ABDLs need to be aware that having collections of baby pictures - no matter how innocent - might be considered suspicious and might put the ABDL at risk of child pornography charges.
By BitterGrey
The following has not been reviewed by a lawyer or other legal professional, and should not be considered legal advice for any specific individual or circumstance.
ABDLs need to be aware that having collections of baby pictures - no matter how innocent - might be considered suspicious and might put the ABDL at risk of child pornography charges.
There is a clear and critical difference between adult babies and pedophiles. An adult baby might look at any random baby picture and imagine what it would be like to be the baby; to be in a moment free of stress and worry, to be in the soft security of the diaper, and to have the unconditional love of the parents. In contrast, a pedophile might look at the same picture and see a baby to have sex with.
This "be" versus "be with" contrast is common, but generally taken for granted. A teenaged boy might have posters of race car drivers and supermodels in his bedroom. Most parents take for granted that he wants to grow up to become rich and famous (to 'be' the race car driver) and to marry the supermodel (to 'be with' her). It could also be taken for granted that those parents have a collection of baby pictures - their children, nephews, nieces, etc.
However, similar pictures collected by non-relatives raises concerns. Child molestation is a real danger in the world today, and is frequently in the news, so this concern is reasonable. It is also a regular theme in movies and TV, further inflaming this concern. Because of the dangers and visibility of child molestation, this concern spills over onto anything unusual that involves children. Even though adult babies only involve the concept of youth, the adult babies are put at risk. In particular, they might be misunderstood by those in law enforcement tasked with hunting down child molesters.
A Canadian detective is quoted as saying "You're making it seem as if there's a diaper world and a child pornography world. ... To me, they blend all the time." That particular case involved clear examples of child pornography in addition to the ambiguous pictures. However, it expressed a sentiment that ABDLs need to keep in mind: While many in law enforcement might be knowledgeable and aware of the differences between ABDLs and pedophiles, there are some that are not.
In California and possibly other jurisdictions, the law they are tasked with enforcing is much more vague and relative than commonly thought. Section 311 of the California penal code defines obscene matter: "...If it appears from the nature of the matter or the circumstances of its dissemination, distribution, or exhibition that it is designed for clearly defined deviant sexual groups, the appeal of the matter shall be judged with reference to its intended recipient group." This could be read as stating that a picture might become obscene if downloaded off a parenting forum and posted to some other forum, even though the picture itself didn't change.
Various other sections, such as 311.11(a) (possession of child pornography), refer to section 311.4 for the definition of sexual acts, which refers to section 288, which reads "...any lewd or lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child..." This intent-based definition seems unclear, especially given the stakes.
Contrary to what the general population thinks, sex or nudity might not be required for a picture to be considered obscene or pornographic.
Since protecting children is an important goal that many feel strongly about, this ambiguity is dangerous. Certainly we could hope that the investigators would be reasonable. However, some of them are overworked and jaded from exposure to far too much real child pornography. If some investigator decides to act, there won't be a discussion among rational and informed parties: Without warning, there might be a raid, the ABDL might be dragged off in chains, and the arrest for possession of child pornography might be announced in the news. We might also hope the judges would be reasonable. However, a great deal of irreparable damage might be done before the ABDL sees the judge. The ABDL, even if most people wouldn't consider anything in his collection pornographic, might be left trying to explain his collection of baby pictures to everyone. There may also be other, possibly lifelong repercursions.
Child molestation is a real problem, and to keep it in check, sometimes-overzealous law enforcement might be argued to be a necessary evil. This necessary evil imposes a risk on ABDLs individually and as a community, however innocent their intentions might be. Because this risk follows the collection of baby pictures, ABDLs can moderate or eliminate it: Avoid the collection of baby pictures.
Do you have Questions, tips, suggestions, or other feedback?