Do I ever get to go back to my life? Or have they erased it for good?
May 30, 2013 5:59 AM   Subscribe

Football coach Todd Hoffner took a 92 second cell phone video of his children goofing around after bathtime. [autoplaying (sfw) video] A few months later, he lost his job and was under investigation for child pornography.

A similar case occurred in Arizona, when a Walmart employee alerted authorities to a handful of children's bathtime photos (not shown). The parents temporarily lost custody of their kids, spent $75,000 on legal fees, and were required to register as sex offenders. They sued Walmart [autoplaying video] but lost on appeal.

Findlaw asks the question: What is child pornography?
posted by desjardins (118 comments total) 12 users marked this as a favorite
 
The new witch hunts, and everyone is a suspect.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 6:12 AM on May 30, 2013 [23 favorites]


It's an inevitable result of decades of moral panic, badly written "zero tolerance" laws with insane sentencing and registration guidelines, and a criminal legal system that needs shortcuts around the trial phase to keep functioning.
posted by kewb at 6:15 AM on May 30, 2013 [4 favorites]


I feel bad for the guy, and I think the charges are probably unfounded, but I also feel like why would you EVER, EVER, male or female, take pictures of your naked children on your university-owned cell phone?!
posted by nakedmolerats at 6:18 AM on May 30, 2013 [5 favorites]


something something life imitating art.
posted by jquinby at 6:20 AM on May 30, 2013


This happens with depressing frequency. A very good friend of mine had pictures of her two year old playing with a jumprope. Her hardcore Christian sister, looking for something to bust her on (they'd argued about religion recently), came into her home, found the pictures, and brought them to the police. Her parents took custody of the child for three months (which was disruptive for the kid, but not unmanagable), and she had to take three months of Narcotics Anonymous Counseling. But she was very, very aware of how easy she got off; people less articulate, or faced with a more excitable prosecutor, can face much more severe consequences.

The problem is that no one wants to be seen as soft on child molestation, so there's zero incentive to dial back the penalties or dial up the standard of proof.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 6:20 AM on May 30, 2013 [5 favorites]


My wife and I watched the Outside the Lines segment about Coach Hoffner on ESPN recently.

I get that the university administrators felt they needed to alert authorities when they found the cell phone video, but once Hoffner was cleared by social services and a sex therapist and charges were dropped, the university should have restored things to status quo ante. Instead, they reassigned him to a lower position and ultimately fired him.

I hope his lawyers have the opportunity to confront the university's administration and trustees. But I fear that this will end in a generous settlement that doesn't force the university community to truly grapple with the issue.
posted by BobbyVan at 6:20 AM on May 30, 2013 [8 favorites]


Oh this poor guy. My daughter, who is 8, has had an aversion to clothing all of her life. Her modesty button is starting to kick in a little bit, but still - if this is all it takes, I'm a criminal too.
posted by PuppyCat at 6:21 AM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]


nakedmolerats: Perhaps because to a parent they're pretty harmless and it would seem that for someone to think this is a case of child pornography or a father exploiting his children would be a really far fucking stretch.

As PuppyCat says, if this is a thing then every parent I know is a criminal, myself included.
posted by youandiandaflame at 6:22 AM on May 30, 2013 [14 favorites]


youandiandaflame: "As PuppyCat says, if this is a thing then every parent I know is a criminal, myself included."

For real. Few things are funnier than a laughing, shrieking, naked two-year-old tearing down a hallway after bathtime. I'm sure there are more than a few butt shots scattered throughout the HD. The bit about the 'second' HR investigation smells a little sketchy to me:

The university remained unmoved, citing the mysterious second investigation into Hoffner's conduct. It was unrelated to the initial charge of child pornography, officials said, but involved two "internal complaints" against Hoffner that the university refused to provide details about.


...refused to provide details to ESPN, or to Hoffner? If it's the latter, welcome to Kafkaville! (population: this guy)
posted by jquinby at 6:26 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


I remember my parents taking pictures of me and my brother goofing around at bathtime, and I also vividly remember that none of them could ever be candid because we had to make sure that the bubbles were just so and that I had a washcloth over my 4 year old boobs so that "the photo booth people don't think we're a bunch of perverts."

This is so, so, SO stupid, but the paranoia isn't new.
posted by phunniemee at 6:26 AM on May 30, 2013 [16 favorites]


Agree with the above. My daughter is old enough to remove anything that isn't buttoned, yet young enough to still hate clothes. Half of my Facebook photos of her are running around in her diaper.

I think we're too quick to judge "society" or the zero tolerance stuff. Similar to terrorism, the problem stems from the offenders taking advantages of the tolerated instances. Our parents have photos of us in the bathtub, sometimes with siblings or family friends, and they have pictures of the time we ran into the living room afterwords to embarrass our older siblings in front of their friends, and we have the Coppertone girl, etc.

The pedos have exploited this exception. They will find these pictures on Photobucket, on the phones they are fixing for people, or wherever, and then they'll jump on Tor and send it around. So, suddenly, the line becomes blurred, and those who mean well cannot tell when it's an excepted circumstance or a threadbare of a potential predator.

And we have this.

This is where I propose a rational solution and what we can do to prevent these misunderstandings, but I got nothing. Dickheads will always ruin things for everyone else, and innocent people will always be caught with the shrapnel. Sucks.
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 6:31 AM on May 30, 2013 [11 favorites]


I'm pretty sure that in a box in the attic there are naked-kid photos of me. If I were to scan them and post them*, would I end up charged with possession and distribution of child pornography? I suppose it would depend on how zealous my local prosecutor or US Attorney is.

*Not very likely, since I am much too lazy to go digging through the boxes in the attic.
posted by rtha at 6:31 AM on May 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


Don't forget all that actual children get prosecuted for child porn for sexting.

Just fyi, America satisfies the vast majority of Dr. Laurence Britt's Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism, note that Obsession with crime and punishment is twelfth.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:34 AM on May 30, 2013 [26 favorites]


Belief in an epidemic of false child porn accusations is very convenient to actual child pornographers, of which there are more than enough on the internets. I would want solid information on how common this kind of thing was before I generalized such a thing from these anecdotes.
posted by edheil at 6:34 AM on May 30, 2013 [6 favorites]


I published a vanity book for the grandparents, and one of the best baby pics was boy at about 2 standing in a bath, a bowl on his head at a jaunty angle with the happiest grin you have ever seen. the joy in this picture is amazing. It's insane that I can't keep that book of baby pictures on the shelf with all my other photo books because someone might freak out and accuse me of child prnography for a bath picture.
posted by dejah420 at 6:34 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


Sounds to me like its the law itself that is sexualizing these children, not the parents.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:41 AM on May 30, 2013 [65 favorites]


Poor guy. My parents have naked pictures of me in the tub up on the wall in the hallway of our home as well as video (VHS recently converted to DVD, welcome to the future mom and dad!) of me prancing around naked in a wading tub. They're not pedophiles. This guy just did the 2013 equivalent and is now blackballed, probably for good.

. for his career.
posted by RolandOfEld at 6:43 AM on May 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


The pedos have exploited this exception. They will find these pictures on Photobucket, on the phones they are fixing for people, or wherever, and then they'll jump on Tor and send it around. So, suddenly, the line becomes blurred, and those who mean well cannot tell when it's an excepted circumstance or a threadbare of a potential predator.

Straw man. Complete and utter straw man, because these aren't the only photos the pedos are sending. They are also distributing child pornography.

This line of thought is pretty much analogous to the one that makes TSA a pain in the ass and completely useless.

The solution is simple. Prosecute true child pornography.
posted by bfranklin at 6:44 AM on May 30, 2013 [17 favorites]


nakedmolerats: Perhaps because to a parent they're pretty harmless and it would seem that for someone to think this is a case of child pornography or a father exploiting his children would be a really far fucking stretch.


I agree with everything you are saying, but dude is a football coach, is presumably aware of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, took videos on his university-owned cell phone, and then brought it to the university's IT department for tech support without thinking "hmm, maybe I should delete or transfer those naked pictures".

I'm not saying he's guilty or that he deserves a legal shitstorm, I just think that if you do all those things, you're Gonna Have A Bad Time, and am surprised he was not aware of that.
posted by nakedmolerats at 6:47 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


Umm, the pedophile dickheads did not "ruin things for everyone else", Bathtub Bobsled (eponysterical). American voters "ruined things" by supporting law & order types.

In consequence, a fascist-like culture of legislation through self-promotional fear mongering, along with excessive spending on law enforcement, created a system of laws that ignore the accused's intent.

Yeah, a few more pedophiles might walk free if we took intent more seriously in child porn cases, but not the ones arrested for actual molestation or selling.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:47 AM on May 30, 2013 [16 favorites]


I'm a cynic to the bone and of the belief that if 2010 and 2011 record approached the team's 2012 record this little indiscretion would have been Sandusky'd faster than you can say "Joe Paterno was a lying scumbag"

2010 Todd Hoffner W-L 6 -5
2011 Todd Hoffner W-L 9 -3
2012 Aaron Keen W-L 13 -1
posted by any major dude at 6:50 AM on May 30, 2013 [6 favorites]


There is a huge difference between pedos jerking it to home images of children and pedos jerking it to images of exploited and raped children.
posted by munchingzombie at 6:53 AM on May 30, 2013 [15 favorites]


Does jumprope have drug connotations I am unaware of? My Facebook feed has had lots of naked children of friends in it but as the parents are Canadian/Australian/European there haven't been consequences beyond lots of "likes".
posted by saucysault at 6:53 AM on May 30, 2013 [4 favorites]


Some 8-9 years ago my mother had a yard sale, and one of the items she sold was a small little picture box that she forgot to double check for pictures. There was three or four pictures of me, naked, right after the very first bath that she gave me. A woman at the yard sale saw these and immediately started squawking about child abuse and how she was going to call the cops. Had I not been standing there at that exact moment, able to prove I was that baby in the picture (because of a birthmark), and that the pictures were decades old, she would have left, got the cops and tried to cause some trouble for my mother, who I am must certainly sure is not attracted to 5 day old babies.
posted by QueerAngel28 at 7:00 AM on May 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


jeffburdges: “Just fyi, America satisfies the vast majority of Dr. Laurence Britt's Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism, note that Obsession with crime and punishment is twelfth.”

As far as I can tell, the only "Dr Laurence Britt" that's real enough to be googleable is an doctor of internal medicine in Tennessee. Even if fascism weren't totally outside his field, that link would still be a really pointless little email forward from decades ago. Fascism doesn't fit into fourteen characteristics, and it certainly doesn't fit into those ridiculous characteristics, which are not in any way related to the historical fascism. The old "fourteen characteristics" thingie is just another silly old self-indulgent "oh look we live in a fascist dictatorship!" sop, as evidenced by the "BUSH = HITLER" gif on the side there.

Maybe more to the point: fascism didn't have this problem in any way. Fascism generally ignored pedophilia, even though I have a feeling it was not uncommon.

“Umm, the pedophile dickheads did not 'ruin things for everyone else', Bathtub Bobsled (eponysterical). American voters 'ruined things' by supporting law & order types. In consequence, a fascist-like culture of legislation through self-promotional fear mongering along with excessive spending on law enforcement create a system of laws that ignore the accused's intent. Yeah, a few more pedophiles might walk free if we took intent more seriously in child porn cases, but not the ones arrested for actual molestation or selling.”

It's hard to imagine any way that this is possible. How do we "take intent more seriously"? If "intent" were something it was possible to judge at first glance, this would never have happened in the first place. I totally agree that this is a disaster, that it's moreover a disaster that needs to be prevented. But the way to prevent it is not to set up laws that would have prevented the IT people from reporting these videos. These kinds of things need to be reported; the IT people themselves were not in a position to judge whether the videos were pornographic, nor should they have been. Bathtub Bobsled is absolutely right: pedophiles play in the ambiguity created when we spend all our time worrying about intent over all else.

It seems as though everything that the authorities did in this instance was 100% correct. They were right to examine the case, and the judge was right to swiftly exonerate the man. The real trouble is not an issue of restrictive government at all. This guy hasn't been jailed for an extended period; he hasn't been dogged by legal troubles; he hasn't been pursued in the courts. His problem is that his community has chosen to shun him. That is not a governmental problem at all. That is a community problem, which makes it unfortunately more difficult to deal with. If anything, the government can only help by making it necessary for the community to confront its own ridiculous prejudice.

saucysault: “My Facebook feed has had lots of naked children of friends in it but as the parents are Canadian/Australian/European there haven't been consequences beyond lots of ‘likes’.”

None of them in the UK, I guess. The UK often manages to outdo the US as far as pedophile-paranoia is concerned.
posted by koeselitz at 7:00 AM on May 30, 2013 [10 favorites]


Punishing someone who clearly did nothing wrong because of the possibility that some other hyopthetical person might do something wrong? Doesn't parse. Not even a little. A law too stupid to distinguish between innocence and guilt is a law too stupid to stand. It's not pornography without an intent to sexually titillate. This stuff should have never even gone further than the investigation stage. Find me a dad who doesn't change/bathe/clothe his daughter and THEN I'll show you a bad dad.
posted by 1adam12 at 7:02 AM on May 30, 2013 [25 favorites]


jeffburdges-Thanks for the link above, but even as a hardcore democrat I find the gif of Bush becoming Hitler in that link a bit too disturbing and dare I say it...disrespectful.
posted by QueerAngel28 at 7:05 AM on May 30, 2013


1adam12: “A law too stupid to distinguish between innocence and guilt is a law too stupid to stand. It's not pornography without an intent to sexually titillate. This stuff should have never even gone further than the investigation stage.”

What law? It hardly did go further than the investigation stage. A judge dismissed the case before it went forward at all. Again, everything the authorities did here seems to have been correct. The problem is the community response. It would be awesome if this were as simple as fixing an arcane law; it is clearly not.
posted by koeselitz at 7:07 AM on May 30, 2013 [13 favorites]


The pedos have exploited this exception. They will find these pictures on Photobucket, on the phones they are fixing for people, or wherever, and then they'll jump on Tor and send it around. So, suddenly, the line becomes blurred, and those who mean well cannot tell when it's an excepted circumstance or a threadbare of a potential predator.

I'm sorry, but this really does not follow. We're not talking about pictures of exploited children. We're talking about pictures of children who are not in any way being abused.

The notion that someone might view an otherwise perfectly acceptable photo, but because of what they're thinking when they view it it becomes an "exception" being "exploited" is absurd. The point in fighting pedophilia is to prevent the abuse of children, not to prevent any scenario where someone might think things we don't want them to think.

An unfortunately necessary part of having a free, sane society is that sometimes, some people will think things you find abhorrent. There is nothing to be gained by punishing the innocent on the off chance that maybe someone who thinks bad things might be punished too.
posted by tocts at 7:09 AM on May 30, 2013 [33 favorites]


I get frustrated about such things, largely because I have, hidden well in an undisclosed location, but technically in my possession, a few fading Polaroids of a nude 14 year-old boy. The fact is, they're essentially prehistoric selfies, taken of me, by me, for my own narcissistic revisitations. Armpit freaks would love 'em, what with that odd arm inclusion and the neat tuft of young man hair there, and I'm astonished, when I see them, that you could ever make out hipbones on me, and at the time, the instinct was completely pornographic on my part.

Are they criminal? Under law, I think so. I'd love to be at the trial, though, jumping back and forth between the courtroom floor and the little seat by the judge, showing the judge exactly where the bad me touched me.

"Well, sir," I point out on the supplied doll, "I touched me here, here, and here, and I tugged firmly on those and put a mouthwash bottle in there."

"Your honor," I'd say, leaping back to the floor. "While I'm aware that the age of consent in Maryland is 16, both parties in this case, me and also-me, were within four years of each other's age and neither had a position of power over the other."

It's surreal theater, but I have to wonder—should I toss something out that I'm nostalgic about because of the raving moral panic of our age? Hell, I've been writing what I think is a really great piece about my pervy youth, called "Unmolested," and as much as I laugh when I'm editing it, I have to wonder if I could possibly ever publish it without taking a rusty coathanger to my daydreams about working as a writer instead of being a frustrated noodler with a day job. Everything's fucking radioactive, it seems, and my history is more so than most.

Even when I feel like I'm clearly just being a wag, I have to stop myself from saying things like "Oh, I had sex with twelve year-old boys all the time, and then I turned thirteen," because there are people who will blanch and give me the "some things are never ever ever funny" lecture. You're guilty no matter what in our shame-washed realm of puritans.

Perhaps a pseudonym.


Sheesh.
posted by sonascope at 7:11 AM on May 30, 2013 [37 favorites]


My nephew was streaking once. His dad shot a photo of him running. It was a side shot and you couldn't really see anything and besides he was like 4. My brother in-law sent me the photo. I promptly put a large black modesty box on the photo that went 3/4 of the way to my nephew's knee and sent it back.

I'm a criminal!
posted by cjorgensen at 7:12 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


It hardly did go further than the investigation stage. A judge dismissed the case before it went forward at all. Again, everything the authorities did here seems to have been correct.

Here in Canada this sort of thing shouldn't get past the cops. They'd take one look at it and not recommend charges. How does it work in the States? Does every single complaint have to be dismissed by a judge regardless of how trivial?
posted by Mitheral at 7:20 AM on May 30, 2013


Years ago, probably around 2006, I uploaded a bunch of family photos to flickr without much thought. No restrictions or anything. A while later I was poking around in their activity dashboard and I saw that one photo was viewed, like, hundreds of times more than the others. It was a photo of my 2-year-old daughter in the bath, naked from the waist up.

It was a really cute photo but I'm not kidding myself. I hate that I get all squicked out when I see that picture now.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 7:23 AM on May 30, 2013 [7 favorites]


It seems as though everything that the authorities did in this instance was 100% correct.

I agree with what I take is your main point regarding initial reporting and police investigation, but I think you're letting the authorities off the hook too much here. From the article:
Hanson had seen all kinds of pornography in his years as a prosecutor. He knew the legal definitions of "lewd" and "masturbation" and "pornographic." He also believed that a good prosecutor had to trust his own eyes.

The second video, filmed only a few seconds later, showed more of the same. The girls sang and danced while naked. Then their brother ran into view wearing nothing but a football helmet. Hoffner could be heard chuckling behind the camera just before the screen went dark.

"If these videos don't cross the line, where is the line?" Hanson wrote in a court memo he later filed with the judge
That is, to me, outrageous. One of the primary justifications for the severe sentences given to possession of child pornography in this country is that they supposedly almost always document actual sexual abuse. Once the investigation revealed no abuse in this case, the prosecutor should have dropped it rather than relying on the judge.
posted by dsfan at 7:23 AM on May 30, 2013 [15 favorites]


Ain't worried about the community issues, koeselitz. I'm bitching about the Arizona case that cost another couple $75k, all the sexting hysteria, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:29 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


What law? It hardly did go further than the investigation stage.

It got to prosecution. It should never have risen to the level of a judge at all.

A judge dismissed the case before it went forward at all. Again, everything the authorities did here seems to have been correct.

Nope. Here's a "correct" timeline:

(1) Tech sees movies, sighs, and calls cops because he has to.
(2) Cops sigh, say "You're right to notify us, but there's nothing here."
(3) EXEUNT OMNES

Or, one that starts off wrongly but ends fine

(1) Tech notifies cops
(2) Cops think something is up, go to DA
(3) DA looks at movies and chews cops a new one for wasting his/her time

I also feel like why would you EVER, EVER, male or female, take pictures of your naked children on your university-owned cell phone?

Because you mistakenly treat it as if it were your own phone, and because taking pictures of your naked children is a boringly normal thing.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:29 AM on May 30, 2013 [10 favorites]


Belief in an epidemic of false child porn accusations is very convenient to actual child pornographers,...

Maybe so. That doesn't make the belief false. If the accusations are false, any prosecutions arising from them are unjustified.

Rule 34 applies to everything, and no amount of moral outrage or scattershot prosecution is going to stop it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:30 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


I feel bad for the guy, and I think the charges are probably unfounded, but I also feel like why would you EVER, EVER, male or female, take pictures of your naked children on your university-owned cell phone?!

There was a thread on AskMe a while ago with someone asking about the definition of "Honi soit qui mal y pense." This is the kind of situation where the phrase is perfectly apt. You do this because it never crosses your mind for an instant that anyone would think there's anything remotely "sexual" about such a video--because it has never crossed *your* mind for an instant. There are definitely some creepy people involved in this story--but not the guy who took a video of his kids having fun.
posted by yoink at 7:33 AM on May 30, 2013 [5 favorites]


Once the investigation revealed no abuse in this case, the prosecutor should have dropped it rather than relying on the judge.

Queue the political ad, when this prosecutor runs for a local office "In the wake of the Penn State scandal, Hanson refused to further investigate an accused child molester whom the university had suspended. Vote for $opponent, who'll give 'em what they deserve."
posted by tyllwin at 7:34 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


Here in Canada this sort of thing shouldn't get past the cops. They'd take one look at it and not recommend charges. How does it work in the States? Does every single complaint have to be dismissed by a judge regardless of how trivial?

The cops don't decide the charges; the prosecutor does. If the prosecutor does not press charges, it never gets in front of a judge.
posted by desjardins at 7:36 AM on May 30, 2013


I've got pictures of my son at 2 years old, with a whole lot of shaving cream on and pretty much nothing else. We thought it hysterical at the time. I've got photos of him running in his shorts a few years later in the fountains at Disney World. Hey, the other parents were letting their kids do it, so why not?

But this... this particular situation is just plain insane.

I can see things getting to a point where you don't dare think about taking photos of children under 12 at all - clothed or unclothed, digital or film - because someone might post them on line and some perv will download them, and they'll track them back to you... and you'll end up spending big bucks for lawyers just to protect your ass, even if your child is an adult.

Maybe the problem is too many lawyers in the first place. As the old saying goes "Idle hands (in this case, too many legal hands with no real cases to actually handle) are the Devil's plaything."
posted by JB71 at 7:44 AM on May 30, 2013


I always get frustrated with these discussions. As first I'm thinking yeah, good, it took a white guy getting arrested, but we're finally talking about zero-tolerance policies, the criminalization of common behavior, and the absolute eagerness with which the state tears families apart sometimes. Yet the scope of discussion always narrows, and we sidestep the millions of others who have been wrongly prosecuted. (Most of whom, y'know, aren't white people suspected of kiddy-diddling.)

Thirty minutes in, like clockwork, it becomes entirely about this extremely minor subset of the real problem, this supposed pedophile witch-hunt. And we're treated to breathless tales about how someone's FOAF was, true story, registered as a sex offender for public urination. And some real pioneers try to convince us that pedophilia really just has a bad rap, and in some cases it's not so bad after all. And we eventually, after an hour of grueling debate, reach a consensus that the age of consent is, like, totally arbitrary.

Meanwhile a dozen people get thrown in jail because a cop is having a bad day and decided their movements were just slightly too furtive.
posted by aw_yiss at 7:45 AM on May 30, 2013 [10 favorites]


This is completely bizarre to me. The worst kind of knee-jerk overreaction.

FWIW, I know plenty of people whose cellphones are owned by their employer, and who wouldn't think twice about using them to film their kids playing naked. Or doing any other random thing, like blowing out birthday candles or playing with the dog. Because it would never cross their minds that they're doing something wrong. (Since, you know, they're not.)

Poor bloke. :(
posted by Salamander at 7:55 AM on May 30, 2013


For real. Few things are funnier than a laughing, shrieking, naked two-year-old tearing down a hallway after bathtime.

In general, pictures of kids are much more exciting to parents than non-parents, and it is understandable but true that parents tend to forget / not be aware of this after they become parents. I think it is crazy to call this stuff child pornography & get people fired over it etc, but I have to say this to me this sort of description of a video doesn't sound at all funny or even comfortable to watch for anyone but the parents of the child in question; I'm not saying this reaction is necessarily right (it seems that a lot of people in this thread would suggest that it isn't), but this is my instinctive reaction. This kind of gut reaction is surely a component in the chain of zero tolerance overreactions.
posted by advil at 7:58 AM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]


Meanwhile a dozen people get thrown in jail because a cop is having a bad day and decided their movements were just slightly too furtive.

This is a terrible thing and it happens a lot and perhaps deserves a decent post of its own. Which you could make.
posted by rtha at 8:02 AM on May 30, 2013 [5 favorites]


I always get frustrated with these discussions. As first I'm thinking yeah, good, it took a white guy getting arrested, but we're finally talking about zero-tolerance policies, the criminalization of common behavior, and the absolute eagerness with which the state tears families apart sometimes. Yet the scope of discussion always narrows, and we sidestep the millions of others who have been wrongly prosecuted. (Most of whom, y'know, aren't white people suspected of kiddy-diddling.)

In this instance, surely the example in the original post pretty much focuses the discussion on a particular common behavior. You're arguing to expand the topic from the case provided, essentially, and that might be a good place to take the discussion.

But complaining that the discussion topic understandably follows the details of the FPP doesn't seem like it'll do much for that.

I'd agree that other common behaviors are increasingly criminalized, and families with fewer resources than this guy's or families that are already socially stigmatized by poverty, by heterosexism, or by institutional racism are even more vulnerable. There are invisible victims who deserve much more attention; there is a frightening commonality of analogous abuses of the power of law aimed at those with less social or economic power.

And we eventually, after an hour of grueling debate, reach a consensus that the age of consent is, like, totally arbitrary.

I don't really see that part happening here. No one is talking about consensual sexual behavior at all; in fact, people are discussing the bizarre way that an illicit sexuality is being imposed on otherwise innocuous images and practices thanks to poorly written and selectively enforced laws.
posted by kewb at 8:04 AM on May 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm not saying this reaction is necessarily right (it seems that a lot of people in this thread would suggest that it isn't), but this is my instinctive reaction.

Nah, you're reaction is perfectly normal. I feel the same way about 99% of the kid pictures/videos that parents try to show me. I'm sure they're thrilled with videos of little Johnny eating Cheerios and giggling. I'm not. Sometimes I bluntly tell them so, sometimes I grin and bear it. 'Tis life.

But that's neither here nor there in this case because they were just residing on his (yes, yes I know it was the university's) cell phone. He didn't get found out because he was pushing them on others or facebook or via a mailing list (that we're aware of anyway), he most likely didn't even ask the tech dude to save them specifically, he just had them on his phone.

That's what people use camera phones for nowadays, making memories... oh and phone calls sometimes.
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:05 AM on May 30, 2013


jquinby: something something life imitating art.

Exhibit the second: Paedofinder General
posted by Jakey at 8:06 AM on May 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yet the scope of discussion always narrows, and we sidestep the millions of others who have been wrongly prosecuted. (Most of whom, y'know, aren't white people suspected of kiddy-diddling.)

Erm, we've had lots and lots of threads about people, white and not-white, who were wrongly prosecuted of various crimes. It is possible to care about more than one thing at a time, while only talking about one particular thing at one particular time.
posted by desjardins at 8:08 AM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]


The pedos have exploited this exception. They will find these pictures on Photobucket, on the phones they are fixing for people, or wherever, and then they'll jump on Tor and send it around. So, suddenly, the line becomes blurred, and those who mean well cannot tell when it's an excepted circumstance or a threadbare of a potential predator.

Who cares? My daughter is currently unbound by all of the shame, stifling convention and, paradoxically, sexualization that our society is excitedly waiting to drop on her. It's going to happen eventually, and I want to document the fact that there was a time when she was innocent as a puppy and thought nothing of walking naked into the kitchen and asking for grapes.

If the price I pay for preserving those memories is that perverts might potentially find a photo of her bare, 4-year-old butt and jack to it, I'm willing to chance it. The real, inevitable damage to her self-worth is going to come later, from TV, the Internet and the people around her, not from people she and I are completely ignorant of.

These witch hunts are protecting no one. Actual sexual exploitation of children exists, it's disgusting, and it should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice. But it should not result in sweeping, undiscriminating enforcement that leaves parents feeling unease with the beauty of an unbound childhood-- zealots are trying to destroy one of the most beautiful things about childhood.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:10 AM on May 30, 2013 [38 favorites]


I don't know if this is purely driven by the witch hunt mentality.
Not that it isn't a product of it. First thing that came to my mind was The Crucible.

And I think the above comments concerning the paranoia of the U.S. is warranted, but it's too broad a brush to get a mental grip on. At least in detail, for me.

I wonder if the prosecutor (Hanson) wanted a conviction and pushed to have Hoffner cop a plea or be accused. Or merely has a myopic perspective on child pornography. Or – barring that - perhaps he saw something in the video and the news story is wrong.

But:
“On Nov. 30, a judge reviewed the evidence and ruled to dismiss Hoffner's case, concluding that the charges against him should never have been filed. "The videos under consideration here contain nude images of the defendant's minor children dancing and acting playful after a bath," the judge, Krista J. Jass, wrote in her decision. "That is all they contain." “

Hard to argue with that kind of smackdown from a judge.

From what I can discern the injustice here was extralegal. It played out on the man’s reputation. And I think that kind of power in the hands of a prosecutor is dangerous.

I’m not a legal expert, so I’m pressed to think of a way to fix it. But yeah, that’s definitely got to be fixed.

The prosecutor can come in, say “cop to this plea or we’ll accuse you of child pornography” – even if the guy beats the rap, even if he’s found innocent, completely exonerated, or –as in this case – the judge throws it out, his reputation is still tarred and he’s pretty much barred from making a decent living the rest of his life.

The system placed too much power in one set of hands.

We would weather the social storms, whether it be anarchists, communists, hippies, pedophiles, muslims, - the scapegoats ju jour - better if we had better checks on those accusations.

People do tend to ignore the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing when certain buttons are pushed (he's a terrorist, so it's ok to torture him). I don't know how we'd disarm that social pressure.

The fact that such witch hunts exist mean less to me than the fact that we seem to be powerless against them running roughshod over innocent people's lives - despite the successful (at least mechanically, since the judge threw it out) workings of the legal system.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:39 AM on May 30, 2013 [4 favorites]


Why is there now so much cultural anxiety about photography?

Actual child porn - like the horrors described in a post here about the people who patrol online services, etc - we come down like a hammer. No one has a problem with that. But this stuff, parents taking snaps of their own kids, and the reactions people get, that anyone with a camera in public is either taking photos off kids for sex purposes, or is a terrorist casing targets. Didn't we have cameras for 100 years, without a lot of troubles from it? Is it just the shift to digital cameras and phone cameras, is that so threatening?

It really is strange.
posted by thelonius at 8:44 AM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]


I think it would just blow these people's minds if I told them I was once in a room with multiple people, who weren't relatives, where my kid was totally naked and so was my wife from the waist down and EVERYONE was fixated on both my naked wife and naked son.
posted by stltony at 8:48 AM on May 30, 2013 [11 favorites]


Just fyi, America satisfies the vast majority of Dr. Laurence Britt's Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism, note that Obsession with crime and punishment is twelfth.

FYI,

Laurence Britt is not a scholar of fascism, never published anything other than an op-ed or two on fascism, and never marshaled any evidence for his framework. His entire ouvre amounts to a 14 point list. Anyone who actually studies fascism would have major problems with his editorializing (its certainly not research).
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:51 AM on May 30, 2013 [4 favorites]


Gawd, my mom gave me a shoebox full of innocent old pics, some of my sis and I at bathtime, some where I am running around nah-ked in the back yard, between the ages of 2-5...a lot of bum shots. (Hey, it was the '70s!)

I feel really bad for this guy...
posted by MeatheadBrokeMyChair at 8:54 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


One of my ongoing projects is converting and digitizing our old family Super8 film. For the most part they aren't labeled, so each batch is a surprise. The last batch had a bunch of footage of me playing in the bathtub as a little kid, and I truly wonder what would happen if some over-zealous idiot tried to do something about this 45-year old film.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:01 AM on May 30, 2013


Imagine a world where we take all the money we currently use to fight child pornography and use it to prosecute bankers.
posted by ishrinkmajeans at 9:06 AM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]


RE: the "But some pervert might FIND these totally innocent naked child photos and THINK BAD THOUGHTS about them" argument: As an adult woman with a fairly active internet history, considering the number of unsolicited suggestive comments and emails I've received from men I do not know who happened to see an image of me somewhere, I have very little doubt that someone, somewhere on the internet has jacked off to fully clothed photos of me.

If we want people to not jack off to photos of other people, then we probably need to ban all photos of people. Which would be stupid.

Besides, there is no evidence to suggest that this father intended to publish this video of his kids anywhere. Yes, someone else could feasibly have found the video and published it, but someone could also break into your house and steal your private paper photos and publish those. Someone could take photos or video of your child without your knowledge and publish those. Etc.

I am not going to cover my child in head-to-toe sackcloth or keep him locked in my house to prevent strangers from thinking inappropriate thoughts about him.
posted by BlueJae at 9:15 AM on May 30, 2013 [10 favorites]


Perhaps taking intent out of the picture and simply criminalizing the taking of non-medical pictures of a child by anyone who is not that child would be easier to comply with and lead to fewer accusations of this nature.

Perhaps taking intent out of the picture and simply ceasing to throw a ridiculous fit over pictures that don't depict abuse of children, regardless of who is viewing the picture or why, would be easier to comply with and lead to zero unnecessary accusations of this nature.
posted by tocts at 9:29 AM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]


criminalizing the taking of non-medical pictures of a child by anyone who is not that child

In this scenario the only baby pictures that are legally allowed to exist are baby pictures taken by the actual baby itself?
posted by elizardbits at 9:42 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


> The pedos have exploited this exception.

Stop. Right. There.

First, talking about "the pedos" is about as useful as talking about "the Jews" or "the Blacks". There isn't some "pedo central" where they get together to get plan strategy.

But much more important, you need to stop and think about the point of law enforcement. Almost all first world countries have decided that protecting the innocent trumps the idea of punishing the guilty. The idea of people getting sexual gratification from otherwise innocent pictures is very unpleasant, but compared to the idea of destroying the lives of innocent people it is nothing.

The whole reason that child porn has such draconian penalties is entirely because children are horribly abused to make it. In the very very worst case, even if this guy took videos of his kids in the bathtub and they had somehow got out and were secretly being used by someone for sexual gratification, where's the harm - particularly compared with the destruction of an innocent family?

Even for the children themselves in this case, I'd strongly argue that having their family's source of income destroyed is a far, far greater harm to them than, what, having family videos of them tromping around naked after a bath?

Frankly, if my parents (long dead now) had taken such a film of me, I'd cherish it. (Actually, my parents did have a photo of me naked with two of my playmates when I was about 4 and they always threatened to bring it out when I brought dates back home but :-D of course they never did...)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:49 AM on May 30, 2013 [7 favorites]


The only sensible suggestion is that burqas must be mandated for all children and adolescents of both sexes.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:54 AM on May 30, 2013


> There will always be grey areas

And in a civilized society we don't shrug and say, "Throw them in jail, just in case, because it's a grey area."

The "slippery slope" argument is particularly repugnant when the consequence involves damaging the child's life just to "send a message" when the child's life would not have been damaged by the actual "crime".
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:55 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


What if the child is not being touched but is being sexualized in a way that does not meet the legal definition of abuse?

Uh ... then it's not abuse? How is this even a question? Are you seriously arguing that we need to criminalize photos of things that aren't against the law? So it should be legal for a kid to be dressed in a way you find inappropriate, but if someone takes a photo, good god we need to prosecute?

The reason that actual child pornography is illegal is that for it to even exist, a child had to be abused, and anyone in possession of it is driving demand for more to be created (and thus, more children to be abused). This is manifestly not the case of photos where children are not being abused -- the child was not harmed by the photo being taken, and whatever some other person does or thinks while viewing the photo has literally zero effect on the child.

Ill-conceived "zero tolerance" policies like you are describing are what lead to things like a recent case in MA, where a 6 year old child was kicked off a school bus, reprimanded, and forced to write a letter of apology for bringing a LEGO gun the size of a quarter onto the bus. (He was only even allowed back on the bus after it made the news; originally, he was going to be banned!) It is completely absurd, thoughtless policy, where all potential for common sense and judgment is thrown out the window, and it flies in the face of every principle of justice that our legal system is based upon.
posted by tocts at 9:56 AM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]


every parent I know is a criminal, myself included.

Given a historical ability of prosecutors to be able to take a pile of evidence and come up with crimes based on that evidence this is a good time to remind everyone that you really should consider encryption of all of your digital media.

What pictures do you have that run afoul of laws? Is balancing food on an animals head the crime of animal abuse? How about that MP3 collection - can you provide receipts for all of them? What about Wierd Al's "don't download this song" you downloaded for free from what you thought was his official site - can you prove that? How about that clip from a video - care to defend your right to have it as fair use?
posted by rough ashlar at 9:57 AM on May 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


What if the child is not being touched but is being sexualized in a way that does not meet the legal definition of abuse?

Like every child beauty pageant ever, it seems? I think those are gross and parents who make their daughters enter them are maybe not such great parents, and that they contribute mightily to the cultural normalization of sexualizing little girls, but I don't think the parents should be prosecuted for child abuse or distributing child pornography unless they actually commit those offenses.
posted by rtha at 10:05 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


Coach Hoffner is a wildly unlucky guy. Some tech found the videos ... why is a tech looking at someone's personal content while backing up data - I'll bet the videos just had a generic title. But the tech, having seen it, does the right thing, by reporting anything that could indicate child abuse. The cop does the right thing by running it past the DA's office. The DA and/or the cops could and should have gone to the home, with Social Services, confirmed that the kids are Hoffner's kids, that Social Services finds the videos not to be abuse, and everybody chills out. The prosecutor is a tight-ass jerk. The judge has common sense and did the right thing. The University acted badly.

In the 2nd case, the Walmart employee said the photos went beyond what she considered "normal" child bath-time photography. It's appalling that the family didn't have an option for the children to go stay with relatives, and that the investigation took a month, but the judge ruled that there was no problem. Again, unlucky, maybe a little unwise, but the court did its thing correctly.

I was deeply squicked out by anybody using any picture of my child for sexual gratification. When I worked in bookstores, kids books that are written for kids to explain how their bodies work were very popular with adult men, out of proportion to what would have been ordinary sales volume. Ick. I talked to my son about having explicit pictures of girls his (minor) age on his phone, and the potential consequences. As an adult, I wouldn't have wanted Mom & Dad to cheerily show naked pictures to a date. I grew up well before digital photography, so I don't think suck pictures exist. Kids are adorable, naked or not, but they deserve respect. My ex- took a video and did a closeup of my son's genitals. I thought it was over the line, so we edited it out. It's his body, and I think he deserves privacy. If you have naked pictures of your kids, your kids should have a say in whether or not those pictures may exist, once they're old enough (There are adorable pictures of my kid running around naked; probably time to see if he objects).

Child abuse is real. The production of child pornography damages a lot of children. It's a big deal. I have a friend who's an Assistant D.A., fierce about protecting kids, and she'd never have prosecuted this case. Most of the time, the cops and the prosecutors have good common sense and understand the difference between pornography and an innocent parental video. I'm sorry Coach Hoffner had to go through this, all because a tech was too nosy, a DA was an ass, and his employer freaked out. But the system is largely not broken, and a couple of stupid events are outliers, not evidence of a crazed, puritanical witchhunt.
posted by theora55 at 10:12 AM on May 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


Also, I find it ironic that the videos were probably duplicated so that Social Services could review, and for the judge, etc., making it way more likely that they'll end up on a skeevy FTP site.
posted by theora55 at 10:14 AM on May 30, 2013


But this stuff, parents taking snaps of their own kids, and the reactions people get, that anyone with a camera in public is either taking photos off kids for sex purposes, or is a terrorist casing targets. Didn't we have cameras for 100 years, without a lot of troubles from it? Is it just the shift to digital cameras and phone cameras, is that so threatening?

The deeply held suspision that someone taking pictures in public, that isn't some obvious tourist image, must mean they are up to something (Terrorist/Child Molestor/Stalker) isn't really all that new it's just everyone is taking pictures all the time now and not just photography enthusists. I've been carrying a camera everywhere I go for 25ish years now and it was the same in 1990. Except in 1990 everyone thought you were a freak just for carrying a camera around all the time. I've been questioned by cops on inumerable occasions because I was out late at night taking pictures of infrastructure and industry.
posted by Mitheral at 10:39 AM on May 30, 2013


I’m only one here who thinks maybe 9 y.o. is kind of right at that border of too old for opposite genders to bathe and dance around naked together? These weren’t baby’s first bath, or even your two-year-old running around hilariously pulling off their clothing.
Anyway, at the very least, having that video on a phone you give to a near-stranger at work was stupid.
posted by NorthernLite at 11:13 AM on May 30, 2013 [4 favorites]


I’m only one here who thinks maybe 9 y.o. is kind of right at that border of too old for opposite genders to bathe and dance around naked together?

Hmm. That didn't make it any better.

So, yeah, probably.

You're making a lot of assumptions on how old 9 is. And that adults don't do these same things. And that it only matters if the child are of opposite genders.

So, yeah, probably, in answer to your question.
posted by zizzle at 11:18 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


I think you're on to something, NorthernLite. My personal reaction to the video (as it's been described, and as a father myself) is kind of a "so... THAT's how it is in their family." Without context, I can definitely see how it could engender a wide variety of interpretations, some sinister.

That's why I don't fault the university or the police for their initial response -- or even the prosecutor for his actions RIGHT UP until the experts weighed in and said there might have been smoke but definitely no fire. At that point the charges should have been dropped.
posted by BobbyVan at 11:25 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


Our whole nudity taboo is just some ridiculous hold over from our Victorian roots. It causes the very fetishization that it is suppose to prevent. At least we have gotten over ankles.

I have a suspicion that the increased attention child porn has gotten has in some way increased it's spread.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 11:27 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


This is insane. Completely batshit insane. Parents take pictures of their kids in the bath. It happens. They should not merit an automatic call to CPS.

theora55: "When I worked in bookstores, kids books that are written for kids to explain how their bodies work were very popular with adult men, out of proportion to what would have been ordinary sales volume.

That's very disturbing. :(

I'm almost afraid to ask this question for fear I'm going to want to lock my children in the house for the next decade after hearing the answer... but statistically speaking, is pedophilia all that common? For some reason, it never occurred to me that it would be.
posted by zarq at 11:28 AM on May 30, 2013


I’m only one here who thinks maybe 9 y.o. is kind of right at that border of too old for opposite genders to bathe and dance around naked together? These weren’t baby’s first bath, or even your two-year-old running around hilariously pulling off their clothing.

If not the only one, certainly in the vast minority - of maybe 2, or 3?

What the hell business is it of yours - or anyone else - what good parents who love their children do in the privacy of their own homes to have fun, as long as the children involved are not being abused.

This witch hunt was ridiculous on its face, and the NAME of the person who turned this guy in before checking things out with him should be all over page one of that town's newspapers!

This is nothing more sick in this story than the sick projections of the person who saw the coaches videos, and then turned the coach in because of the reactions that s/he had upon viewing those images. THAT's where the sickness in this whole story lies.

I hope this guy hits up that stupid university for millions of dollars AND they are forced to give him his coaching job back.

Every one of the people that took this guy on his personal ride into hell is a sick fuck, and should be vilified, shamed, and made to personally payfor what they did to his good name. I have a special ire for the DA in this case. How do jerks like that sleep at night?

What a screwball society we have become!
posted by Vibrissae at 11:34 AM on May 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


Vibrissae: " This witch hunt was ridiculous on its face, and the NAME of the person who turned this guy in before checking things out with him should be all over page one of that town's newspapers!

This is nothing more sick in this story than the sick projections of the person who saw the coaches videos, and then turned the coach in because of the reactions that s/he had upon viewing those images. THAT's where the sickness in this whole story lies.

I hope this guy hits up that stupid university for millions of dollars AND they are forced to give him his coaching job back.
"

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We are wired to instinctively protect our children and other people's children from harm. Because of this, sometimes overreactions will happen.

As a parent, I know that if I heard that my kids' coach had pictures of naked children on his phone, I'd want to know why. Were they his kid? Someone else's? What was the nature of the pictures? Were they sexually explicit? I'd want to know that they weren't of kids he was coaching. That would be a natural reaction. It's normal to want to keep your kids safe.

As someone who was abused as a child, I want adults to ask questions and inquire and look into the situation. I want people to reach out and help protect that kid. Who might be unable to protect themselves. That's extremely important. Children who are being abused often have no agency -- no way to stop what is being done to them. No way to talk about it to other adults. No way to seek help. We shouldn't ignore incidents like this. We should ask questions and make rational, reasonable judgments without destroying the reputations of innocent men.

The witch hunt that followed the initial discovery was ridiculous, yes. But asking questions when children are involved isn't.
posted by zarq at 11:46 AM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]


I said: "We should ask questions and make rational, reasonable judgments without destroying the reputations of innocent men. "

Or women, for that matter.
posted by zarq at 11:49 AM on May 30, 2013


I’m only one here who thinks maybe 9 y.o. is kind of right at that border of too old for opposite genders to bathe and dance around naked together?

It's really up to the kid and the family dynamics.

I remember that I was about 9 years old when the body modesty finally kicked in (I started wearing underpants around the house, for one--I seem to remember spending a lot of time running around the house in just a big t-shirt). Puberty waited another whole six years to kick in, so it wasn't fueled by that, either.

My brother happily ran around the house in various states of naked right up until he was 12 or so, which coincided with him liking girls, so my theory is that he figured if nothing else, clothing would at least provide more surface area to cover with axe body spray.

My cousins, on the other hand, seemed to do less of the running around naked thing, but their parents divorced when they were very young. They grew up in houses with step parents and step siblings, so it makes sense that their body modesty would kick in a little sooner.
posted by phunniemee at 11:51 AM on May 30, 2013


“…simply criminalizing the taking of non-medical pictures of a child by anyone who is not that child would be easier to comply with and lead to fewer accusations of this nature... So why not simply give children their privacy and give everyone else a bright line?’

I think because it’s the abuse of the power of accusation that’s the bigger problem.
And one of the underpinning assumptions with that argument seems to be that nudity is automatically a sexual state.

On a separate but related topic:
It’s odd how culture in the U.S. works. At some point around – ok, 8 or 9 or whenever – nudity is assumed to be more sexual. 20 or 30 – it varies. Somewhere around 35- and up the assumption is that you’re a nudist.

Of course there’s a contextual difference between people who are assumed to be, or becoming, sexually active and their setting vs. a weathered 60 year old French guy smoking a cigarette on a beach. (no offense to Languedoc, etc).

But I think it’s as much a mistake to omit everything that favors evidence of a non-sexual context in an attempt to offer clearer guidelines as it is to ignore genuine indicators of abuse so as not to disrupt a family.

And indeed, what good is an investigation by the university if it adds nothing to a criminal conviction?
Simply firing someone isn’t going to change their pattern of behavior.

Obviously the issue for the university was not that they wanted to prevent child abuse, but rather they didn’t want to be associated with it.
I think that kind of cover up prevents the truth just as much as a neighbor or someone who sees something wrong and doesn’t say anything because they don’t want to be associated with a big mess either.
Prosecuting someone as (seemingly) innocent as this might lead to more sympathy for actual abusers based on prosecutorial misconduct.

Injustice anywhere is bad for justice everywhere.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:59 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


We public cigarette smokers — especially those of us who've always gone out of our way to avoid strewing butts and getting smoke in people's faces — look on all this self-induced pedo-paranoia with some slight amusement.

I'm sure that a few of us are also bemused by all the outrage around the vigorous suppression of non-medical marijuana. We realize that all of anti-smokers desires are justifiable while ours are simply contemptible.

tldr: when you encourage the hand played by the intolerant in some things, don't be surprised when it turns to bite you.
posted by Twang at 12:27 PM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We are wired to instinctively protect our children and other people's children from harm. Because of this, sometimes overreactions will happen.

As a parent, I know that if I heard that my kids' coach had pictures of naked children on his phone, I'd want to know why. Were they his kid? Someone else's? What was the nature of the pictures? Were they sexually explicit? I'd want to know that they weren't of kids he was coaching. That would be a natural reaction. It's normal to want to keep your kids safe.


I'm sorry for your prior suffering as a victim of child abuse.

That said, where do we suddenly get off wanting to know why a parent had nude pictures of his/her kids on their cell phone? This culture has become batshit crazy about suspecting everyone of possible malfeasance for the most innocent gestures and actions. It's absurd and it has to stop.

With respect, your past history appears to have made you hypersensitive to situations that *could be* labeled as abusive, but don't you see the end result of your quest? If you don't, let me clue you in: what you're saying is that everyone who wants to take a photo of their child acting out in a spontaneous way in the privacy of their own home has to think about how someone else might interpret that photo. That is absolutely chilling and a clear imposition on speech.

I'm sure that many abusers do take compromising photos of children. That is awful, but let's not take this absurd cultural paranoia about child abuse to a place where people are afraid in their own, loving, homes to engage in acts of recording their kids in any way that they damn well please, as long as the intentions of the parent are not abusive.

Are we to suspect EVERY parent who takes nude pics of their kids? That's the end game here. Just like now, when one takes a walk near a children's playground and enjoys watching kids playing, one has to wonder how many sick fucks are wondering whether the onlooker is a child abuser.

Child abuse is wrong, period - but so is the creeping paranoia that every person unknown to a person is a potential child abuser; or, that every stranger is a potential kidnapper, and similar kinds of batshit insanity that have been promulgated by those who prefer to live in fear, instead of measured vigilance.

This guy's life has been ruined and turned upside down by a bunch of over-reactive screwballs who didn't have the DECENCY to check things out with him, first - instead of putting him in a jail cell and traumatizing his entire family - INCLUDING his kids. THAT's the abuse here. What about the harm that these sick fucks did to that guy's family, and kids? Why aren't they put to shame?
Or, are they protected by the new American cultural tenet that appears to say that "everyone is suspect, until proven innocent"?
posted by Vibrissae at 12:49 PM on May 30, 2013 [5 favorites]


Growing up, I never found it strange in any way that bathtime photos of my sibling and I as toddlers wound up in the family photo album. Being a toddler is part of a life, and well, being clothing-averse is not an uncommon trait in toddlers. It's sad that nudity is enough to make something "pornographic" by American standards, and cases like these seem to set that as a legal standard. What percentage of American parents be considered sex offenders by these standards?

Are we to suspect EVERY parent who takes nude pics of their kids? That's the end game here. Just like now, when one takes a walk near a children's playground and enjoys watching kids playing, one has to wonder how many sick fucks are wondering whether the onlooker is a child abuser.

My most common running route takes me by a local park, and when passing by I keep my eyes on the ground. Even so, I can feel the threatening and defensive glare of parents from the park if I happen to glance over to see what the humans are doing, because it happens to be more interesting than pavement. I understand their fear, but the whole situation just feels wrong and silly.
posted by StrangerInAStrainedLand at 1:11 PM on May 30, 2013


“My Facebook feed has had lots of naked children of friends in it but as the parents are Canadian/Australian/European there haven't been consequences beyond lots of ‘likes’.”

None of them in the UK, I guess. The UK often manages to outdo the US as far as pedophile-paranoia is concerned.


Australia has its share of paranoia too: Australian School Bans Swimming Photos. Why? Guess
posted by homunculus at 1:18 PM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


Taking videos of your eight and nine year-old kids dancing around naked on a device that you do not fully own and control, which you then go and hand off to a third party, may not be perverted or criminal but it's pretty fucking careless and disrespectful of your kids' right to privacy.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:22 PM on May 30, 2013 [4 favorites]


Are we to suspect EVERY parent who takes nude pics of their kids? That's the end game here. Just like now, when one takes a walk near a children's playground and enjoys watching kids playing, one has to wonder how many sick fucks are wondering whether the onlooker is a child abuser.

Let's be very clear about what was on this video.
When they finished the bath, Hoffner testified, the children came downstairs wearing towels and asked him to record a video, then dropped the towels and danced naked. At one point, according to court records, Hoffner's son grabbed his own penis. At another point, the girls bent over and pulled apart their buttocks.
This wasn't your typical video of kids playing in the bathtub or running around with underwear on their heads. It would have set off alarm bells with me, and I'd sure as hell alert my superiors and the authorities to begin an investigation.

This guy's life has been ruined and turned upside down by a bunch of over-reactive screwballs who didn't have the DECENCY to check things out with him, first

How the heck is the university supposed to "check things out with him, first"? What questions do they ask? I'd submit that universities aren't equipped to handle this sort of inquiry, nor are we. Read this New Yorker article, entitled In Plain View: How child molesters get away with it, which describes how sociopathic, meticulous and clever true child predators can be. Ordinary folks just aren't equipped to "check things out first" with somebody to find out if they're abusing kids.

Every one of the people that took this guy on his personal ride into hell is a sick fuck, and should be vilified, shamed, and made to personally payfor what they did to his good name.

Some people did the right thing, some people did the wrong thing. Let's not approach this situation like, as you put it, "over-reactive screwballs."
posted by BobbyVan at 1:25 PM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]


Looking at the description of what happens in the tapes, I think the prosecutor may have been concerned that the father had been "directing" the kids to act in a certain way or put on a show, and given the nakedness and description of what was going on in the video I can see where there would be some concern. I can certainly at least understand the investigation, to see in part if there were other videos or pics that were perhaps worse. Once they found nothing more and had interviewed the kids etc., seems like things should have stopped there.

It does seem like schools are and rightfully should be on notice now after the Penn State scandal that failure to thoroughly investigate is a serious problem. But I feel bad for this coach.
posted by onlyconnect at 1:34 PM on May 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


Vibrissae: "With respect, your past history appears to have made you hypersensitive to situations that *could be* labeled as abusive,

I tend to agree.

...but don't you see the end result of your quest? If you don't, let me clue you in: what you're saying is that everyone who wants to take a photo of their child acting out in a spontaneous way in the privacy of their own home has to think about how someone else might interpret that photo.

Yes. That's going to happen. If I take a picture of my young kids naked and then post it to Facebook, I have to think about how it will be received. We live in that sort of society now.

In this particular case, despite the fact that the photos were taken "in the privacy of their own home" they were not private. They were not housed on a privately-owned device. The device was owned by someone else. They were archived on a device that other people had access to. Once you place photos on a device that is supplied by your place of employment, they are no longer entirely private. The device is owned by your employer, and may need to be returned at any time. Messages sent from that device may be subject to review, depending on the employer's rules.

That is absolutely chilling and a clear imposition on speech.

My wife has worked as a teacher. People who work with and educate young children are often subject to greater personal scrutiny than those who don't. By their employers and by parents. It's part of their job. Teachers do not generally enjoy 100% free speech because they work with children. For that matter, nor do most corporate employees, even if they don't work with kids.

This is by design. You don't want teachers taking pictures of their students naked. You don't want them to say or do age-inappropriate things in front of them either.

I'm sure that many abusers do take compromising photos of children. That is awful, but let's not take this absurd cultural paranoia about child abuse to a place where people are afraid in their own, loving, homes to engage in acts of recording their kids in any way that they damn well please, as long as the intentions of the parent are not abusive.

You do understand that we don't disagree about that, yes? I am not saying people should not be allowed to take pictures of their own children. I'm saying that if someone has naked pictures of children on their phone, there's absolutely nothing wrong with asking reasonable questions to make sure that nothing is wrong and who the pictures are of. To determine intent. Especially when the person in question works with children. Better safe than sorry.

Are we to suspect EVERY parent who takes nude pics of their kids?

No. And that's not what I said, either.

That's the end game here.

I clearly said in my last comment that the "end game" in this case was ridiculous. In a previous comment I said it was batshit insane. You and I do not disagree that the witch hunt was inappropriate and seriously problematic, and that the man's kids being removed from his care was a completely insane overreaction.

But as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't mean reasonable questions should never be asked.

Just like now, when one takes a walk near a children's playground and enjoys watching kids playing, one has to wonder how many sick fucks are wondering whether the onlooker is a child abuser.

Yeah, I think that's also wrong and offensive. It also has nothing to do with my comment.

Child abuse is wrong, period - but so is the creeping paranoia that every person unknown to a person is a potential child abuser; or, that every stranger is a potential kidnapper, and similar kinds of batshit insanity that have been promulgated by those who prefer to live in fear, instead of measured vigilance.

And yet, oddly, you're equating the "measured vigilance" I suggest above with complete paranoia. Sincerely, did you understand my earlier comment?
posted by zarq at 1:37 PM on May 30, 2013


Hands down this whole situation was just badly handled.... this is why there needs to be some very definite consideration for the accused in these situations. Why it's not OK to publish the name of someone who's been accused of a serious crime like this. Once it's out in the public view it's never going to be reclaimed.

This is why people are justifiably afraid of even an accusation of child abuse. In many cases your life is just over and then someone gets around to deciding if you are actually guilty.

Investigate away! It's a vile crime to hurt a child and needs to be looked at. But it looks like the second there was any chance that these people had done anything wrong it was broadcast far and wide so that the court of public opinion could judge them guilty.
posted by cirhosis at 1:42 PM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


Worth noting that this is a very American phenomenon. Most other countries/cultures around the globe don't have the puritanical streak that runs so strongly in most Americans. Even the non-religious are prone to this.

It comes down to a simple formula: nudity = sex. If someone is naked, then the puritanical impulse automatically equates that person with sex, or a precursor to sex. When a child is naked, it's no different. Kid taking a bath? Sexual! Of course, these are all unconscious thoughts, and only sound ridiculous when brought out into the sunlight like this.

I'm an American who never thought about this until I was abroad for a summer in Europe, and one day at the lake my German host family and friends just casually took off their clothes to put on their swimwear. No one thought a thing of it, it was all very unremarkable to everyone but me. In Japan, the parents (usually the dad) will take baths with the kids together, and of course there are hot springs in which everyone--from young to old--are in communal nakedness together.

The whole naked = sex stigma is something Americans need to disavow themselves of.
posted by zardoz at 1:42 PM on May 30, 2013 [5 favorites]


Bottom line: this guy has had a large portion of his life ruined; he lost his job; his family was traumatized; his kids were put through hell and will probably have lasting scars. And the screwballs who use whatever fantastical paranoia about "child abuse" they can to justify their actions, walk away with nothing more than a sniffle.

I see nothing - absolutely nothing - in this case that justifies what they put this guy through, but then again this is Minnesota, the land of Michelle Bachmann voters.

There is not justice in this case, and NOBODY was protected. the abuse was suffered by this guy and his family - and as for the Minnesota State Mankato officials who took this guy's job and career away, I want to see THEIR names in the paper!

The only child abuse that happened here was caused by overzealous officials, period!
posted by Vibrissae at 1:47 PM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


When they finished the bath, Hoffner testified, the children came downstairs wearing towels and asked him to record a video, then dropped the towels and danced naked. At one point, according to court records, Hoffner's son grabbed his own penis. At another point, the girls bent over and pulled apart their buttocks.

Holy hell.

I'm not a parent and my family was so uptight we were practically never-nudes so I am seriously asking this question to understand. Do the people defending this guy think that, based on that description, it is unreasonable that an investigation took place?
posted by winna at 2:23 PM on May 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


I gotta say as an adult that used to be a child, I don't want naked pictures of me around at any age. It feels like a violation- that's still my same body that people are looking at. I think it's impolite, or inconsiderate to take naked/ bathtime pictures of kids. They have so little autonomy as it is, and that's such a vulnerable position to be in.
posted by windykites at 3:31 PM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


Vibrissae: “With respect, your past history appears to have made you hypersensitive to situations that *could be* labeled as abusive...”

I can prove that wrong: I don't have a "past history" with abuse – I don't even have children – and I feel the same way as zarq does.

“... but don't you see the end result of your quest? If you don't, let me clue you in: what you're saying is that everyone who wants to take a photo of their child acting out in a spontaneous way in the privacy of their own home has to think about how someone else might interpret that photo. That is absolutely chilling and a clear imposition on speech.”

I don't have any problem with that. It's the way things are now, and it's not terrible. Yes, if I were a parent, I wouldn't let anybody I didn't know damned well see pictures of my kids naked, and I'd be pretty careful with any such pictures I took myself. The fact is that this has always been true – parents have never been happy to have their kids run naked through the Metropolitan Opera or anything like that. What we're working on getting used to here is the fact that the internet makes shared images public, so a higher level of caution is necessary. That's okay. That's a natural thing. And it's worth it for the higher level of vigilance.

I've said this above, but I'll say it again: I don't have any problem with the official steps this investigation took. It was not necessarily easy for anybody, but the alternative is a world where people worry about ruining lives above protecting kids – and I'm pretty sure I know where the priority should lie. The only problem I have with the case of Todd Hoffner is the fact that his exoneration hasn't led to the reinstatement of his place in the community.
posted by koeselitz at 3:46 PM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


Two thoughts:

The opening to the coach's articles reads as if he is known as a controlling person on campus. He has 2 other matters in HR. The video on a university device is poor judgment. Likely the tip of an HR iceberg. This reads poorly for coach-as-victim.

Regarding children and sexual behavior. Watch King Julien on any snippet of The Penguins of Madagascar (popular cartoon), he is proud of his body! Guess what brave parents are discussing with the kids who think blindly imitating him is funny: overtly sexual behavior by Pre-pubescent children is shocking, and KJ is an adult & would be fired/shunned for many of his behaviors if he was an adult human & "king" of two people. Keep it to cute & cuddly, boys!
posted by childofTethys at 4:11 PM on May 30, 2013


Let's be very clear about what was on this video.

When they finished the bath, Hoffner testified, the children came downstairs wearing towels and asked him to record a video, then dropped the towels and danced naked. At one point, according to court records, Hoffner's son grabbed his own penis. At another point, the girls bent over and pulled apart their buttocks.


Yes, let us be, as you say, "very clear":
In the ruling, Jass agreed, writing: "It is clear from the children's statements on the videos that the performance was created by them and not Defendant. Defendant never directs or poses the children. All statements made by Defendant on the videos are of a passive nature, inquiring if the children are finished with their performance. Moreover, nothing about the children's performance is overly erotic or sexual.

"There is simply no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that reasonably demonstrates Defendant knew or had reason to know his children intended their after-bath skit to be a 'sexual performance' or 'pornographic work' as those terms are defined by Minnesota law."
In dismissing the charges, Jass wrote: "At no time did the children perform a lewd or erotic act. In fact, none of the children's actions are age-inappropriate. They acted as any child, acutely aware of his/her nakedness, would act – playful and silly."
Those passages follow immediately from the one you quote, BobbyVan. To quote that one without the others seems to border on deliberate misrepresentation.
posted by yoink at 6:27 PM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]


So, yoink - you're saying the IT guy should have interviewed the kids? All BobbyVan was saying was that it was healthy for people to have an initial suspicion. And I think he's right. If I saw a video like that, with no other context (like the IT guy and initially the police did) I would be a worried man, and I would tell somebody about it. Some people here seem to be saying that that makes me and everyone involved highly paranoid. I don't really agree with that assessment, naturally.
posted by koeselitz at 6:31 PM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]


Thanks koeselitz for making it clear that I wasn't trying to suggest Hoffner (or the kids for that matter) did anything wrong or inappropriate. Was just establishing that this wasn't a case, initially, of unwarranted moral panic or fear-mongering.

I was pretty clear earlier in the thread about the injustices I think were ultimately inflicted on Hoffner and his family.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:22 PM on May 30, 2013


Laurence Britt is not a scholar of fascism, never published anything other than an op-ed or two on fascism, and never marshaled any evidence for his framework. His entire ouvre amounts to a 14 point list. Anyone who actually studies fascism would have major problems with his editorializing (its certainly not research).

He also never claimed to be a "Dr." of anything. (He's a "retired corporate executive" and lives in the Genesee Valley of New York, where he's a committed civil libertarian.) He just published an article in Free Inquiry, acting as an individual, and had no control over it going viral.

On the one hand, it's just a thought piece, or the equivalent of a blog post, and he's no more entitled to plaudits than any of us posting a multi-favorited comment here. On the other hand, political science is not exactly deterministic and even a scholarly examination of fascism is going to find its detractors.
posted by dhartung at 2:32 AM on May 31, 2013


The most innocent and ridiculous things, often involving naked people, can be stated in the baldest and most legalistic way to make them sound as clinical and damning as possible.

I started to write one and it was appalling to read, but it was just a description of applying nappy rash ointment to a baby's bum.

This description of the video should not be more important than what the video actually showed, which was apparently kids being silly whilst naked.
posted by h00py at 5:34 AM on May 31, 2013 [2 favorites]


Zarq: Sansuky worked with children in connection with an affiliated nonprofit. This guy presumably worked only with college students, nearly all of whom are over 18 and considered adults under the law, except as regards alcohol. If you're a professor or instructor and tell a parent about his or her child's grades, you might find yourself in a grim discussion with administration later, for largely this reason (and federal laws re educational records).
posted by raysmj at 6:41 AM on May 31, 2013


Remember the cover of Nirvana's 'Nevermind'. I saw the poster of the naked baby in the swimming pool in a record store with his penis airbrushed out..yeah. I knew then we were fucked as a society....
posted by xjudson at 7:35 AM on May 31, 2013


So, yoink - you're saying the IT guy should have interviewed the kids?

Actually, I don't think the IT guy should have been trolling through the videos on the phone in the first place. Then when he came across a video of the phone's owner's kids dancing around after a bath he should have closed the video and thought to himself "I really am a jerk for fossicking through this guy's family videos and I badly need to reassess my approach to life." What I don't see, from anything we have read of the contents of the video, is that he saw anything, at all, that justified calling in higher authorities. And no, ridiculously clinical and/or salacious descriptions of what is still, at the end of the day, a bunch of happy kids clowning around after their bath do not magically make the IT guy's decision a defensible one.
posted by yoink at 8:50 AM on May 31, 2013


yoink: “Actually, I don't think the IT guy should have been trolling through the videos on the phone in the first place.”

It was kind of his job. Have you ever worked in IT? There's not supposed to be any expectation of privacy on company-owned machines; nor has there ever been. He specifically informed Hoffner he'd be working on salvaging the photos and videos, so he even had verbal confirmation from the holder of the phone that it was okay for him to go through them. That's a hell of a lot more than he needed to look through the photos and videos.

For perspective – it was not only legal, it would be generally expected, that most companies would monitor the use of their own machines. And someone would have to do that monitoring. Probably the IT guy. So, yeah – he shouldn't be apologizing for anything. He was doing his job.

“Then when he came across a video of the phone's owner's kids dancing around after a bath he should have closed the video and thought to himself 'I really am a jerk for fossicking through this guy's family videos and I badly need to reassess my approach to life.'”

Again, I don't think you quite understand what was going on when this IT guy saw these videos. He was trying to salvage them from a broken phone. When you salvage media files from a broken drive or phone, you give them a glance to make sure they're actually intact and to make sure they weren't irreparably corrupted. That's how it works. Hoffner actually asked him to save those files specifically – the photos and videos – so there could not even have been any expectation that the IT guy would respect some sort of privacy.

But – that's kind of an ancillary point. Personally, I don't care if he was snooping and caught these videos. That is a separate issue from what his responsibilities were when he discovered the video.

“What I don't see, from anything we have read of the contents of the video, is that he saw anything, at all, that justified calling in higher authorities. And no, ridiculously clinical and/or salacious descriptions of what is still, at the end of the day, a bunch of happy kids clowning around after their bath do not magically make the IT guy's decision a defensible one.”

Look, here's my perspective: as things are right now, it has, for many decades, been ridiculously difficult for people to report this kind of thing. There's a huge pressure against it. Now, things are finally swinging in the other direction. The specter of Mike McQueary haunts people; we all worry about what it would be like if someone turned out to be an abuser and we didn't contact the proper authorities. I think reporting really needs to be encouraged. It may seem obvious to you that this was a wholly innocent video, but it was clearly not obvious to IT guy; and in situations in which someone sees a video which they think might maybe depict sexual abuse, they need to tell someone. The default, if people aren't sure, should not be to shut up about it and move on.

At this point, after thinking it over, I feel like the blame in this specific case really lies with the assistant DA, Mike Hanson. He was the one who had access to all the evidence, and yet still chose to move forward with the prosecution. I think that was probably down to fear – "what if abused kids turn up, and it's on my hands that this guy got away?" – but that doesn't make it okay. An assistant DA is supposed to have this responsibility, to decide what cases are worth pursuing. Mike Hanson did not fulfill this responsibility properly.

And ironically these kinds of cases actually have a chilling effect on potential reporters in the future. The next time someone sees a coach helping kids wash up in the showers and feels like it's a little weird, they'll think about Todd Hoffner and worry that reporting it will ruin some poor guy's life – instead of reporting it, as they should. Society needs to be able to examine these cases, carefully and discreetly, and to move on when it turns out people are innocent.
posted by koeselitz at 9:18 AM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


And ironically these kinds of cases actually have a chilling effect on potential reporters in the future. The next time someone sees a coach helping kids wash up in the showers and feels like it's a little weird, they'll think about Todd Hoffner and worry that reporting it will ruin some poor guy's life – instead of reporting it, as they should.

Grown man physically manhandling a naked child who is not his own child =/= man videoing his own children playing around after a bath.

Yes, we want to encourage people to report cases where there are good reasons to be suspicious--but your argument is making the classic error of ignoring the costs of false positives. Of course we want people to tell someone if they see something genuinely suspicious at, say, an airport (a bag left unattended in some out of the way place or what have you)--but the system fails horribly when this becomes panicked calls to the authorities every time someone walks into the terminal building speaking "what kinda sounded like one of them Middle Eastern languages" or "wearing a turban." If every parent who had ever taken a naked photograph or video of their children were to be reported (which is, indeed, the logical end-point of your position; after all, if the IT guy came across a naked still photo of one of the kids, should he report it? Why not, by your lights? How is he to determine if it's an 'innocent' photo, or if the guy belongs to a child-porn ring and is circulating these photos to the other members of the ring?) then the whole thing becomes a hopeless farce and a ghastly waste of everyone's resources, and we're no closer to the desirable endpoint than we would be if there were a strong taboo against such reporting.
posted by yoink at 9:36 AM on May 31, 2013


Well, it feels like we're kind of arguing different parts of this, but I don't feel like we disagree on the big picture, at least in general.

yoink: “Yes, we want to encourage people to report cases where there are good reasons to be suspicious--but your argument is making the classic error of ignoring the costs of false positives.”

I'm not ignoring the costs of false positives – I'm arguing that the costs of false positives need to be minimized. Yes, false positives will always have a cost; but they're inevitable, and I think we should be accepting that they'll happen and attempting to create a situation in which that's okay. I agree that some discernment among citizens is absolutely necessary; but I also kind of take it for granted that increasing discernment among citizens is nearly impossible. Perhaps that's too cynical of me.

“Of course we want people to tell someone if they see something genuinely suspicious at, say, an airport (a bag left unattended in some out of the way place or what have you)--but the system fails horribly when this becomes panicked calls to the authorities every time someone walks into the terminal building speaking 'what kinda sounded like one of them Middle Eastern languages' or 'wearing a turban.'”

Exactly – and this is a good illustration of what's going on. But the thing is that there will always be paranoid (or racist or idiotic) people around; and we can't outright forbid reporting things, even if the reports are inance. So what we really need is a security guard standing there taking the reports who's able to say: "what did you find suspicious about this person?" "Well, they sounded like they were speaking Arabic, and they were wearing a turban." "Okay, fine. We will give this its due attention." – and then ignore it and move on. That needs to be an option if we're going to deal with this sanely.

In the same way, it needs to be possible for a paranoid IT guy who maybe had a peculiar experience of childhood or maybe is confused about proper childhood behavior or maybe is just outright stupid – it needs to be possible for a guy like that to report something, and for the authorities to look at the claim discreetly and thoughtfully and say, 'okay, well, thanks for reporting this, but this man is, by all evidence we have, innocent; and therefore there is no reason to disrupt his life any further.'

I don't know – I know that it's a big, difficult thing, and I know some discernment is totally necessary. And now that I think about it, I do think it needs to be remembered that these kinds of charges have a huge weight. That's why there need to be discreet, thoughtful authorities that can take reports and either ignore them if they deserve to be ignored or investigate them if they need to be investigated. But – I will agree that there's no way for such authorities to be perfect, and some care and caution is necessary for the rest of us, too. We can't report every single thing we see.
posted by koeselitz at 10:27 AM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


Back when I was in the 8th grade or so someone decided I may have been being abused. You know how it was handled? They asked me. When my descriptions of what they had been concerned about revealed that the concerns were unfounded, they didn't take it any farther.

They didn't bring in the popo. They didn't freak out and make public accusations against my parents. They spent half an hour talking to me.

That would have been entirely appropriate in this case. Unfortunately, in some people's minds discretion is unnecessary. Personally, I'm glad people in my town still had some sense about themselves. If the same thing happened today I'm sure temporary foster homes and wild accusations would have been involved.

My point is that one can investigate without making a huge scene, and that's perfectly reasonable. What happened in this case is not that and was an extreme overreaction in my view
posted by wierdo at 1:07 PM on May 31, 2013


Holy hell.

I'm not a parent and my family was so uptight we were practically never-nudes so I am seriously asking this question to understand. Do the people defending this guy think that, based on that description, it is unreasonable that an investigation took place?


Speaking for myself, yeah absolutely I think it was unreasonable, because the children were dancing and laughing and there was nothing in the video to suggest coercion or direction or lewd interest by the dad.

I have 9yo and 7yo daughters and they would certainly do this and make a video of themselves (and have done, when they could get their hands on my iphone). They love butt jokes and love the freedom of being naked and will definitely moon us, or yes, try to show their butthole (gross!).

Kids know that butt/genitals humor is a bit transgressive (which is why they like it--that and, hey, butts are funny), but it's not sexual to them. And as a parent, you really want to let them hold on to that freedom/innocence as long as you can. The vast majority of the time, they grow into wanting privacy perfectly naturally on their own. Nine years old is, as some have said above, about the age when a girl might start doing that, but it's not so old that a parent would worry if she hasn't.

I would say that not only is it harmless for parents to allow their kids to naked-dance, it's a positive good. This father said the family wanted the kids to be comfortable with their bodies, and that's lovely. What's sad is that the investigation turned it into this creepy sexual thing, reading sick pedo motives into normal, healthy family behavior.
posted by torticat at 2:00 PM on May 31, 2013 [2 favorites]


you know how it was handled? They asked me

Um in case you are not aware of this there are a variety of reasons why kids who are abused aren't willing and /or able to disclose it, which is part of why there is such a thing as mandatory reporting requirements and investigations. Also be aware that 8th graders are different from, what, nine year olds in terms of how able they are to understand this stuff and how reliably they can theoretically be expected to be capable of report it.
posted by windykites at 2:51 PM on May 31, 2013 [2 favorites]


"school-aged boy grabbing his own penis" would definitely trigger my "mandatory reporter" flags.

Wait what? I'm female so don't know from personal experience, but my impression was that grabbing their own penises is universal behavior among school-aged boys!

Is the problem that this kid touched his penis while his sisters were around, and a camera? I don't know. It's a bit exhibitionist maybe, but not that weird for an 8yo.
posted by torticat at 5:30 PM on May 31, 2013


grabbing their own penises is universal behavior among school-aged boys males!
posted by five fresh fish at 5:50 PM on May 31, 2013


torticat: "This father said the family wanted the kids to be comfortable with their bodies, and that's lovely. What's sad is that the investigation turned it into this creepy sexual thing, reading sick pedo motives into normal, healthy family behavior."

Well - in point of fact, nothing was "turned into this creepy sexual thing." The concerns of other people do not turn a loving family relationship into anything other than what it is. I'm sure this dad will go on being a wonderful dad, and will enjoy it, and someday his kids will hear about what happened and find out the details and be justly appalled by the details, but by then it will have become old news. Let's be clear on this: the things other people think are their own business, and while to some degree I'm sure it's galling to any parent to discover someone has a suspicion like this, there's really nothing we can do about suspicions. We have no control over what anyone reads into anything. And moreover I think people can be forgiven for being paranoid. I am friends with a number of victims of abuse who are what I would call hyper-vigilant to the signs. I don't blame them for that on its own.

That's why I'm okay with investigations; they just need to be handled properly. This one was not. It was made public almost immediately, for one thing. I think it's fine for social workers to come out and interview the kids, discreetly, and make sure all is well; the point of that is to quickly and quietly figure out what was really going on so we can move on without disrupting lives further.

I've been thinking about it, and honestly I'm starting to feel as though the real difficulties here came because this went through the employer - that is, the university - before it went through anyone else. Maybe - maybe - the legal authorities could have been trusted to handle this properly (although that assistant DA didn't proceed very well, surely.) But it was the university that responded with nothing but cold shoulders and publicly implied guilt.

It may be that the lesson here is always to skip talking to your superiors at work and go straight to the police or to a social worker in reporting suspicious things like this. That was the problem we saw with Sandusky, actually - and it proved that university officials really aren't equipped to run an investigation or establish guilt. They don't generally even seem to be equipped to defer to those who can.
posted by koeselitz at 6:06 PM on May 31, 2013


The failure here is on the part of the DA, not the IT guy.

Yeah, I agree with that. I'm not really faulting the IT guy, I'm reacting to the conclusions the prosecutor drew, "If these videos don't cross the line, where is the line?" and all that.

The spreading of the buttocks thing would have been discouraged too. We were taught that these things were private

Sure, I agree. I'm not saying parents should encourage that part of it, just that it's within the range of normal behavior for kids and not an indication that they've been somehow messed up. I do think it's a fine thing to encourage the naked dancing.

There are levels of "private." Our kids know, for example, that there are things you can do on the street, things you can do in the home, and things you do only in the bathroom. It sounds like this child was blurring the line between the last two. If it had been my kid, I would have told her to stop that but not made a big deal about it.
posted by torticat at 7:27 PM on May 31, 2013


Does anyone know the school's, or schools' in general, policy on reporting? If IT dude's handbook said "tell the boss" and not "call social services," the problem (besides the overzealous ADA) is the handbook and the bosses. That facilitates coverups and/or public shamings.
posted by MoTLD at 11:10 PM on May 31, 2013 [2 favorites]


If it looks like child abuse, report it to the real cops.

Campus police are not ever real cops. Sorry.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:04 PM on June 1, 2013


Lots of campus police are just as much cops as the city/county police.
posted by Mitheral at 12:23 PM on June 1, 2013


Operating free of political, financial, and social pressure from the University governing board? I remain skeptical.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:43 PM on June 1, 2013


You might want to refer to the recent Clery Act thread before putting forward any defense of US campus police as legitimately functioning law enforcement organizations.
posted by elizardbits at 12:47 PM on June 1, 2013


The basic gist seems to be: if you see a crime worth reporting, don't tell your employer. Tell the actual police. It's always in the best interests of employers to cover it up and sweep it under the rug; at least cops are sometimes straightforward and often at least transparent about it.
posted by koeselitz at 2:26 PM on June 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


« Older Bruised and Blattered: How Fifa's great survivor...   |   Is this the Earhart Electra? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments