Comment E-mail Print

Last month, a Peoria, Arizona couple made news as they temporarily lost custody of their three young daughters after Wal-Mart and local authorities deemed the couple's bath time photographs of their children child pornography. The couple was also placed on a sex offender registry, and the wife lost her job as a teacher.

Anthony and Lisa Demaree have since filed suit against the state of Arizona for alleged slander, particularly through claims investigators allegedly made to the couples' family and friends that they sexually abused their kids by taking pornographic pictures of them. They also sued Wal-Mart over its "unsuitable print policy" by which it decides whether photographs supplied by customers contain inappropriate photos of a minor, and whether such photos will be turned over to the police.

Wal-Mart probably knew that developing or duplicating images that constitute child pornography can bring liability onto a photo shop in Arizona. After all, Wal-Mart was instrumental in the arrest of a Central Florida man in 2007 who was charged with four counts of sexual battery, 13 counts of lewd or lascivious molestation, 122 counts of child pornography and 140 counts of voyeurism after he printed photographs depicting child pornography involving a child under the age of 12 at a Wal-Mart photo kiosk.

In the Demaree case, Wal-Mart and state authorities would have been celebrated as heroes had the photos in question actually been child abuse. In this case, however, it seems to be corporate policy run amuck. While attempting to insulate itself from liability and prevent dissemination of child pornography, it appears that both Wal-Mart and Arizona state investigators may have allowed subjective impressions of family photos to completely disrupt the lives of the Demaree family.

Ultimately, the investigation proved that the Demaree photographs were truly just bath time photos--the kind many parents have of their young children--and their children were returned home. But their horror story has many wondering what exactly constitutes child pornography.

Under federal law, child pornography means "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct."

Though many acts are obviously sexually explicit, "sexually explicit conduct" under federal law also includes "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." Federal and state courts have identified various factors to help decide whether genitals in particular images constitute a lascivious exhibition, which probably helped clear the Demaree's of any wrong-doing.

While an overzealous employee and law enforcement got it wrong in the Demaree case, the creation and possession of child pornography is a very real crime with real consequences, especially in today's digital world.

The Internet has led to an explosion of new child pornography images, and has provided a vehicle for networking, trading, and communicating with like-minded individuals with virtual anonymity and little concern about apprehension. Those for whom child pornography is a way of life can now trade images and even abuse children live while others watch from their own home. The amount of material available has increased manifold, the distribution is efficient, and the accessibility practically instant. Today, child pornography has become a multi-billion dollar commercial enterprise and is among the fastest growing businesses on the Internet. 

>> Continued -- Page 1 2