My Clause Has Arrived.

Well here it is. I had to miss this year's preschool orientation because I was at Madison's curriculum night listening to a nice teacher say, "Blah blah blah..." about school and learning and schedules. After that we listened to the principal spout out useless (to me) data about the MEAP and the RSI and the ACT and on an on until even the teacher had drool coming out of the corner of her mouth.

Thankfully Andrea and Leslie and Chrissy and Stephanie were at the preschool orientation and picked up my packet of information. After orientation Logan and I had a date night planned to celebrate my birthday early since he'll be in New York City on my actual birthday. We ate dinner and then Hey! There's Andrea and Mark. I think to myself, "Wow, what a coincidence! Andrea and Mark are here on a date night too! What are the chances we'd both get a sitter on a week night and end up at the same place."

Sometimes I'm a little slow. It was a surprise. And my goodness we had fun and I have the best husband and the best friends and also the best friends' spouses.

Leslie brought my orientation paperwork to the restaurant and they all proudly told me there was in fact, a Suburban Bliss Clause. I found it and cheered and drank to that!

This morning I started to read the actual agreement, and I think it's kind of over kill. But then maybe I'm sensitive to rules being placed on my use of my OWN photographs of my OWN child and my child's friends who's parents have given me permission to publish their photographs on this website. But no! I can't just have my own permission or the permission of my friends, I have to have written permission from the school to publish any picture taken on school property.

According to this Technology Agreement I can't publish this photo of my own child at a school event without first asking the school if it's okay. Same with this one and this one, even though I have permission from the other Max's mother, I don't have permission from the school.

Under this 'technology manifesto' taking a picture of my daughter in front of her coat hook on the first day of school and not asking the school for written permission to share it would be grounds for a "review" of my "affiliation" with the school.

Look, I understood the problem the minute Marnie emailed me. I took steps to insure no other child would be shown (with a funny caption or not) without permission on my website.

Now I'm required to ask for permission to publish photos of my friends' children and my own child if they happen to be at a preschool event? Is this even legal?

Comments

[Mir]

Wow. You're... infamous!

My guess is that--given that they're a private institution--it's not illegal. They can make any rule they want, basically, and then say that if you violate it, you're subject to review. So no, it's not illegal.

It is, however, moronic, paranoid, and ridiculous.

[JustLinda]

Legal? I dunno.

Makes me glad I'm often a willing rule-breaker though. :D

[Marn]

They clearly didn't read this from the perspective of a parent. I think you should point out the conundrum they've created, and let them stew a little more about how to fix it. If they don't fix it, I think you should keep plastering them with requests to put pictures of your own children on your own website. I would.

[kari]

Wow. How infuriating.

And so NOT Christian.

Sigh.

[clickmom]

Welcome to the 21st century. I am guessing the school checked with their lawyer for this. People are freaking over such things at our school, last year some crazy woman thought her rights had been violated when her name and address appeared in the school directory. Now we have to initial for our approval, and all our emergency information has to be destroyed at the end of each school year. Oy vey!

[Amanda]

I think that it's to protect the children. I had to sign a paper allowing my child to have their picture taken and put in print or on TV, when on school grounds. Put yourself in the other non-bogging parents shoes. Pervs go scanning the net for pics of kids, to get their jollies off of. My best friend works in the cyber porn division, and most of the pictures are not naked, they're clothed smiling children—they are some sick bastards out there.

I actually am surprised mostly that your child goes to a Christian pre-school. You don't write like one, and your mouth certinally isn't very clean. But then again I guess you always want for your children better than you had it, or hope that your children will be better than yourself. I'm not saying your not, but you don't present yourself as one on your blog. I was thinking you were agnostic.

[FlippyO]

Yeah, take dozens of pictures of Max and his little friends who have picture approving parents and submit the dozens of requests. Actually, make it HUNDREDS of requests (you have an SLR, should be easy) each week. I would.

[FlippyO]

Melissa has a potty mouth! Melissa has a potty mouth! Nyah, nyah, nyah.

Hey Amanda, pervs will find pictures anywhere. And if they're getting off on pictures of clothed children...you think there's any shortage of that, ANYWHERE? Tv, movies, magazines, stock photos online, stock photo catalogs, newspapers. Geez, why don't we put children in paper bags, with eyeholes cut out? Or Hazmat suits. That'll take care of the problem. Oh wait, what if some perv has a hazmat suit fetish? Crap, we're fucked. (<-- I am not a Christian)

[whatawookie]

It is most likely entirely legal.

You probably won't get "crap" if you took a picture with only your kid showing and no identifying marks about the school (ie- in front of her coat hook), or even if you took pictures of just your kid (alone) in front of the sign. That's not what they are after.

The school is literally covering their ass so that if someone takes pictures and posts, distributes or publishes them, it's not *their* fault because *they* didn't give written permission.

It has nothing to do with hiding the children. It started out probably as a response to the particulars of the child pornography/privacy act. As some parents get hysterical about their kid being photographed, it's become a fair bit more "blanket" in it's application. Some parents are nit-wits.

The internet clause is probably a new one, and may indeed have come up because of just how well-read your site is and the well documented "incident" from last year. You ARE famous! Cool!

[GG]

FlippyO, you're a riot! Very funny and very well put! Melissa, when is your real birthday? Happy Birthday in advance! Glad you had fun!And now you are like Dooce! If someone prints a picture w/o a school's permission, they've been "Blissed"!!

[Pete]

A strict reading of that clause indicates that you are not to publish pictures of your own children on your website REGARDLESS of whether they're at the school or not. Key there being "ANY child or [as opposed to 'and'] part of the school"

Still totally legal, of course... and probably won't be enforced unless there's a 'problem'

But absent any addition that it needs to be a school function or at school, the clause is pretty clear that you're not to post pictures of anyone's children AT ALL unless OK'd by the school.

Which is pretty ridiculous -- I have a hard time believing the school's attorney missed something so obvious.

[Mir]

Yeah, Melissa, you don't write like a motherfucking Christian. You made the baby Jesus cry. Everyone knows that if you use naughty words your soul burns in the fiery pits of hell.

Also, good Christians point out the perceived lack of Christianity in others. God loves that!

[wendy]

Moms are really screwed up sometimes. People who leave comments can be even screwed-uppier. I bow down to Mir who took the words out of my mouth... planks in one's own eyes seem to be not-withstanding when it comes to posting comments. sheesh. Talk about commenting on something that was completely irrelevant. I am more upset by her than I am by the SBB Clause your school has. What is this world coming to?

I am off to take picture of my kid and post them on the internet without the permission of your kid's preschool. BAD ME! I shall now have to go into hiding...

[Nicole]

Happy Birthday, you badass!

[Lisa V]

Hey Amanda- who says Christians are better than agnostics? Also I think Jesus probably has a lot more to judge humanity by than whether or not they say "fuck." Just a guess.

[Lisa V]

Oh I forgot "Happy Fuckin' Birthday."

[coolbeans]

Before I run over to Mir's house to make out with her for being so incredibly witty, I just want to add my own not-nearly-as-funny-comment.

Isn't the real reason you missed the orientation because you can't set foot on sacred ground without starting to cook a little? EVILDOER! I can't believe a Christian organization would take money from a seemingly non-Christian potty mouth.

[Andrea]

Considering the tons of pictures that I post of my own child this is one fucking freaky clause. It gives the feeling of overstepping the boundries of ones right to freedom of speech. I can understand not having the schools name for a variety of reasons but the rest is a tad overboard.
Do you have any lawyer friends who can look at it for you?

[susan]

Happy birthday to you! And Logan's toes are gross.

I think those toes might make Baby Jesus cry.

[Julie]

Seems like CYA legalese to me - to indemnify the school in the event that some other parent gets pissy about what ended up on the Internet (be it on your site or elsewhere). I say, do whatcha want.

And those pictures made me realize that I need a night out, stat. Happy birthday!

[maia]

If I took a pic of MY kid and one of his/her buddies (whose parents I know and am friends with) I would have no problem posting it to my blog. Rules or no rules.

Maybe this is why I don't have a blog. So damned complicated and can you ever keep EVERYONE happy?!

Congratulations on making it through the summer. I am currently toasting to the fact school has started again and I have 6.5 hours to myself during the day to work, do housework, goof off, and just generally have some FREEDOM dammit!

[VenturaMom]

Oh fuck, I forgot to find religion! Thankfully, I can pray at the church of the potty-mouthed mommy bloggers.

[DM]

Gee. You send your children to a Christian pre-school. And yet, you don't seem like a Christian because you use the word fuck. Wow. Hey, I am a Christian and I do use the word fuck. My mouth is not clean at all. This is one of the reasons I consider myself spiritual and not religious because most religious people are incredibly judgemental and annoying as FUCK!

I am now waiting for the lightening strike. Hmm. Nope. God must be busy.

My sister won't let me post pictures of my nephew on my blog because she is worried about people kidnapping him. It's kind of irritating because he's a cute little brat and I love to show him off.

Oh, happy birthday by the way!

[Karen]

Pete beat me to it -- the wording of the clause suggests that you can't post a photo of any kid who is enrolled at that preschool, even if the kid happens to be at your house at the time. Y'know, like your own kid at his own breakfast table. Shouldn't it have just said you can't post a photo of any children in the preschool setting?

For the record, last year I posted a photo of my whole family gathered to celebrate our grandma's 97th birthday, and my own sisters flipped out and made me take it down because they didn't want their teenaged kids' photos online. Even though it was a huge group photo and their faces were the size of watermelon seeds.

[christy]

"My best friend works in the cyber porn division."

Ther cyber-porn division of what? The police? His or her own personal porn-investigation team? And in this cyber-porn division are they inspecting many photos of fully-clothed children in every day settings? How do they narrow it down? Is it just the Christian children? Or the children at Chrisian schools? Or maybe only the children of parents who are possibly agnostic but send their children to Christian preschools?

Like someone else said, there are about 4 gazillion photos of kids out there. If people don't want their own kids photos on the internet, well then, that's fine for you, but to say that you can't even give permission to someone else to post pictures? That's just asinine.

Also, I hate committees. This has the stench of a committee all over it.

[karyn]

What a pretty clause! You must be so proud.

Maybe you should call the school for permission every time you want to post a pic of Madison or Max on your website. See how many times you have to call them before the amended clause shows up in the handbook.

On a different note: Happy Birthday!

[MelissaS]

You know Amanda I *did* put myself in the non blogging parents shoes. This is why I white out the pictures of kids from the school who's parents have not given me permission.

This 'clause' says that's not even enough. I now have to get permission from myself and my friends and THEN have to submit the photos to the school for permission. I've been attempting to compromise with the director of the school but she fails to see the ridiculousness of requiring me to ask permission before I publish a picture of my own child. I'm sorry but that's ludicrous.

Again unless you take your child out in the world wearing a tarp (as Alice said), then you're putting them at some risk for pedophiles or 'creeps' to think they're cute. I realize, as I've said REPEATEDLY, that I do not have the right to take that risk for other parents without getting their permission. Why that alone is not enough is beyond me.

Amanda, your comment about wanting 'better' or hoping my children will be 'better' because they are going to a christian preschool is incredibly mean spirited.

I thought 'Christians' came in many forms? I am not a 'Christian' because I don't believe that rules of a group of people define the 'goodness' of others. I believe their actions do. At the same time I believe there is a God of some kind. I believe the Presbyterians are generally good people and the religion they teach is not about "If you say Fuck then you are not good". They teach about being good to others and kind and loving to your parents and such.

Also they teach about ridiculous beauracracy apparently.

I have a spirituality that does not include organized religion and frankly my general experiences with Christians has left me with a horrible taste in my mouth. Your comments are currently at the top of that list.

[Michele]

I don't think that the clause is that bad, considering that it's really to look out for the safety of children. Private schools get to set their own rules about a lot of things. I don't post pictures of my son anymore on my blog (and he was always clothed.) I found that one of his pictures was getting a lot of traffic. We finally searched it down, and it was on a kiddie porn site--I can't tell you how much that turned my stomach. I only post things now password protected and for a select few.

I'm sure that this school was trying to please the greater when they wrote this. They're kids, and they only have us to make the judgments for them. Also you're the parent of your child and what you deem as wrong is right for another. It's really about respect, respecting the wishes of the parents of the other children.

[MelissaS]

Michelle, sometimes I feel like no one actually reads what I'm writing.

I'm not asking ANYONE else to let me publish pictures of their child without their permission. This clause if you read it requires even ME to ask permission before I publish a picture of my own child. I also have to get additional permission (the criteria for that is unclear) once I have permission from other parents. I don't think they truly comprehended what they were writing.

Like you said what is right for one parent isn't right for another. I am willing to respect others wishes, why aren't they willing to respect mine?

[Sarah]

Melissa, why can't you be a better Christian, damnit?

I think you need to put a clause up on your website prohbiting sanctimonious, hypocritical, narrow-minded, lame people from reading or commenting. It is people like that who ensure I will never, ever become a good Christian so long as I can help it.

That said, my theory on women like that is that they are over-compensating for the guilt they carry over fact that their husbands make them do freaky stuff in bed that they aren't comfortable with, yet that isn't expressly forbidden in the Bible.

[Amanda - as in mandajuice, not that other one]

I'd just like to point out that the other "Amanda" is not me. No fucking way!

I actually can't think of two topics about which I more VEHEMENTLY AGREE with Melissa. Perverts will be perverts no matter what we do. To insinuate that somehow my child is more likely to be harmed just because his picture is on the intenet is completely ridiculous!

And religion? I get that same bad taste in my own mouth when I think of certain "Christians". But I'm just a lowly agnostic, so what do I know?

And as far as I'm concerned, I think Melissa should continue to post pictures of her own children on her own website - no matter WHERE the pictures are taken. Let the school "take action" if they want to - they'd never be able to defend that clause in a court of law!

[MollieBee]

Thoughts on pics:

Logan is a hottie.

Your kids are yummy and delicious.

You are gorgeous and divine! Happy early birthday!

[lawbrat]

I read what your writing, and I had the same thought when reading some of the comments. Did they actually read the post?? I think some people want to read what they want to read, regardless of what it actually says.
I post pics of my kids, and if theres pics of someone elses kid, its just curtosy to ask. No big deal. My kids school has a similar clause, not quite as stringent, but I REFUSE to ask permission on what to do with my own children. Soccer game pics...up. You cant see other kids.
Some people can just go fuck themselves.
Oh yea, I'm a christian and I do say fuck sometimes.

[Leslie]

You should follow that clause to the fucking letter. Start taking at least 20 pictures of your kids a day. Ask for permission for each photo separately. Also, take pictures of your friends kids who gave you permission and have them ask for permission for each photo separately. Also, if they don't get back to you within 24 hours, resubmit your request, you know, in case they missed it the first time.

Or maybe you don't take the same giddy pleasure that I do in making people eat their own shit. Or you could actually have a life and not have time for that kind of thing.

[Raina]

Happy birthday for the actual day - glad you had a good surprise night out.
Re the photo thing - sounds like someone read some publishing guidelines and worried about potential litigation, so cobbled together a clause, and messed up!
Here in Australia the Dept of Ed has strict rules as to what can be published in association with a school. I recently put together a school website and we had to go through and get signed permission from every parent in the school to use photos of their kids on the site - even though some weren't on there, and other kids were totally unrecognisable due to the size of the photos. Considering there are about 800 kids at the school, it wasn't a fun job, as some parents did not give permission and we had to ensure that their kids did not appear anywhere on site, even in the distance in photos!

But yeah, sounds like someone has screwed up. I'm with Karyn, I would go tell them first about the problem, and if that didn't work, be asking for permission every single time I wanted to put a photo up until someone realised 'oh gee, we screwed up'.

[Molly]

Hey Melissa,

I just got home from a church picnic (yes, Christian) and had to tell you to have a FUCKIN' happy birthday!!

And pestering the school with requests for approval to post pictures of your own kids is a great idea!

[vanessa]

re pics:
happy birthday!
the clause seems like EXTREME overkill, and i LOVE the idea of calling and emailing requests EVERY DAY--at least a dozen of em--to post pics of yer own kids. and hey, see if you can recruit some friends. it could be fun.
and what the fuck does swearing have to do with being a good fucking christian, anyway?

[Lone Christian Democrat in Texas]

I am always amazed at what jerks most "Christians" can be. Poor Amanda. She really made an ass of herself. Happy Birthday Melissa.

[dragonlady474]

That lady who talked about having her child's picture linked to a kiddie porn site scared me. I took every picture of my daughter off the internet. ughhh

[Nancy]

While I appreciate the sentiment "Lone Christian Democrat in Texas" conveyed regarding Amanda's comment, I feel it would be more fair to say, "some" or even "many", rather than "most" Christians can be jerks. I'm not trying to lecture or sound "holier-than-thou" or defend Amanda at all. It just bothered me, reading that blanket statement about Christians tonight, especially in light of the compassion from hundreds of Christians/churches in response to Katrina (along with people of other faiths and beliefs or philosophies).

[Lone Christian Democrat in Texas]

Sorry I offended you, but your experience must be different than mine. Living in the Bible belt for the past three decades has taught me that self-described "Christians" are often not folks of high moral ground. And often, folks describing themselves in lots of other ways are more likely to behave the way one might think a true Christian should.

[Dave]

While I agree that you should obviously be allowed to post pictures of your child in any settings at any time as the parent, I agree with the school that pictures of OTHER children should have the parents written consent.

I know you had a run in with some parents before and I can easily see how many of the photos in questions were totally normal innocous things, the fact remains that childrens pictures can and have been used by predators and perverts on the internet and further can also be falsely associated with content that perhaps the parents don't want them associated with, even if it is a fun and harmless blog of a mother talking about her life.

Don't sweat this stuff. Post the pics of your child alone at the school, I bet they don't even peep. This language is clearly to prevent you and others from posting other childrens pictures.

[andrea]

I still think the clause is stupid. They are taking away your rights to raise your chid. What if your chid was a child model or actress? They would be taking away their income! I say post with out asking. It is your kid not theirs. And you pay them for the school, you are not inviting them into to your home. AS for being used by pervs; unless we want to live in a society where the internet is controlled like in China, we need to keep living our lives and not allow our joy to be controlled by a couple of killjoys.

[Nancy]

Lone Christian, I wasn't personally offended, I just felt bad for the blanket statement on Christians, for all of the good people out there in the world who also happen to be Christian. I would want to defend the same of any group, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, etc., when characteristics of the actions of one or even many are applied to everyone, or "most" everyone. Then again, after I hit the dreaded "post" button, I realised that the quotes around "Christian" meant something and also the use of the word "can" rather than "are"...because anyone of any faith or philosophy "can" be a jerk. But your second comment clarifies what you mean further, thanks (not that anyone owed me anything for my little comment.) By the way, my sister is also a Christian (hopefully not a "Christian") and a Democrat and she lives in San Antonio...so I guess you're not the only one in Texas. But she's in Iraq right now so maybe that doesn't count. ;-)

[Christy]

What a pain! Do you think that because you are the parent of a child in the school that you are allowed to publish photos of yourself in your blog? Ha!

[Courtney]

oh gag. Religion/spirituality is such a tricky subject. my MIL came with me to church yesterday ( she is searching for a new one) and they had a 9/11 litany and one of the responses was how we need to remember that just because our ocuntry is a leader does not mean that we are a voice. All I heard about on the way home was how the church service was soo lieberal. Umm yeah.

Some parent's are freaks. Melisse you haven't done anything "wrong". Leave it to someone to drain the fun out of every situation.

How did these parents find out about the pictures in the first place? Porn pervs will find pictures anyway. it's sick and way fucking (yea I consider myself a christian too-what of it?) disgusting but you can't control everyone everywhere ( a notion that I have noticed a lot of the "rightous" have a problem with accepting)

-

[Courtney]

the country typo above was honost-oops-not some subtle lame dig.

Hey what can i say-I have fat fingers :-)

[paul]

This post and subsequent comments touch on several issues that arouse strong feelings among many. So what the heck, I'll inject yet another. Most likely, the school over reacted to what is essentially a good impulse - protecting children. As a country, we seem to have really gone overboard with the whole idea of "protection" and "security" since 9/11 (hey, Courtney brought it up). Benjamin Franklin once said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." He was right 200 years ago and he is still right today. As a people, we cannot allow our rights to be taken away in the name of "security." To do so is to destroy ourselves from within. Freedom of speech is perhaps our most fundamental and necessary right. We should resist any and all infringements upon our rights, no matter how small. Even those infringements that result from good intentions. I know I’m getting all conceptual here, but it's I believe it's true. And I believe we should think about the big picture, not just our own little slice of life. Of course, I could really tie the whole thing together here by saying that thinking holistically is what true Christians should be doing, but that would just get everybody all upset again so I won’t.

[Marie]

Although it may be a fun idea to flood the school with photo permission requests, it won't do anything but aggrevate an already tense issue. Besides, your son does go there everyday and he deserves the happy learning environment that you are paying for.
The clause is poorly written, yet rightly or wrongly it exists. The school most likely will not pay to legally pursue you if you post photos of your children on your blog, however, it may be worth your while to consult an attorney. Call it a 'cover your ass' move. It is sad, but crazier things have been know to happen...
Have you considered other pre-schools?

[suburban misfit]

I had this witty reply all worked out but then I read everyone else's responses (the good ones, anyway) and they took away my fire.

Damn you all, you thinkers! You funny, smart people!

Happy Birthday, Melissa!

[MelissaS]

See my latest post.

None of this threatens legal action. If it did I would do whatever I wanted. I don't want max to be taken from the school and teachers he loves simply because I want the freedom to share my life, his life, our life with whomever I choose.

I have spoken to an attorney. The clause is clearly over reaching and crossing the bounds of the school. They may or may not have intended that but the director seems unable to discuss the issue with me.

bah.

[Jojo]

Ecch. Why would you want your kids to go to a snooty school like this anyway?

[DarkoV]

Wow.
Hadn't realized that the Taliban is now operating private schools of indoctrination right here in the US of A. Isn't our Consitution amazin'.

[Meghan]

First: Happy Birthday!

Second: Logan is HOTTT!

Third: If it was 2008 and I was finished with this whole med school thing, I'd buy that house in a second, because it is EXACTLY what I've pictured my dream house to be. But no, I'm stuck here in St. Louis for three more years, and the dream house will remain a dream.

Fourth: I was only going to mention how stupid the clause was, but Raina's post reminded me of something. I worked at a Girl Scout camp for 6 summers (and attended as a camper for 6 too!) and one of my jobs as I moved up in the chain was to search out all of the parental permission forms and flag any that we did not have permission for photos to be used in promotional materials.

I had a hard time figureing out why someone would not want their kids to appear in a camp brochure, and since this was before the time of internet, kiddie porn wasn't what brought the sheet about. Sadly, it was custody battles that made us ask for permission. And it was not to cover our butts, but to protect the kids, especially when there abuse was a part of the battle.

Apparently an extranged husband was able to locate his wife and child who were in hiding because the girl's photo appeared in one of our materials, and a friend tipped the guy off as to their location. We also have a sheet saying who to release information to if someone calls. Like, if the mom has said that she's the only contact, we can't release any info about the camper (including whether or not she's ever been to our camp or is currently there) to any other parties, such as father or grandmother. It was very extreme, but this is one case where it was necessary.

Now that I've said that, I want to reaffirm that this is NOT the reason that your clause came about, and it is REDICULOUS the hoops they are making you jump through. I just wanted to add that there are other cases where something like this was necessary.

[kelly]

Ummm, I have no problem with you posting pcitures of your children, they are yours for goodness sake. But, in that picture of your daughter in front of the coat hook, you can clearly see the name of one of her schoolmates. I don't think that's right. As a parent, I don't want ANYTHING at all about my child posted on the Internet, and that's my right as a parent. As long as it's your child, or your friend's children, okay, but leave the rest of us out of it.

[MelissaS]

Good point 'Kelly'. Ask and you shall receive.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suburbanbliss/42755046/

This is my favorite part of your comment, "Leave the rest of us out of it."

That's it, you're not invited to my party next weekend.

[kelly]

thanks! i wouldn't have come to your party anyways, i'm a little too christian for that.

abundant blessings! love, douglas' mom

[Chastity]

Dude, maybe you should edit out your own kid's name, too.

Did you know www.madisonsummers.com is a porno site?

[Chastity]

Dude, maybe you should edit out your own kid's name, too.

Did you know www. madisonsummers . com is a porno site?

[MelissaS]

Oh but Kelly you're not too 'Christian' to keep reading my website. I love "christians" like you.

And wow, MadisonSummers.com is a porn site. I'd better change my daughter's name OR SOMEONE MIGHT ASSOCIATE HER NAME WITH PORN!!

AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

[mipmup]

this might be useful.

[Melizzard]

I hadn't read your blog in a couple of days and I was thinking about you this morning when I signed off on the even-more-liberal-this-year photo policy at our pre-school. Basically now it says, pictures are going to get taken, and shared, a lot, so get over it or go somewhere else.

So if you get a hankering to live in the hurricane belt, let me know. I know a GREAT school for the kids....

[Tammy/averagemom]

I used to think Logan was such a hottie. Then I saw that pic of his foot. Now? My fantasy life will never be the same. I just can't lust after a guy with those toes.

[Lil' Sis]

Ugh. Seriously.

Oh, and I wasn't invited to your party either. Therefore, I want my photos removed because I look like a 17-year-old and pedophiles may be wanking to my image.

HAPPY BUTTAFUOCO, LIS!
-miao.

[Lil' Sis]

Oh, and PS- just about any female name you can think of is a porn site. Teri.com says "WELCOME TO PORNVILLE!" and I swear I'm not in any porn. I don't think. But I may have to make a few calls. oh shit.

[flea]

As kind as Lone Democrat and Nancy sound, I'm sorry to say that it's Kelly and Amanda that are the face of Christianity today - a small-minded, arrogant, sanctimonious, mean-spirited group that is as far removed from the teachings of Jesus as could possibly be. At least that's what us non-Christians see the most of. I respect your reasons for wanting to keep Max in a school he enjoys, Melissa, but I can't bear to spend any time around Christians in my real life. Ugh.

[MelissaS]

That sad thing is that I've never thought these people were anything but reasonable. Their religious teachings of my son, were far from 'offensive' or even 'controversial'. God is good. Jesus was a wonderful man. People should be nice to each other. How can I find those types of teachings offensive?

Unfortunately, the more I think about this 'clause' the more I suspect this has very little to do with the photographs I may or may not take and has everything to do with my liberal writings and my inability to commit to a 'church'.

I could be wrong and I'm banking on that fact since I am continuing to send my son to the school for the time being but I think someone (the director) of the school has been informed about my website and finds it utterly offensive and would like 'my kind' removed from the school.

We'll see I guess. I still haven't heard a word from her about the adjustments to the wording of the 'clause' so that I am allowed to post photographs of my own child or other children at least outside of the school setting without facing 'review'.

Bull shit olympics is correct.

[loribo]

Christian or no, if they just replaced "or" with "in any", it would change a vaguely worded over the top policy into something which is actually enforceable. The way they've written it, they've stated that images of "any child" - worldwide?? - cannot be posted on the internet. Good luck enforcing that one.

[Leslie]

Hi Melissa!
I haven't read through all of your comments. . so please forgive me if I'm repeating.

I am a teacher in a public school, and each year we require the parents of each child to sign a waiver, granting the district permission to use their child's photo in any hallway display, newspaper (school or class), website, photo display etc. I guess the district has been forced to use these measures as some parents had complained about their child being displayed publically w/o their permission. We also can't post a photo + name on anything. It either has to be the students name. Or the students photo. Not both.

It's awful that we have to be so utterly overprotective over such matters. As a teacher, I feel paranoid every time I bring my camera to school. Even if I'm capturing photos of my students for classroom use. . .I feel afraid that I may slapped with a law suit. On many levels, it's utterly ridiculous.

On the other hand, anyone can look up people's addresses via domain name (via whois). And that kind of freaks me out as I've recently had some weirdos stalking me via my site. That's when I chose to password protect my kids' photos. But that was a personal decision. I've also changed the address on my whois information page.

So! Districts have to err on the side of being safe. Banning you from posting your own child's photo, though, is a whole separate issue!

Good luck!

[MelissaS]

Yes Leslie I know. It's just that if I have permission from the parents and hide the identities of any other child and the name of our school: it's all just reaching far beyond the scope of the original intent.

As for the stalking and such. My address is listed in the white pages so, enh, I'm not all that freaked out. I think the world is so incredibly paranoid and I just don't want to play that game.

I don't lock my doors while I'm home, I leave my car unlocked I just don't like to live waiting for the worst thing to happen.

I respect that others can decide to take action to prevent potential bad things. I just live my life as a series of calculated risks.