A Woman Is Suing Her Parents For Posting Embarrassing Childhood Photos To Facebook 412
Earlier this year, we ran a story which talked about how a parent could be sued by their kids for posting their photos on Facebook. Over the past two years, we have seen several such cases, and now we have another one. From a report on NYMag:An 18-year-old woman in Carinthia, Austria, is suing her parents over the 500-odd childhood photos they've posted of her on Facebook without her consent. "They knew no shame and no limit and didn't care whether it was a picture of me sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot -- every stage was photographed and then made public," she told The Local, an English-language Austrian newspaper. She went on, "I'm tired of not being taken seriously by my parents," who, despite her requests, have refused to take the photos down. The woman's father reportedly believes he's in the right to post the pictures because he took them. But her lawyer is adamant that if he can prove the photos violated the woman's right to privacy, her parents could be forced to pay damages and legal fees.
now (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It begins... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It has been some years since specialists began to warn about the dangers of over exposition of children online.
What danger? Turning them into narcissistic lawsuit-happy idiots?
Re:It begins... (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference is that, these days, the entire world can search for a person and find those embarrassing pictures at will. In the pre-internet days, that embarrassment was limited to the number of people whom the parents could physically shove those pictures in front of, assuming they didn't rent a billboard or something absurd like that. Instant global availability does changes things a bit, you have to admit. What happens if those pictures are the first thing that shows up when someone performs an online search using her name? Maybe that's not the first pictures she'd prefer to have someone find of her.
Worth suing your parents over? Obviously, this family had other issues. Reasonably people would have agreed to take down the photos after realizing it was making the child uncomfortable.
Good Lord... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Lord... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm trying to wrap my brain around a parent who says no to their child's request that photos of the child be taken down from the Internet.
This isn't even an issue of good parenting, it's an issue of common courtesy!
I'm trying to wrap my brain around someone who's embarrassed about something and thinking suing someone over it will somehow make things better.
Streisand effect [wikipedia.org], anyone?
"This embarrasses me, so my next step WILL MAKE EVEN MORE PEOPLE AWARE OF IT!!!"
Either brains are in short supply in that family tree (nuts aren't...), or this is really about something else entirely. And that's NOT an exclusive or.
Re:Good Lord... (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect this issue goes far deeper than some nude baby photos. She probably is experiencing harassment from them on a nearly daily basis because they think that she is their property and they have souls made of shit. I can fully sympathize with eventually being fed up with this illegal, abusive treatment and deciding that there is nowhere else to turn but the law. Seriously. You don't seriously consider taking your parents to court as an adult if they were fair and good to you your whole childhood.
Re:Good Lord... (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect this issue goes far deeper than some nude baby photos. She probably is experiencing harassment from them on a nearly daily basis because they think that she is their property and they have souls made of shit. I can fully sympathize with eventually being fed up with this illegal, abusive treatment and deciding that there is nowhere else to turn but the law. Seriously. You don't seriously consider taking your parents to court as an adult if they were fair and good to you your whole childhood.
It's much more likely the daughter is a hypersensitive, unsympathetic, thoughtless, self-absorbed twit.
Disclaimer: I have a teenage daughter.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, it could be that the parents are harassing the daughter because she is a twit in a huge game of one up-manship. Streisand effect is also in play here, and the pictures are no doubt being duplicated on sites that are not Facebook.
I am not sure what this lawsuit is supposed to do, but I am pretty sure it is having the exact opposite effect.
1) the Parents come off as douchbags
2) the Daughter comes off as "Precious Snowflake"
3) The lawsuit is having Streisand effect.
They just need to figure out
4) ???
And th
Re: (Score:2)
> Or, it could be that the parents are harassing the
> daughter because she is a twit in a huge game of
> one up-manship.
Both could be true. Teenagers can undoubtedly be self-absorbed and obstinate. But there are also, without a doubt, parents who view humiliating their children as something between a sport and a god-given right. In this case, the latter is definitely true. So the only question is whether or not the former is as well.
Asshole parents (Score:2)
It's much more likely the daughter is a hypersensitive, unsympathetic, thoughtless, self-absorbed twit.
Disagree. I think we have some parents who lack empathy, are emotionally abusive and lack common courtesy. If someone posted naked pictures of me at any age publicly I'd be entirely within my rights to be pissed off at that asshole. Whether they see it as a problem or not is irrelevant. Now I'm sure there is more at play here than this one little incident but based on the facts at hand I have to say the parents are WAY out of line here.
Disclaimer: I have a teenage daughter.
And do you go out of your way to embarrass her or cause her emotion
Re: (Score:2)
the daughter is a hypersensitive, unsympathetic, thoughtless, self-absorbed twit.
....who learned it from her parents. It's a family issue gone to court.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, I care far more about being embarrassed in front of my friends than everyone in China.
Re:Good Lord... (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't even an issue of good parenting, it's an issue of common courtesy!
Those are mostly the same thing. Many people have asked me how I taught my kids to be so polite. I explain that I never taught them manners, I just treat them with courtesy and respect, and they have learned through example. If I ask them to do something, I say "please". When they do it, I say "thank you". I knock before entering their bedroom. If we are going out to eat, I ask them their preference. Etc.
Re: (Score:3)
So if we want all the kids to act nice, we just have to make all the adults act nice.
Politeness and niceness are two different things. Cold hearted people can be very polite. I have a rude and profane friend who drove 120 miles to help me when my car broke down, and ridiculed me all the way home. He is a great friend and a nice guy, but not polite at all.
being a parent is a license to be a huge hypocrite
There is no reason that a hypocrite cannot treat other people with dignity and respect.
Re: (Score:2)
I would remove some pictures, but not all of them. Also, I would say "no" if her reason was that she's ugly, or some other non-sense like that.
If she really doesn't want to see her old pictures, she should just untag herself through Facebook and unfriend her parents.
Re: (Score:2)
However, it's a much more complex issue than that if you dig into it. According to copyright law, the photographers are the creators of those photos and have control over them. The subject was a minor and as such didn't have the authority to assign consent for use of them in the photos for various purposes - that falls to the parent or guardian who just happens to also be the content creator so naturally they would approve. And seeing as this is a non-commercial use, the previous point probably doesn't e
Re:Good Lord... (Score:4, Informative)
What is sexual is viewer dependent (Score:2)
Rules tend to be different when it's non sexualized photos of an infant. That's likely the case here.
What is "sexual" is very much dependent on the viewer. Some people have fetishes I could not begin to imagine being arousing but nevertheless they are real. Just because the parents are too dense to grasp that fact doesn't make it less true. Do you really want somebody with tendencies towards child molestation pleasuring themselves over your child's pictures? There are people who do that you know. It's not hard to make an argument that any picture of a naked child could be considered child porn. And
Re:Good Lord... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe in the US.
It's pretty commonplace for infant kids to run around naked on the beach in Europe for example. My niece is 4, and when I'm iChatting my parents over in the UK, it's pretty common to see her wandering round the house naked (lunchtime here being bath time in the UK). I don't see why photos are any different. Nudity just isn't such a big deal when the kid is so young they're still "innocent", at least for most Europeans. As far as I'm aware it's the same in Asia. It's mainly the US that's so puritanical over the human body.
And (presumably) the photos aren't sexual in nature. If someone was jacking off to them, the fault lies with that person, not with the photo.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in the US.
It's pretty commonplace for infant kids to run around naked on the beach in Europe for example. My niece is 4, and when I'm iChatting my parents over in the UK, it's pretty common to see her wandering round the house naked (lunchtime here being bath time in the UK). I don't see why photos are any different. Nudity just isn't such a big deal when the kid is so young they're still "innocent", at least for most Europeans. As far as I'm aware it's the same in Asia. It's mainly the US that's so puritanical over the human body.
And (presumably) the photos aren't sexual in nature. If someone was jacking off to them, the fault lies with that person, not with the photo.
I believe, though I don't have the time to google for it right now, that people in the UK have got in trouble for beach photos with kids in various states of undress. Being British I can totally believe that its true...
Re: (Score:3)
The law in the UK is specifically *not* for this sort of thing:
"The most recent amendment to the law, outlawing the possession of pornographic photographs of children, was introduced seven years ago, amid intense lobbying from campaigners who included Mary Whitehouse. Although John Patten, then a Home Office minister, emphasised it was not the intention to catch innocent family snaps of naked children in the bath or on the beach"
I quickly googled. There *are* people getting into trouble for taking photos of
Re: (Score:3)
Oh ffs, not this old stupidity again.
It's only if they're silver, and if you can't demonstrate you're purchasing on behalf of the local land owner.
Even then being able to reference your page in Who's Who suffices.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. I live in the US. You guys are nuts about this sort of stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely!!! And what sort of parent puts nude pics of their kids online? Usually, one would think it's the parents who are right, but in this case, the parents, or at least the dad, is a perv
If it were the UK they'd be sex offenders.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed I don't find pictures of a child going potty, sexual, and hopefully the vast majority rest of society doesn't either.
Also why do you assume its the Dad, my wife used to take photos of my children doing things naked. I didn't like it. Mainly because people like you that somehow think a nude child is somehow sexual, and because I thought it maybe embarrassing for them later. But I understood I was being a bit over the top.
I have a problem getting my children to keep their cloths on, I am working on mak
Re: (Score:2)
Also why do you assume its the Dad, my wife used to take photos of my children doing things naked. I didn't like it.
B'cos in the summary, it explicitly stated this
The woman's father reportedly believes he's in the right to post the pictures because he took them.
Re:Good Lord... (Score:5, Informative)
I tell my kids tough shit, suck it all the time. It's called being a parent and caving into random whims about stupid stuff. I mean... what kind of parent says no to a kid who wants ice cream for dinner! They want it so they must have it!
Seriously... everyone has baby photos. We take photos of babies and post them on the internet. Before the internet we put them in books and then drug the books out whenever our kids brought home a significant other. Get over it. You were once a baby naked and covered in mud/spaghetti sauce and your parents took a picture. It probably even got taken in to work and is hanging up in a cube/office. That time you crapped your pants? Mom and Dad remember and will bring it up. Again. And Again. You'll probably do the same thing to your kids. Suck it up. Life is tough and not everyone likes you. It's my job to make sure you have the tools to make it, not be your friend.
I suppose it is possible that these 'embarrassing' childhood photos are not the typical spaghetti covered baby photos. But if that is the case, the parents probably belong in jail for other reasons.
I am a parent. I also have respect for my child (and for people in general), and their reasonable right to their privacy. If I posted an old picture of a friend from college, and that friend said "hey, I'd rather not have that on the Internet," I'd immediately take it down.
Re:Good Lord... (Score:5, Insightful)
We take photos of babies and post them on the internet. Before the internet we put them in books and then drug the books out whenever our kids brought home a significant other.
You don't recognize there's a massive difference in scale there? I mean really?
It's like you embraced the internet fully but didn't recognize that it's a completely different thing than the books on your shelves. Yours kids employers aren't going around looking at your bookshelves, they are looking at their social media if it's public.
That's just for starters...
Re:Good Lord... (Score:5, Insightful)
If your employer doesn't hire you because of a naked spaghetti covered baby photo from 20 years ago, you probably need a better employer. Those kinds of photos are not things that reasonable people should be embarrassed about.
Weren't we all talking about that poor girl who got napalmed having her photo plastered all over the net the other day? And the world pretty much told her to suck it too. We didn't even need the internet to spread her picture around.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd just like to point out that: "It's my job to make sure you have the tools to make it, not be your friend."
Is kinda of contradictory based upon your 'fuck you I don't care about your employers' attitude.
Bringing up the napalm girl isn't even close to relevant here, and um, that was indeed a controversial talking point at the time it was broadcast, and still today even.
Re: (Score:3)
She apparently tried. In her documentary it talks about how she tried to get people to stop distributing the photo. From her point of view as a young woman that was a pretty terrible picture to have going around. But the media simply ignored her because it was 'important'. It wasn't until she was much older that she was able to recognize and accept the historic significance of the photo.
Re:Good Lord... (Score:5, Interesting)
She's an adult now. You will probably want your kids to talk to you when you're 70. No one is going to carry a grudge about the lack of ice cream dinners, but this sort of thing? Public embarrassment of an adult? Questionably legal (clearly they don't have her consent as a model, though I'm not sure how Austrian law works for photos)? That's the sort of thing that makes people decide their life is better if they disown you.
Re: (Score:2)
Her legal guardians at the time the photos were taken decided it was ok to put the photos online. She has a point about pictures taken now, as the parents are no longer her legal guardians.
So that's Austrian law then? Sounds like speculation. The rights of an adult regarding decisions make by their guardians earlier aren't exactly standardized.
Interesting Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Interesting Question (Score:2)
Depends in the country. In Germany starting with 14 you can deny your parents to post content on you. It can be different in Austria, the USA, the UK etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary says she's 18. Pardon if you realized this and were trying to make a point unrelated to the article.
Re: (Score:2)
But, from the original source: "She claims that since 2009 they have made her life a misery by constantly posting photos of her, including embarrassing and intimate images from her childhood."
GP asked a legitimate question concerning whether the parents need consent when they have the power to make legal decisions on behalf of their minor child, i.e., from 2009 to 2015-16.
Her present age is only relevant if you support some form of the "right to be forgotten" that applies to everyone -- not merely "data pro
Well, I guarantee... (Score:3)
The days of her parents not taking her very seriously are coming to a middle.
I'm going to make a guess (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hrmn .... (Score:2)
At least here in the USA, such things have happened (kids filing lawsuits against their parents over various grievances) -- but I think 99.9% of the population takes a very dim view of it.
I guess I'm ok with the legal OPTION being available for such things? But it seems really extreme. I'm not sure that most minor kids fully realize the ramifications of doing such a thing. I mean ... as much as you may dislike your parents embarrassing you with your childhood photos, you may later decide that was "nothin
You are all Missing the point (Score:2, Informative)
This isn't really about the photos per se.
To be bothered by something so ordinary is pathological, so ask yourselves, why is she so self conscious to be bothered by this ordinary thing.
There is actually a big clue in the story, the parents refused to take down the photos because the "father _owns_ them".
That shows a complete lack of empathy for ones own child is hugely narcissistic.
Looks like we have a new Barbra Streisand (Score:2)
A man named Jayne (Score:2)
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle"
This might be a hoax (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Childish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Both. The daughter suing her parents over this is absurd but the parents not removing them when it evidently upsets her this much is appalling.
Re:Childish... (Score:4, Interesting)
So you think she should NOT have a right to have naked pictures of her taken offline?
Re:Childish... (Score:4, Insightful)
So you think she should NOT have a right to have naked pictures of her taken offline?
Just because you have right to do something doesn't mean it is right to do it. Yes, she has the right to sue. But that may not be the best way to resolve this dispute.
Of course, I don't know her, or her parents, and I didn't even read the article, so I am not qualified to make a judgement either way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, having a right does EXACTLY mean that it's right to do it.
What should she do? She obviously asked her parents to take them down, which they refused. The father still thinks he has the right to have those pictures up there (which he does not by the way, at least not according to Austrian law concerning "rights to your own picture" [rsv-fotografen.at] (text in German, sorry), the important part reads: Austrian Copyright ("Urheberrecht"), article 78, section 1: "Pictures or paintings of people may not be published or ma
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, having a right does EXACTLY mean that it's right to do it.
No, it really really doesn't, unless you have a purely legalistic view of reality.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My parents would not see me or their grand children again if they post pictures of me on Facebook. It is not a hard rule to follow.
Re:Childish... (Score:4, Interesting)
My parents would not see me or their grand children again if they post pictures of me on Facebook. It is not a hard rule to follow.
And who knows how much of the story we are getting about this. There might be some strange dynamics going on. I had a wealthy uncle who used to control most of us with threatening to cut us out of his will.
When he tried that with me, I just said "bye!". Then when he did die, he gave it all to his prodigal son, who after a life of loose women and booze, found Jesus and "reconciled with his father. Gave the prodigal son the entire estate, which the son promptly gave to the church.
I fuckin' howled! I still tease my kissass relatives asking how they invested their inheritance from Uncle Bob.
Point is, peeps be trippin'.
Not all parents are nice people (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd take them down, then thar would be the last she ever heard of me. "You are no longer in our life, person - is that taking you seriously enough?"
If your response to everyone that gets mad at you for something you did is to shut them out of your life forever you're going to live a pretty lonely life. Doubly so if those people are your children. Shutting a child out of your life is an absolutely brutal thing to do. I have direct experience in my family of what this is like. Parents who do this for any reason other than self protection are assholes.
You are correct about not knowing the dynamics of the situation. but if a child of mine ever sued me for anything, it would be the last contact they'd ever have with me.
Based on your response that might be good thing. You sound unbalanced and I'm guessing you don't have children. You seriously believe that no matter how badly you behave the child should never be able to drag you in to court? Some parents are terrible, abusive, mean, or manipulative. Some parents steal from their children or beat them or abuse them both physically and psychologically. There is a reason emancipated minors [wikipedia.org] are a thing. If an adult (she is 18) child actually gets to the point where you behavior has made them think that the only means to get you to behave nicely is to sue you then the problem is most likely YOU. What exactly do the parents lose by taking the pictures down? Nothing. They are keeping them up just out of spite and/or disrespect for self indulgent reasons. I'm having trouble seeing any scenario where the parents are the good guys here.
If I posted a picture of someone and they asked me to take it down I see no reason to be a jerk about it and ignore the request. Granted going to court about it is pretty extreme but it's entirely conceivable that it is justified (or possibly not). Frankly I wouldn't want all my childhood pictures being posted publicly either so I get where the daughter is coming from. I don't have a facebook account for this very reason among others. Some people value their privacy and don't want everyone in the world to see every detail of their lives. Reasonable people will honor this point of view so long as it causes no harm and none could possibly come from taking down the pictures..
Re: (Score:2)
You would disown your own child because they took offense to some pictures you posted?
I bet your are a Christian. Would disown your own child if they came out gay.
You should re-read my post. I said I would do that if a child of mine sued me. Then again, I wouldn't put childhood photos of him on facebook or anywhere else either.
But if he found fit to take me to court, he would be disowning me the moment I got the summons.
And you must be new around here if you managed to to read me as a Christian, and concerned about who puts what thing where
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all... most of society doesn't judge adults by how silly they may have looked as children, and the portion of society that does is not worth spending any time with in the first place.
And while it is wholly deplorable of her parents to not respect her desire to have those pictures taken down, her attitude about how bad she thinks it will affect her isn't exactly brimming with a mature point of view. As I said, most people probably don't care about silly childhood photo's. On top of it, that sh
Re: (Score:3)
I do, unless they where sexualized then they are there photos (In that case they should be arrested either way), the probably should not post them if their daughter does not like them, but it should not be a matter for the legal system, the family should sort it out between themselves.
By extension all photos your parents take should not be published until the child is old enough to give legal consent, who should have the right to decide on any image shouldn't you?
From a legal standpoint they where the legal
So, what's her other option? (Score:5, Insightful)
Both. The daughter suing her parents over this is absurd but the parents not removing them when it evidently upsets her this much is appalling.
So, what should she do if her parents refuse to remove photos, including her "sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot"?
You're telling me it's "absurd" for her to sue, and she should "Grow The Fuck Up (tm)". But you're not telling me what she should actually do. What choices does she have other than suing?
Re:So, what's her other option? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're telling me it's "absurd" for her to sue, and she should "Grow The Fuck Up (tm)". But you're not telling me what she should actually do. What choices does she have other than suing?
The obvious answer is to ignore it. Non-mentally-ill adults do not experience "emotional distress" over the fact that people may see some of their baby pictures.
Lacking empathy = mentally ill (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious answer is to ignore it. Non-mentally-ill adults do not experience "emotional distress" over the fact that people may see some of their baby pictures.
Why should she ignore it? That will not solve her problem. They are pictures of her, not pictures of you and they affect her. There can be real consequences to having even seemingly innocent information made public. Maybe you don't care but she's entitled to a different opinion. I don't like having pictures of me posted without my consent either. It's one of the reasons I don't participate in facebook. The parents are being very disrespectful and possibly harmful. It costs them nothing to take the pictures down and respect her harmless request for privacy. Mentally ill people are those who lack empathy for others and the parents are the ones showing a distinct lack of it here.
I can get on board with the notion that suing might be overkill here but there is no objective reason for the parents to persist their behavior. I very much doubt they would like naked pictures of themselves posted publicly. The fact that she is a child in the pictures makes them arguably child porn if she really wants to play hardball over it. Just because someone is your parent doesn't make any and all behavior towards their child acceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
That will not solve her problem.
Removing the photos won't solve her problem either. This needs specialist psychiatric care.
Re:Lacking empathy = mentally ill (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you don't care but she's entitled to a different opinion.
She certainly does. She's even entitled to a different opinion on whether or not she should sue her parents. That doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to have an opinion.
I can get on board with the notion that suing might be overkill here but there is no objective reason for the parents to persist their behavior.
I don't disagree. Her parents should remove the pictures. But the original question was what should she do. Her father is evidently a jackass; she can't control that. In reality, it would be better for her, her parents, and everyone else if she were to let it go rather than going to the extreme of suing them.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that she is a child in the pictures makes them arguably child porn if she really wants to play hardball over it.
Child porn, really? Do you have to destroy your argument with such hyperbole?
Maybe if it weren't on Facebook (Score:2)
where they will use every metric you can imagine and quite a few you probably can't to track this girl the rest of her natural life.
Also, don't they claim ownership of everything posted? Maybe she should be telling Facebook to take them down and if they don't comply sue them instead.
Facebook has dark profiles on people who don't have accounts. They do facial recognition and other shit to harvest as much data as absolutely possible. Embarrassing or not her parents have murdered her privacy for life. Damage i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
OK, let's say she has a mental illness in which those photographs cause her a lot of distress.
If that is the case, then the correct option is still not to sue her parents. The correct option is to help her get the medical help she needs.
Of course, you're not going to agree with this, because you framed your answer in such a way as to imply that mentally ill people have no right to sue to have their rights respected.
There is no right to not be distressed, regardless of whether or not you are mentally ill.
Re: (Score:3)
What about potential employers turning her down for a job in public relations?
She's more likely to get turned down for a job because she's shown she's an hysterical clown by suing her parents over some baby photos.
Re: (Score:3)
You're telling me it's "absurd" for her to sue, and she should "Grow The Fuck Up (tm)". But you're not telling me what she should actually do. What choices does she have other than suing?
I interpreted the GP post a bit differently. I agree that it is absurd that she is suing her parents over this stuff...but that it's not as absurd as her parents not taking them down (or changing the sharing to "Me only"). The whole situation has gone sideways.
Perhaps her parents are considering it on the same level as a scrapbook/album? I only hope that someone explained to them a key difference:
Facebook sharing is like a picture album that you have no problem lending out to any of your friends (or Fo
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But you're not telling me what she should actually do. What choices does she have other than suing?
How about ignoring it?
Or if she wanted to put a screeching halt to it, after her parents posted a photo, she should reply on Facebook, "You should post the ones you took after what you did to me next Daddy!"
Re:So, what's her other option? (Score:4, Insightful)
She could choose to not be offended, and realize that the fact that she considers those photos of her to be embarassing is actually her own problem, because they were taken years and years ago, and are not relevant to anything that she might care about today. The photos were probably posted for sentimental reasons, not to ridicule.
That being said, I think it is abhorrent that the parents didn't take the photos offline when she asked them to. As immature as I think she's being about the whole thing, it's as disrespectful as hell to not be considerate of another human being's feelings when they've honestly described how you may have upset them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I took a pic of my dad pissing into the fridge when he was drunk.
He never felt the urge to show my baby pics anyone ever again...
Re:Sucks to be her I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Teenagers are tricky create they often have little empathy of their own yet are highly sensitive to perceived slights and are easily embarrassed. They are also impulsive and easily convinced to do things that are ultimately only going to be self destructive like suing ones own parents over a relatively minor thing.
I can understand both attitudes here. As a parent you need to show that it is you are in control and you who make the rules. You don't have to stop doing something because your children don't approve, but they will not be permitted to do what you find objectionable beyond the leeway you might be willing to afford them.
On the other hand if it was my kid this isn't the hill I'd pick to die on (well I never would have posted the stuff in the first place). I think I would say well mom and I posted those pictures because we are proud of you and our family but if they make you uncomfortable we will mark them private so only us and your grand parents can see them. Seem like this would be a good moment to show some empathy and hope the kid models in the future.
Re:Sucks to be her I guess (Score:5, Informative)
Well the fact that she is now 18 legally she is an adult. While people mature at different rates, and many 18 year olds still have a lot of maturity problems. However the parents who should have more empathy should had listened to their child's concerns and take them down, and not use such a thing as some sort of power play. For this particular case seems out of hand.
Re:Sucks to be her I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you attempting to claim that the person is correctly handling conflict resolution by asking the Government to give her "her" way? Sorry, but that is absolutely not conflict resolution, it's bullying. Given that action, how likely is it that she ever talked to them and asked them to take down any photos compared to trying to bully her parents into taking the pictures down? I could be wrong, but generally gauge people pretty well.
I agree that there could be problems on both sides, but her side is open for inspection. Pictures of her on a potty chair (one of the ones I heard she had in her complain) are not bad by default. My parents had pictures of me on the potty chair, another in my undies with Chicken Pox, etc.. I didn't do the same for my kid, but that's not in any way claiming my parents were wrong. It was a personal preference where I simply didn't take photos like my parents did. They invested hundreds of hours on setting up photo albums, I didn't.
If the pictures were of her being naked it would be considered porn and her parents would have had to remove the photos and probably be facing criminla charges. That is not the case presented thus far, if you have different evidence show it.
Re: (Score:2)
If the pictures were of her being naked it would be considered porn and her parents would have had to remove the photos and probably be facing criminal charges.
Simple (or non-sexualized) nudity -- even of minors -- is usually not considered porn or illegal. Haven't seen the photos in question, but context is important.
Re: (Score:3)
I could be wrong, but generally gauge people pretty well.
There is not enough back story really to draw a conclusion.
People and the motives that move them through the day are not that simple, I would recommend against that type of attitude. People can't be categorized into a few personalities types.
Re:Sucks to be her I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
I reassured the mom that it wasn't public. She didn't care, - but the kids sure did. They were mortified at the thought that their friends might find it. Teenagers are VERY image conscious. Even though they'll post the dumbest stuff on youtube, snapchat, and instagram, - things that they'll find much more embarrassing a decade from now, they want to control their image. I get that.
There is no doubt in my mind that childhood pictures could be a source of ridicule for a teen. At the same time, I doubt their friends' or enemies' opinions about them are influenced one way or the other by naked baby pictures. As a teen it's hard to see that though and I think the parents need a little more empathy in this case. It's idiotic that something like this requires intervention by a court to resolve but I blame the parents both for being stupid about it and for raising a kid that would file a lawsuit over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
One thing to consider: the older you get, the more you're going to want your kids to contact you, and the less they'll need for you. Don't burn those bridges.
Re: (Score:3)
My son was seven when he told me & my wife that we'd better be nice to him because later on he'd be the one choosing our retirement home...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't care. I didn't want the kids in the first place ... their mother is a wretch
Wow, what a shining example of human compassion you are. And/or you really can pick em.
And that stuff about 'deciding where you go to a retirement home' doesn't matter if you have your documentation properly written.
... and you have the money to pay for it. It's when things don't go as planned and you need your kids' financial help that you're totally at their mercy. I've known people who were well enough off at retirement discover this. Well, here's hoping the next 15 years' markets aren't the trainwreck the past 15 years' were.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When everyone you see is an asshole: look in the mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if the parent was knowingly (or at least with reasonable assumption) aware that a brand of diapers was causing harm, you most certainly can sue. If I was neglected or mistreated as a child, be it a parent, guardian, orphanage, etc.. I'd be in good standing to sue. As parent, you're talking the life and care of the child in your hands (if you don't like it, put them up for adoption). If you don't like big brother telling you how to raise your kids, move somewhere that doesn't care what the fuck you do
Re: (Score:2)
You can sue anyone for whatever you like. Question is, will you win? BTW, I didn't say diapers are causing harm, just that they were wrong brand.
I have full freedom to decide how I want to raise my kids as long as I am not breaking any law. There is no law against using cheap diaper, buying ugly clothes or posting innocuous photos. If you can sue (and win) here, how will you prevent someone suing parent for sending him to soccer game causing injury?
Every parents in the world has done few things that their g
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a very particular case, not a sliding scale.
As she is now 18 she has a professional reputation that she need to maintain as well an online presence. Kids pictures from the parent without the adult childs consent is rather hindering.
Re: (Score:2)
The Boomer approach when they were 18 would join a commune smoke a bunch of stuff and 40 years later find ways for everyone to pay their medical bills.
Generation X approach would just leave the house and live off of internet stock.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Must be a Millennial.
I don't know... suing them is showing initiative so can't be a typical Millennial.
Re: (Score:2)
An 18 year old would have been born in '97 or '98. A lot of people like to cut off the definition of millenials at '95.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boomer: '45-'65
Gen X: '65-'85
Millennial: '85-'05
The people who cut off Millennial at '95 need to share their definitions of generations...
This. If you don't think someone born at the turn of the millennium is a Millennial, well, don't expect others to share your private definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably getting kicked out anyway... If you win then you get money for your new life.
Re:Naked photos (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, it's like nothing makes sense anymore! Naked girl on fire good, naked girl not on fire bad, how exactly are we deciding these things?!