WI: Lawmaker seeks to close loophole for naked baby pictures

MADISON, WI (WTAQ) – Lots of families keep naked photos of their babies as keepsakes, but a Wisconsin lawmaker says some of those pictures are made for the wrong reasons.

Assembly Republican John Jagler of Watertown is proposing a bill to ban nude baby photos for those intending to use them for sexual gratification. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Oh gawd! Yet another protector of the people. Once again I’m truly amazed that anyone would take this quack seriously. Someone with a brain (doubtful anyone in government meets the requirement) needs to ask this clown to prove his statements. Of course that’s too logical and easy and obvious for most lawmakers and others in government.

John Jagler must be getting sexual gratification from nude baby photos. because he is thinking about it. Get Mr. Jagler on the WI SOR he appears to be a danger to children.

I bet this Wisconsin idiot has dozens of baby photos of himself when he was a little kid and keeps naked photos of his nieces and nephews for his private collection as well. The more absurd the law makers are with their quack proposals the more you have to wonder what is really in his mind.

Wow.. I’m waiting on when everyone must prove they’re not a sex offender.. hook them all up to the penis machine!

This dude is a quack alright. This all started way back when the gov decided it was against the law to yell fire in a movie theater or that ex felons couldn’t own a gun. Both those laws sound reasonable and rational but all it was was a pretext to encroach upon our constitutional rights. The fact is is that if someone yells fire in the theater all anyone needs to do is look and see there isn’t any smoke or indication that there’s a fire and either ignore them and let the officials of the theater remove and bar them from going there again. Wow what an outrageous idea huh. As for the gun laws hmm I don’t believe there is any nexus between non violent first time offenders and people that don’t have any weapons charges with gun violence. Another useless law that was a major violation of a fundamental right. Now its gotten to the point that its illegal to veiw or possess images the gov doesn’t want you to veiw. So its moving forward with not only controlling physical actions to controlling what and we think. Our constitution died with the controlling speech laws then the unconstitutional gun laws. So unless something drastic happens to reverse this downward momentom than our country doesn’t stand a chance. You know what’s really sad is I seen asama bin ladens first interview when he announced war on America because his exact words ” the unjust, corrupt, tyrants who controll America”. His words not mine. I’ll be surprised if rsol will publish this remark because of that last statement but well see how far they take their censorship on this site…

If they do post this I will probably be put on the no fly list and be under constant surveillance for just mentioning Asama………I dont condone their methods but I can see their point…

Our Christmas cards the year our daughter was born featured her, at 9 months, wearing a Santa hat, sitting up right, her backside toward the camera as she looked over her shoulder flashing the cutest smile. It was taken at a professional studio, but the shot was not our idea – it was taken from one of the many sample shots they had of other kids. The resulting shot of her was beautiful beyond words and everyone who received our card that year agreed. The thought that some sicko would see something else never crossed my mind and, frankly, I don’t care as long as it stays in their twisted imaginations.
This politician clearly has nothing going in the way of his own imagination or he’d find some real issues of concern to address. Unworthy of his position, he should be recalled before he makes it illegal for children to be naked beneath their clothing because well, it’s just encourages the perverts.

This is simply more shaming of the nude body which puritanical Americans have always been taught to fear. Keep the lights out while you have sex (for procreation only of course) because you might actually see a naked body become aroused.

It’s never too early to start the shaming either…I am pretty sure that those sonogram photos will soon be illegal since they show a naked fetus…Oh My! Just makes me laugh!

The government seems to drop a few IQ points every 4 years (started shortly after Kennedy) and they are now at the point of complete retardation! This illustrates that most vividly.

How does anyone know if a sex offender is not fathering children for the sole purpose of spending all the day staring at his naked baby’s body? Surely it would be outrageous to forbid sex offenders from fathering children because they might lasciviously drool over their naked kids.

If a sex offender does lasciviously drool over the pictures of naked babies what great harm is he doing to society? Do we really want to go down the road of criminalizing normal behavior for a group of people based on feared lust?

It is very hard for me to believe judges and juries would find a father guilty of a crime for having pictures of his baked baby. I was once a juror in a federal pornography case and my boss called me into her office and said she would be disappointed if I supported calling family pictures of naked children pornographic.

I wouldn’t be surprised that these “confiscated” images end up in databases for illegal sale. Much as corrupt officials collected the family bathtub wine and later sold it for an immense profit on the bootleg market during Prohibition, so the family album would become a readily available source of income for a corrupt official to exploit.

Loophole for naked baby pictures?

John Jagler I issue you a challenge. Collect yourself an image of a new born girl and boy (no more than a day old). They must be naked. Now do the same for a boy and girl for every year of childhood (I will let you decide when childhood ends). Continue on collecting through adolescence and adulthood until old age. Actually on second thought go find an image of the oldest living persons (female and male) and make sure they are nudes. This next part is difficult; wait for those people to die and acquire a naked picture of each after they are dead. Grab every picture and put them in order from oldest (dead) to youngest (new born). Write a list of everything sexual in each image. If needed masturbate to each picture should it help you find everything sexual.

Report your findings to your fellow lawmakers, though I’d advise not mentioning the masturbation to certain images because that might upset people. Go jump off a skyscraper or plane at high altitude (your choice on wether you use a parachute). Return to your delightful nude non sexual, but sexualized image collection. Discredit every point you made on your list of what makes each photograph sexual. Go back to work and admit you are a perverted fool who had a knee-jerk reaction because you have been so brainwashed by the fantasy of a tiny minority who can sexualize basically anything. Lastly withdraw your outlandish proposal and say you will return when you come up with something that actually makes sense. [No I don’t mean on this issue, but regarding anything of substance that matters.] Lastly sign up for logic 101 (if it doesn’t exist maybe figure out why).

Attend logic 101 until you understand the conceptual framework of what makes something logical.

What about the Coppertone baby ?