WHERE do you draw the line on what is considered child pornography?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Many parents would have photographs of their children naked at a young age, maybe in a bathtub or under a sprinkler in the backyard.
These photos might be then kept in photo albums, computer hard drives or even on display on mantelpieces at home.
As the subjects of the photographs grow up and visit the family home, while they might feel uncomfortable when looking at the pictures there is never any thought in their minds that these photographs may have been the result of sinister intentions.
A recent case from Bega District Court has demonstrated the potentially distressing consequences of parents taking naked photos of their children.
Late last week a man was acquitted of disseminating child pornography, the charges for which arose after the man tried to print off photos in a store of his young daughter as she was naked in a river.
The staff member from the photo processing store who served the man viewed the picture and, becoming concerned after the man wanted to print off two copies, reported the incident to the police.
A police report on the case stated due to the age of the daughter and her positioning, the photograph was considered child pornography.
The man claimed he was not guilty of the offence and wanted the photographs for sentimental reasons.
While the case against him was closed, there remains the question of what an accusation such as this would do to any parents’ mental state.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Post your comment below or email the editor at ben.smyth@fairfaxmedia.com.au