Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 216 posts

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#141

Post by cookiecaper »

tptacek wrote: post #120
cookiecaper wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DCF is a really problematic thing. I completely understand where you're coming from and we've had people close to us under false investigation from family services and it's a pretty bad gig. They act like everything you say is such an absurd lie and that you're just waiting for them to walk away so that you can start slamming your children into the floor again. It is really sad that they can't use common sense. But a…

Your school system doesn't "file a report" until TEN CONSECUTIVE ABSENCES? That's negligent. In ours, a truancy report is filed and the police are involved after ten cumulative absences or tardies throughout the entire semester. (I found this out the 8th time I managed to drop my kids off 1 minute late).

Wow, the tardy thing is excessive imo.

My wife informs me that the 10 days thing was because the child was in kindergarten. My wife had gone down to the school and talked to the teachers about the matter so she knows more about that than I do. Apparently kindergarten isn't considered a "real thing" or something. If the guidelines are stricter for 1st grade, and I hope they are, then hopefully there will be more involvement once the school year starts back up. The case is still open and DCF still drops in occasionally afaik, but I hope additional reports/complaints would cause the process to intensify and/or work faster. The kids are in danger every minute they are with that woman, so I will be pleased to see them removed.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#142

Post by Retric »

jacquesm wrote: post #85
siculars wrote: post #9

Wait until some enterprising district attorney confiscates your hard drive, surmises you frequent HN, subpoenas your voting history from pg, finds this thread and examines which anti-governement/pro-common-sense comments you up voted. Everything you say (and/or write) may be used against you. Have a nice day :)

They wouldn't have to go through PG either, votes can be lifted from the URL log that your provider is required to keep.

Sadly, my privacy is probably slightly more protected from such things on this highly monitored Army owned machine running on a secured and monitored network, than on my home computer. The DoD actually seems to care more about PII (Personally Identifiable Information) more than most other organizations, I suspect in large part because the people setting the regulations are also susceptible to them.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#143

Post by randallsquared »

Yaggo wrote: post #128
randallsquared wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't necessarily disagree, let me point out that it's considered okay to show a painting of a breast, or an acted shooting, but showing an actual breast or real shooting are both considered taboo. I think people lose track of the fact that violence on TV (and in video games, etc) is pretend violence, whereas most nudity is real nudity, rather than a simulation of same. I'm not saying that makes it sensible,…

Now I'm a bit confused. Does (real) breasts of an actress seen on tv count as "actual breasts"?

Yes. :) However, showing a centerfold spread on TV doesn't. I remember seeing _Dead Poets' Society_ on TV when I was a teen, and wondering how they could get away with showing the centerfold's breasts on broadcast TV. Somehow it doesn't count if it's a painting or photo of nudity.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#144

Post by Dove »

It makes a mockery of the life, liberty and property clause that family can be threatened so lightly.

In my opinion, it is a fundamental right to raise your children according to your standards. Parents should be in control of the risks, ideas, and experiences their children are exposed to. Minority views on what is appropriate should be protected as rigorously as minority political or religious views.

I would like to see limits on state intervention in families. I'd like to see CPS investigations require probable cause, warrants, and time limits. I'd like to see a clear standard for circumstances under which the state can take action. Personally, I think the standard for any enforced separation should be clear and convincing evidence before a jury of gross neglect (lack of life necessities, repeated serious reckless injury, serious risk of death) or malicious, repetitive physical abuse. And even in those cases, I'd prefer the first conviction to result in parole, not immediate action.

Child abuse is serious business, but separating families is serious business too.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#145

Post by cookiecaper »

olliesaunders wrote: post #106
cookiecaper wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DCF is a really problematic thing. I completely understand where you're coming from and we've had people close to us under false investigation from family services and it's a pretty bad gig. They act like everything you say is such an absurd lie and that you're just waiting for them to walk away so that you can start slamming your children into the floor again. It is really sad that they can't use common sense. But a…

How do you know this women is guilty when a formal investigation has failed to substantiate that?

Individuals can know things without a formal investigation. Indeed, investigations are often based on accounts of what others already know about the matter. Investigations are held as a matter of public record so that the public can have documentation on the facts, circumstances, and conditions surrounding a case, which documentation is then presented in a trial where the people and/or their duly-appointed representatives pass judgment. The case is archived and subject to review by any interested parties at a later date.

An investigation is about due diligence and documentation. People can know things before a formal investigation is conducted. Suffice it to say that we had been quite close to this person and can affirm these things occurred with absolute surety.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#146

Post by Alex3917 »

Yaggo wrote: post #88
holdenc wrote: post #24

This kind of story is indicting of our culture. Outside the US nudity is not so taboo. In my daughter's kindergarten (a nice private school in Southeast Asia) boys and girls share the same bathroom, with no private stalls, and no door on the entrance. Everyone sees everything -- passers-by included. Meanwhile, in the US, nudity is synonymous with sex, and good people have to worry about things like this.

After reading the article, my first thought was "why I can't imagine that happening outside the US?". When and why did nudity become such a taboo there? It seems to be much more acceptable to show children violence than nudity, which I found absurd. I mean, which is more harmful for 13 years old child to see on TV, a breast or shooting?

"When and why did nudity become such a taboo there?"

It gradually became less and less common, but it didn't actually become taboo until relatively recently. Maybe 1996-1999 if I had to put a timeframe on it. This is back when we were approaching the millenium so there was momentum behind 'modern' reforms, and at the same time public opinion was mostly determined by glossy magazines like Newsweek. So around a lot of 'glossy' policy was enacted based on this formulaic and simplistic journalism style, which was good for covering the school shooting of the week but not so good for anything else.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#147

Post by Retric »

sliverstorm wrote: post #77
nagrom wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's terrifying because your position is that one shouldn't do something that is entirely harmless and innocent, for fear that you will be branded for life as something evil. It's even more terrifying because your position appears to be tacit acceptance of that situation. Some things should not have to be worked around. Some things are wrong, and should be decried. A situation where parents are scared to photograph a…

You can crack jokes in the airport about bombing planes, and carry bundles of wire in your luggage, and fight the system. Jokes are harmless and innocent, and you should be allowed to make them. Stand up against the injustice. Or, you could simply not do those things and get on your flight and on with your life.

I believe it's important to pick at least one fight with the establishment on principle in your life. The largest check on government power is when responsible citizens stand up for what's right. The government can bring a lot of leverage vs. a single person, but spread the issue around and things break down. A great example would be traffic tickets from a traffic camera; with a little effort you can cost the government more to prosecute the case than they collect from it.

PS: I would hate to be the (edit: completely innocent) person that tries to stand up to CPS, but create a blog, document everything. Hell, insist on a warrant, it's a constitutionally protected right etc.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#148

Post by Yaggo »

olliesaunders wrote: post #116
roc wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "When and why did nudity become such a taboo there? " Much of the country was built and populated by puritans. State's rights and a lack of urbanization allowed tight-knit communities of like-minded people to keep anyone different away. This created a sort of moral echo chamber, that carried their views into modernity without ever being tempered via intellectual or moral challenge. And the US system of representati…

Nudity, violence, and death cannot be hidden, they are inherit. Trying to hide them won't work. The more you hide it the more significant and fascinating the less frequent exposures appear. This isn't to say that extensive exposure can't lead to distorted conditioning or attitudes; it can. But you can't damage a child through non-exposure; it's just not possible in the first place.

Unless you work as a cop or live in a war zone, (luckily) most people don't usually see (or experience) brutal violence in their life. We learn that stuff from tv. But most of us exposure daily to naked human body (in fact, we live in one) and its intimate parts since day zero. So, while I agree that no child should hidden from reality (or vice versa), I would think twice what's the actual reality and the fictional-reality-brought-to-you-by-enterntaintment-industry.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#149

Post by jdminhbg »

steveklabnik wrote: post #110
Yaggo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After reading the article, my first thought was "why I can't imagine that happening outside the US?". When and why did nudity become such a taboo there? It seems to be much more acceptable to show children violence than nudity, which I found absurd. I mean, which is more harmful for 13 years old child to see on TV, a breast or shooting?

I'm not sure how to say this without sounding like a terrible troll, but when an entire religious group gets up and sails across an ocean because everyone back home won't stop telling them that they're crazy... what else would you expect?

This is just a sort of ahistorical folk wisdom explanation. An entire religious group sailed across the ocean because everyone back home told them they were crazy and founded Pennsylvania -- is the US noted for its fanatic devotion to pacifism?

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#150

Post by Robin_Message »

sliverstorm wrote: post #77
nagrom wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's terrifying because your position is that one shouldn't do something that is entirely harmless and innocent, for fear that you will be branded for life as something evil. It's even more terrifying because your position appears to be tacit acceptance of that situation. Some things should not have to be worked around. Some things are wrong, and should be decried. A situation where parents are scared to photograph a…

You can crack jokes in the airport about bombing planes, and carry bundles of wire in your luggage, and fight the system. Jokes are harmless and innocent, and you should be allowed to make them. Stand up against the injustice. Or, you could simply not do those things and get on your flight and on with your life.

I see your point, but pretending to bomb planes has no upside or possible reason behind it. It is not comparable to taking pictures of your kids having fun.
Post reply on HN