I think it’s also reasonable to point out that there’s a whole range of “naked baby” pictures, from obviously innocent to the intentionally salacious. (Though how anybody could find any such picture stimulating is beyond me. Disgusting,yes.)
Walmart may have very reasonably decided to avoid the whole judgment call about which naked baby pictures are “okay” by simply deciding to have a “no naked baby pictures” policy.
I agree. It can mitigate damages in a major lawsuit. The execs at Wal-Mart certainly aren’t stupid.
A lot of it is @$$-covering; if some overzealous prosecutor decides a naked-baby picture is port, then the shop and staff could face criminal charges.
Back when I was running a lab, I saw so many naked babies that I just didn’t pay any attention to the pictures except for technical issues (dust, colour balance, etc).
One of my staffers pointed out why nearly every parent takes naked baby pictures; it’s because babies are usually at their happiest when they have nothing on, so the pictures look better. Even if it’s composed so that no naughty bits are visible, the pictures almost always turn out better if the kid is starkers. I’ve notice that this is generally true of most children under the age of five.