AFA allowing Walgreen's employees to destroy "offensive" customer photos

[xultar]

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=4870

The American "Family" Association pressured Walgreens into letting its employees decide when to withhold negatives and refuse to print pictures.

---snip

Sadly, Walgreens left it up to the employees running the photo developing machines to decide what's offensive. The end result is that people are losing valuable photos that no reasonable person would find offensive but that a prudish Walgreens employee might find distasteful.

One such case is that of Calvin Johnson's photo of his late friend Gregg Ammell. Ammell was making a toast in his backyard when Johnson snapped a picture of him wearing just his shorts and a nipple piercing. A short time later, Ammell had a heart attack and died.

Unfortunately, a Walgreens employee found the image offensive so the precious photo was never printed and the negatives were not returned to Johnson

---snip



More Here
http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=4870

[Cannikin]

1. Wasnt some leader of the AFA arrested for child molestation?

or was that the TVC? Either way, I think both of these groups fall under the hate site explosion that I posted earlier.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1442360#1442603

[mouse7]

2. American Family Association just forfeited their assets to civil suits

People can't destroy images they don't like. They have the option not to produce prints, but the minute the destroy negatives, they are destroying people's personal property.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. dan savage did a great article about walmart doing this

basically he stuck his tongue in his bf and then in his sister to see if walmart preferred homosexuality or incest...they printed the one with his tongue in his sisters mouth...

[David__77]

9. Wal-Mart always printed risque pictures, in my experience.

When "my friend" would get his pictures developed there with one-hour, it certainlly raised employee interest, but they were always developed on time.

[11 Bravo]

4. That has got to be actionable.

I'm not particularly litigious, but I would sue those bastards for everything they had. No law or statute was being broken by the portrayal you described and Walgreens had no right to destroy individual private property. Donald Wildmon (sp?) and the entire AFA can kiss my ass!

[Skittles]

5. this is outrageous

to be censored and then NOT NOTIFIED and YOUR PROPERTY (negatives) NOT RETURNED? UN-F***ING-BELIEVABLE.

[tridim]

6. My parents would surely be thrown in jail today

for taking pictures of my brother and I nekkid, playing in the bathtub. You know, the same picture every parent has taken since the camera was invented. They even had them developed at the local Photomat! Horrors!

[skippysmom]

7. Argh...

First pharmacists who won't dispense BCPs...now this. JUST DO YOUR FUCKING JOB AND DEVELOP THE GODDAMN FILM!!!!

[Demonaut]

8. When I was younger I worked in a lab, we never destroyed negs or

photo's but if it was questionable and only when it dealt with children would we contact the police, it happened only once, nude pics and pornography we let go, and if it was good porn we'd make copies for ourselves, check any lab run by twentysomething males and you'll find a good size collection.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

16. That is the truth!

Most lab managers (at least ones I knew) have a huge collection and love showing it off to salesmen or other vendors.
I worked in labs for awhile and saw some incredible stuff.

[Canuckistanian]

10. Can they not be sued for breach of contract?

If you contract a service (implied) and the other party refuses to complete the contract (e.g. develop and print ALL the pictures), can't you take legal action?
The part about withholding negatives is definitely illegal, as negatives are the property of the customer, unless specifically mandated.
I know about this from canadian law because I used to be a photographer.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. It's shit like this...

that makes me want to take, say, pictures of myself having a "wardrobe malfunction", drop them off for developing, and DARING Walgreens (my pharmacy) to keep my property.

Grrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[zbdent]

12. Freepers will get pissed if their pics of them kissing W's ass get

destroyed . . .

[NuttyFluffers]

20. don't say such things!

made beer come up my nose! it tingles! argghhh

(but it was funny... so maybe it was worth it. *my poor nose*)

[Devils Advocate NZ]

13. The absolutely most IDIOTIC thing about this...

and possibly the reason why they should be sued until their arses bleed, is this:

Say I tak a picture of myself naked in the mirror. I take it to this store and hand it over to be developed. When I come back, my picture was NOT developed - and according to the article - the negative destroyed.

That means the ONLY person to see my naked body would be THE ARSEHOLE who destroyed it! That arsehole would have decided that it was indecent for ME to see MY OWN BODY, even though HE or SHE had seen it!

Surely, if the store is worried about exposing the workers to indecent material, then THE WORKERS should be banned from looking at the photos, rather than FORCING them to look at the photos in order to CENSOR them!

Think about it - this policy does NOT protect the workers, in fact it does the complete opposite - it demands that the workers look at every photo to ensure that no nudity etc is involved!

[TexasMexican]

14. I work at Walgreens in the Photolab.

Our policy is that we can print out nudity, but no actual sex.

However at my store since we are all adults about it and none of the photoguys or managers are assholes we usually print out the sex pics too.

Usually the only nudity and sex pics we get are seasonal around the time of Spring Break.

After I read the story about the guy who claims they didnt print his picture and they stole his negatives, I dont think that is the case.

Its possible that the picture wasnt on the negative and that the person in the photolab just lost the negatives, he probably could have gotten real answers had he went back and asked about the negatives like that day or the day after, but after 6 months its kind of hard to find out what really happened.

[0rganism]

15. your subject line should be: "AFA pressures Walgreens employees", no?

AFA isn't allowing the destruction of "offensive" pictures, it's encouraging said destruction.

[Brian_Expat]

17. Just another reason. . .

. . . to go for a digital camera, print your own prints, and let the Walgreens all lose your business entirely.

[Blue_Tires]

18. i used to never to have probs getting 'racy' photos

developed in years past, but i noticed awhile back some were disappearing....

i think we should get to the truth of the matter...i know for a fact that some slimy jagg offs just keep the 'offensive' photos for their own sick pleasures, or put them up on some weak website...

[TexasMexican]

19. Check your negatives.

Check your negatives against what prints you got.

Sometimes there will be negatives that dont get printed out. This can be various reasons.

Some of the time its because its a shitty picture, too dark or got too exposed, and the person printing didnt think you would want to pay for it anyways.

Some of the times the machine will just skip over certain negatives and they wont print out unless they are done manually one at a time. I'm not sure why but I think it has to do with the bar codes on the film or something.

The only way to know for sure is to ask right then or like the next day. If you wait too long no one is going to remember and they will just think you are a dumbass for coming back weeks later and bitching over nothing.