazilian (?) couple's photos of their children in the bath and being breastfed were seized by the film developers and used as evidence of kiddie porn. If anyone can think of a way to google that without getting a bunch of dodgy adult sites, feel free. I can't recall if they were found guilty, though, but it really did seem like a ridiculous overreaction to some normal family snapshots at the time.
posted by tracicle at 2:34 AM on June 7, 2005

In all seriousness, I have often wondered how the courts or the various law enforcement bodies go about drawing the distinction between cute pictures of naked kids and kiddy porn. I mean, yeah, sure, I can tell the difference between the two when they're put in front of me, but I don't think I could write up an objective standard that could be applied across the board. And anyway, if the whole point is to prevent the abuse of children and taking naked photos of them is presumed to be abusive, then does it really matter whether the resulting images look like porn?

I think we need to concede that there's a double standard.

Here in the wonderfully progressive city of Montgomery, Alabama, we once had what a friend of mine called Sturges-gate. A local Barnes-N-Noble was accused of peddling kiddy porn in the form of art photo books by a guy named Sturges. There was a trial. One of my brother's former teachers was on the jury. Not even sure what the final verdict was, to be honest.

In any case, I suppose that Sturges is where (or near where) we draw the line between kiddy porn and not-kiddy-porn.
posted by Clay201 at 2:42 AM on June 7, 2005

It seems to be fairly common that parents are at least hassled for having nude photos of their children. I believe the Wal-Mart photo-developing labs have instructions to call the police whenever naked children show up in pictures. I have read a couple of accounts in the last few years about parents being arrested for this (and I'm not a news junkie). Probably it only becomes an issue when the pictures are developed, or if they turn up during some other investigation.

We live in a very nervous society.


posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:29 AM on June 7, 2005

It's kiddie porn if it's in your possession when someone is trying to get you convicted. It's not kiddy porn until then, unless you trade it, or put in online :)

A little more seriously, the concept of there being laws that are broken or not broken is somewhat idealistic and just doesn't work any more. In order to allow convictions, laws are written these days to make it easier to get a conviction, to the extent that pretty much no-one can not be in violation of some law, unwittingly or not. This shifts a fair amount of the emphasis of deciding guilt/innocence away from the courts and onto police discretion. If police want to prosecute you, chances are good they'll find something that sticks. If police don't want to prosecute you, you're in the clear.

So in this case, it's not kiddie porn because police are unlikely to prosecute. It would be kiddie porn if they were prosecuting you.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:41 AM on June 7, 2005

I have to say, I find it kind of relieving to hear that a show as mainstream and uncontroversial as america's funniest home videos broadcasts naked toddlers without freaking out. That's a sign we/re not quite as ridiculous about these things as it sometimes seems...
posted by mdn at 5:09 AM on June 7, 2005

There was a fairly controversial case about 10 years ago in Cambridge MA about police being called in to investigate (innocent) pictures of a woman's 4 year old. But I don't think it's a "common" occurrence.
posted by jeremias at 5:24 AM on June 7, 2005

I always feel weird when I see stuff like this. I think, "isn't this something a pedophile might be leering over?" And then I feel sorry for the kids.

But apparently, the kiddie porn police go after the actual depictions of sexual abuse. Pictures or video of an unclothed child are, apparently, not considered prima facie obscene.
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:19 AM on June 7, 2005

There is a HUGE difference between:

a) Photos being, "seized by the film developers and used as evidence of kiddie porn."
b) Parents (or any adults for that matter, being, "arrested" for having these photos.
c) Police being, "called in to investigate."

and

d) It actually being considered by a court in the United States to be actual kiddie porn.

Just 'cause the cops show up, or someone gets called doesn't make them guilty. Newspapers tend to write the exciting news, "mom arrested for kiddie porn," more so than the boring clarification, "wal-mart photo developer is an idiot, mom freed."
posted by pwb503 at 9:39 AM on June 7, 2005

I always feel weird when I see stuff like this. I think, "isn't this something a pedophile might be leering over?" And then I feel sorry for the kids.

It's worse than that. Some pedos are so sick that they can see your kid fully clothed and imagine them naked. I make my kids wear ghost costumes when they go outside to thwart this.

My guess is that the episode originally aired before Pedageddon happened and the censors forgot about that clip. It certainly was an episode predating 1999-- that's the year that Harvard released that pedophilia study. The one that suggested that every single American adult (except for the person reading the study) was a child molestor.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:05 AM on June 7, 2005

I saw the clip in question and I also thought it a little...odd.
posted by jikel_morten at 10:49 AM on June 7, 2005

If my kid did it, and I got it on video, I'd think it was a funny think to share with others. It's not like it's an actual sexual situation.

My feeling is: If seeing naked children makes you feel uncomfortable, either you're not a parent, or you yourself should (perhaps) seek counseling. Babies, toddlers, and many small children LIKE being naked, and for those kids that don't get enough vitamin D in their milk, all-over exposure to sunlight for a few minutes a day will help them manufacture more, not to mention all the studies that suggest that all-over sunlight exposure in babies/toddlers/youths can contribute to a decline in depression, asthma, rashes, etc.

Hey, my seven week old LOVES his "nay-kee time". :)
posted by Merdryn at 11:50 AM on June 7, 2005

[I can't define what is pornography.] "But I know it when I see it."

Potter Stewart, prior Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
posted by whatisish at 12:08 PM on June 7, 2005

For a dollar, you can finger her.

Oh wait, that was the previous host of American's Funniest.
posted by orthogonality at 1:50 PM on June 7, 2005

So, how many naked pictures of you are your parents secretly keeping from you and the authorities? Come on. The family was out enjoy the day. They had a camcorder. The child was naked. Big deal. There was nothing sexual in what the parents were doing.

The child most likely enjoyed the sensation of the water. If you don't think children are sexual beings, then you haven't watched toddlers play with themselves. (I don't mean in a nasty way either. Sheesh... I can't even count how many times my son has played with himself during bath time, for example.) This is normal and natural and not something we should "protect" them from.
posted by onhazier at 2:34 PM on June 7, 2005

jeremias writes "There was a fairly controversial case about 10 years ago in Cambridge MA about police being called in to investigate (innocent) pictures of a woman's 4 year old. But I don't think it's a 'common' occurrence."

It's internet common. Every year or so a DA goes ape shit on some innocent family and the story gets passed around. Even if they get aquitted the stigma and costs must be heartbreaking for the adults involved.

Merdryn writes "Babies, toddlers, and many small children LIKE being naked"
Heck _I_ like being naked at least some of the time.
posted by Mitheral at 2:44 PM on June 7, 2005

If you like, I can ask Tom Bergeron (the host of AFV). He's got a vacation home next door. Drives a new VW Beetle convertible. Not sure that's really the best conversation starter, though.
posted by schoolgirl report at 2:45 PM on June 7, 2005

From what I've read (and thankfully not ever seen) about child porn, it's not naked-and-cute doing-something-funny. It's stuff like serious, ugly molestation and rape. Apparently, we (non-pedophiles) cannot imagine the depravity that is pictured/filmed.
I didn't see the clip, but it doesn't sound like child porn to me. An odd clip, maybe, yes.

Most of the kids I know do certainly enjoy being naked. My brother had to be chased around the house to get his pyjamas on after bath time. Our family photos certainly have pictures of me, my brother, and other kids with some nudity. My parents were not child pornographers.

That being said, and wandering off-topic briefly: my hat is off to those who those who investigate and prosecute child porn. They must see hell.
posted by Savannah at 6:33 PM on June 7, 2005

George Carlin said something (to the effect of) "You shouldn't be concerned about the racial slurs, but the bigoted bastard using them." I think it (sort of) applies here -- you shouldn't be concerned just because a child is naked. You should only be concerned if the context of that child's nakedness is inappropriate.

I think, in summary, I go back to my original point. If you're awkward around naked kids, you're either not a parent, or you have some other underlying issue that needs be examined by a professional. I'm not speaking facetiously; I really believe that feelings like this are a direct result of some other, deeper issue. I'll have more on this topic tomorrow (feelings of awkwardness at natural, normal sights), when I post a question of my own.
posted by Merdryn at 6:46 PM on June 7, 2005

You should only be concerned if the context of that child's nakedness is inappropriate.

I think that's kind of the point. There are some people who think that national broadcast television is an inappropriate context for a child's nudity, whether the video is strictly pornographic or not.
posted by dagnyscott at 8:45 PM on June 7, 2005

The context wasn't a national television show, the context was a child playing in a backyard.
posted by Merdryn at 7:17 AM on June 8, 2005