A lot of questions are raised by an Arizona couple whose three children were seized by the state. The cause? The parents had snapped some pictures of their children in the bath, pictures no different from those taken by parents around the world -- including in Utah Valley.

Last year in a Phoenix suburb, Lisa and Anthony Demaree turned in a digital photo card to Wal-Mart for developing. Among the images were seven or eight showing their daughters nude in the bathtub or playing around the house.

The girls were ages 5, 4 and 1-1/2, respectively.

The photo clerk at the Wal-Mart called police. Then the state's Child Protective Services took them into custody while police investigated this "child pornography." The Demarees were not allowed to see their children for several days, and didn't regain custody for a month. The girls were examined by state officers.

Ultimately, a judge agreed with the parents that these were innocent family snapshots and threw the case out. Now the Demarees are suing the store, the police, the city and the state's attorney general.

"This is a parent's worst nightmare," said their attorney, Richard Treon, who also said of the pictures: "There was nothing sexual about it."

The local police department defended itself, saying the pictures were too explicit. The department said in a statement: "The fact is: When we are contacted about children who may be at risk, we investigate. This is what we should do." The city attorney gave a similar response.

We agree that police should investigate. It's what they conclude and what action they take that brings their minds into question.

Some folk might say that in this day and age one can't be too careful. There are sick, twisted people out there. And in today's legal climate, companies and governments have to be careful.

But of course one can be too careful. The authorities have a responsibility to use good judgment and common sense. Of the 144 images on that photo card, most were of a family vacation. As some observers have said, pornographers don't send their sick materials out to a big retail store for developing. Nor do they bother to mix in dozens of regular family snapshots.

Anyone with any sense could have seen that these were the kinds of photos that families everywhere have taken since the age of the Brownie camera. Go into any attic in America and you'll probably find a carton with old photos that recorded little babies in their birthday suits -- along with photos of picnics, Christmas celebrations, graduations and other cherished moments.

It's a sad commentary that there's so much sexual content in the media that people can't retain any innocent view of the world. Nudity, per se, is not sexuality.

On one hand, it can be understood why Wal-Mart's lawyers might feel a need for the company to bustle to the authorities on the appearance of a baby's bottom in a photo. Big companies have long been big targets for anyone looking for a personal injury lawsuit. They have deep pockets, and must protect themselves. Photo clerks who work for such businesses should not be expected to make judgments, should they?

Police are supposed to be trained and knowledgeable about all kinds of situations. But let's be realistic: they're only cops, not psychologists. They shouldn't be expected to make reasonable judgments in such matters, should they? Sure, they have to investigate. But then what? What do they conclude? They don't want to be wrong, so they hand off what they see as a legal hot potato.

And what about the prosecutors and the state social workers? They shouldn't make judgments either, right?

But why should anyone get so panicky about pictures of little kids running around naked or taking a bath in a family context? Again, simple nudity is not sexuality -- for anybody, let alone little kids. Is it? Don't little kids get a pass from society to be free of textiles on occasion? After all, it's cute.

Remember the old Coppertone suntan lotion ads with the dog pulling down a little girl's swimsuit bottom? Did that forever scar anybody's psyche? Of course not. Some things are innocent. Even in this age, that should not be forgotten.

What we have here is a failure to think, followed by a colossal overreaction by the state at all levels.

It should never be the case that when police investigate a report of shots fired, and then learn that it was some kids with cap pistols, they haul the tykes off to jail and launch a homicide investigation.

That is, in effect, what happened here, a quintessential knee jerk. From Wal-Mart to the police to the prosecutors and the social workers -- everyone could have exercised some reasonable judgment as, finally, an actual judge did.

Why didn't someone just refuse to go along with the stupidity?

Again, nudity is not sexuality. Innocent nudity appears frequently in many contexts today, from movies to cartoons to product packaging. The infant-like characters in the "Love Is" comic strip appear in the buff, for example.

So how did this happen? Whatever became of life experience? Government officials are engulfed with regulations and procedures, so perhaps the bureaucratic routine deadens the mind and conscience. Beat cops who once could talk to people now just spout legal boilerplate. Government officials who in years gone by could work out compromises now just march in lockstep with what The Department says.

Certainly crimes against children are horrible. But authorities who think that a few photos of kids splashing in a bathtub are pornography may be ill-equipped to fight the real thing.