Making it a crime to photograph minors

[Noitca]

@onona
Yeah, I agree that the example is extreme, as most examples go to the extreme to prove a point though they may go too far.

That said... change two things in my example... the child is an adult, and the adult is a celebrity. Doesn't the Paparazzi do exactly this? Stalk and provide "surveillance" in any/all public places? Does one case still cross the line? Because in the situation where the subject of the pictures is a celebrity (doesn't even have to be an adult), the actions of a photographer are absolutely legal, at least for now.

@ Dan Marchant
I agree with what you are getting at. However, at the same time I wouldn't dismiss people from outside the household abusing other people. See: Penn State University. Though, Sandusky is not a photog, he also wasn't the father of any of those kids.... that said, this angle is probably too far off subject for this board.

@ mikeinctown
This is where you and I differ. I get that he may be legally able to take any photos he wants of my kid from a public venue, but because he may be allowed to do so per the law, it wouldn't always be OK by me. If I noticed that someone was excessively targeting my kid as a subject of his photos beyond reason, then I will most certainly take matters into my own hands. It would start first with a conversation (as kind as possible) and go from there. I would hope that the authorities wouldn't be involved, as they would probably be punishing me for violence against the photog, his property, or both if the conversation didn't go to my liking and he didn't agree to stop.

That said. I am reasonable. I realize situations where my son may be photographed, and if not done excessively, then sure... fine by me. If my son is involved in the subject of something that he is doing, or involved in the action of something that he is doing, and the photog is there attempting to cover that something. PERFECTLY Fine. For example. Around the ball in a sport, lead in a play, performing on stage in front of other people. The photog has an expectation (either personal or paid, whatever) to cover the action of that something.

What I am talking about is at a little league game for example. If I notice a photog has his camera pointed at my son (5 y/o) and not the action for a long time when he is picking the grass and/or his nose in the outfield, looking up in the sky, tossing his glove around, etc. That is not what I expect "should" be interesting to the photog. I would expect that a photog who is at a little league (public) game should be interested in the action that is occuring, not focused entirely on one kid (mine) who is seeing ZERO action. Thus, beyond expectations. That would warrant a conversation.

@ stsva
Agree... though I would hope that the restraining order isn't against me.

[gonzogolf]

Originally Posted by Noitca

@ mikeinctown
This is where you and I differ. I get that he may be legally able to take any photos he wants of my kid from a public venue, but because he may be allowed to do so per the law, it wouldn't be OK by me. If I noticed that someone was excessively targeting my kid as a subject of his photos beyond reason, then I will most certainly take matters into my own hands. It would start first with a conversation (as kind as possible) and go from there. I would hope that the authorities wouldn't be involved, as they would probably be punishing me for violence against the photog, his property, or both if the conversation didn't go to my liking and he didn't agree to stop.

That said. I am reasonable. I realize situations where my son may be photographed, and if not done excessively, then sure... fine by me. If he is the subject of something that he is doing, or involved in the action of something that he is doing, and the photog is there attempting to cover that something. PERFECTLY Fine. The photog has an expectation (either personal or paid, whatever) to cover the action of that something.

What I am talking about is at a little league game for example. If I notice a photog has his camera pointed at my son (5 y/o) and not the action for a long time when he is picking the grass and/or his nose in the outfield, looking up in the sky, tossing his glove around, etc. That is not what I expect "should" be interesting to the photog. I would expect that a photog who is at a little league (public) game should be interested in the action that is occuring, not focused entirely on one kid (mine) who is seeing ZERO action. Thus, beyond expectations. That would warrant a conversation.

All macho posturing aside, this is when authorities should become involved. When someone is behaving suspiciously, but perhaps within the law, the next logical step is to report them to someone with the ability to pursue the matter in a reasoned and informed basis, without personal bias. The police have the ability to check the person's background, to see if there have been other reports have been requested on the subject. Don't discount the ability of the police to dissuade questionable behavior, even if it falls within legal limits.

[Noitca]

Very true.

Though I suppose that would depend on location to a sense. Outside my house, probably just call the authorities as soon as I was uncomfortable.

At a little league game, for example? I would go talk to the photog, and probably not be aggressive about it. I would want to know why he is there taking pictures and that it looks like he is nearly always pointed at my son. In that sense, where there is a legit reason for the photog being there, I would give him/her a chance to explain to me. For all I know, he may think that I would find that stuff interesting and try to sell me some images. Or maybe it is some other reason like an article or something about how kids amuse themselves when there is nothing else to do. The conversation/actions/involvement would evolve from there.

[RTPVid]

@Noitca, your questions are just what the obviously pandering sponsor of this legislation is counting on.... casting all those who object to his bill as being against children and for pedophiles. Unfortunately this kind of thing is the bread and butter of American politics. We can't have rational discussions because somebody must be demonized.

[Noitca]

Ironically enough, this is the exact reason that I hate political stuff.

How do you call an action illegal given one set of parameters, but legal given another? In my opinion, it is impossible to create a law that is "always enforced in the same manner" given all possible scenarios.

IMO, it all starts with reason and reasonable action, by all parties involved.

[cdifoto]

Originally Posted by Noitca

@onona
Yeah, I agree that the example is extreme, as most examples go to the extreme to prove a point though they may go too far.

That said... change two things in my example... the child is an adult, and the adult is a celebrity. Doesn't the Paparazzi do exactly this? Stalk and provide "surveillance" in any/all public places? Does one case still cross the line? Because in the situation where the subject of the pictures is a celebrity (doesn't even have to be an adult), the actions of a photographer are absolutely legal, at least for now.

@ Dan Marchant
I agree with what you are getting at. However, at the same time I wouldn't dismiss people from outside the household abusing other people. See: Penn State University. Though, Sandusky is not a photog, he also wasn't the father of any of those kids.... that said, this angle is probably too far off subject for this board.

@ mikeinctown
This is where you and I differ. I get that he may be legally able to take any photos he wants of my kid from a public venue, but because he may be allowed to do so per the law, it wouldn't always be OK by me. If I noticed that someone was excessively targeting my kid as a subject of his photos beyond reason, then I will most certainly take matters into my own hands. It would start first with a conversation (as kind as possible) and go from there. I would hope that the authorities wouldn't be involved, as they would probably be punishing me for violence against the photog, his property, or both if the conversation didn't go to my liking and he didn't agree to stop.

That said. I am reasonable. I realize situations where my son may be photographed, and if not done excessively, then sure... fine by me. If my son is involved in the subject of something that he is doing, or involved in the action of something that he is doing, and the photog is there attempting to cover that something. PERFECTLY Fine. For example. Around the ball in a sport, lead in a play, performing on stage in front of other people. The photog has an expectation (either personal or paid, whatever) to cover the action of that something.

What I am talking about is at a little league game for example. If I notice a photog has his camera pointed at my son (5 y/o) and not the action for a long time when he is picking the grass and/or his nose in the outfield, looking up in the sky, tossing his glove around, etc. That is not what I expect "should" be interesting to the photog. I would expect that a photog who is at a little league (public) game should be interested in the action that is occuring, not focused entirely on one kid (mine) who is seeing ZERO action. Thus, beyond expectations. That would warrant a conversation.

@ stsva
Agree... though I would hope that the restraining order isn't against me.

So it's your job as a parent to decide what a photographer finds interesting and for how long that photographer can be interested in it? And if that photographer just so happens to find the non-action activity on field more interesting than the action activity on field, you would first threaten them and then beat them up if they didn't cave? What about all the other spectactors? Ones without cameras who are looking out there the entire time? Are you going to beat them up too?

Good luck with that. Not every photographer is a paedophile and not every paedophile carries a camera.

Oh and both verbal and physical assault currently are crimes.

[jakefreese]

Security cameras would be illegal then also. Look at all the private businesses that have security cameras now days. This just shows how retarded some politicians are. Time to flush the turds down the toilet and get a new one.

[Noitca]

Originally Posted by cdifoto

So it's your job as a parent to decide what a photographer finds interesting and for how long that photographer can be interested in it? And if that photographer just so happens to find the non-action activity on field more interesting than the action activity on field, you would first threaten them and then beat them up if they didn't cave? What about all the other spectactors? Ones without cameras who are looking out there the entire time? Are you going to beat them up too?

Good luck with that. Not every photographer is a paedophile and not every paedophile carries a camera.

Oh and both verbal and physical assault currently are crimes.

Where did I say I would go over there and beat him senseless? I said I would go talk to him.

Didn't someone else in the thread say that "we shouldn't always and only rely on government intervention"?

It starts with a conversation.

Just to turn your question around, you would be fine with someone who has a camera following say your wife around taking pictures focused on her butt? (I know that I have no idea if you even fit this question.. just making a point).

[cdifoto]

Originally Posted by Noitca

Where did I say I would go over there and beat him senseless? I said I would go talk to him.

Didn't someone else in the thread say that "we shouldn't always and only rely on government intervention"?

It starts with a conversation.

Just to turn your question around, you would be fine with someone who has a camera following say your wife around taking pictures focused on her butt? (I know that I have no idea if you even fit this question.. just making a point).

You explicitly stated you would do more than just talk.

Following around could potentially be stalking. That does not require a camera and is also currently illegal. In a general sense, I could not care less who takes photos of my or my (admittedly hypothetical) wife's buttocks. As long as the usual expectations of privacy/private property/not-stalking laws are followed, I'm fine and so should she be. It's up to her to wear what she deems covering herself adequately for the location and occasion. If she doesn't want to be photographed in it, she shouldn't be seen in it.

[onona]

Originally Posted by Noitca

@onona
Yeah, I agree that the example is extreme, as most examples go to the extreme to prove a point though they may go too far.

That said... change two things in my example... the child is an adult, and the adult is a celebrity. Doesn't the Paparazzi do exactly this? Stalk and provide "surveillance" in any/all public places? Does one case still cross the line? Because in the situation where the subject of the pictures is a celebrity (doesn't even have to be an adult), the actions of a photographer are absolutely legal, at least for now.

I suspect the law differs from country to country but I think that celebrities are considered differently because of their status as "public figures". Not that it makes the paparazzi behaviour okay (because frankly I find their behaviour despicable), but I recall this line of reasoning brought into a number of high profile cases here in the UK over the last few years, with regards to photos of footballer holiday antics and whatnot.

What I am talking about is at a little league game for example. If I notice a photog has his camera pointed at my son (5 y/o) and not the action for a long time when he is picking the grass and/or his nose in the outfield, looking up in the sky, tossing his glove around, etc. That is not what I expect "should" be interesting to the photog. I would expect that a photog who is at a little league (public) game should be interested in the action that is occuring, not focused entirely on one kid (mine) who is seeing ZERO action. Thus, beyond expectations. That would warrant a conversation.

Do you know that the overwhelming majority of paedophiles are known to their victims and victims' families? The likelihood of a stranger snapping photos of your son for nefarious purposes are very slim indeed, which is why legislation which would affect a broad scope of people engaging in wholly innocent activities like photographing simply because a minuscule percentage of them may be up to no good is pointless. It demonises everyone and frankly it has a negative effect on society as a whole because it breeds paranoia. Or perhaps that's ultimately the goal; many governments have learned that fear-inducing legislation is an effective way to control a population.

Over here in the UK we have excessive camera surveillance in cities - everywhere you go, you're being watched, and yet the number of crimes that are actually solved as a result of this surveillance are pathetically insignificant considering the costs involved. But the government has continued to use them, likely because by continuing to breed fear in the hearts of people, they get to keep doing whatever they want. And people are so hoodwinked that they totally buy into it; the "you've got nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" mentality allows the government to keep eroding privacy. Next stop, Big Brother!

My point is that these paranoid legislations do nothing but harm.

[woos]

Well, babies are children. Thus, the politicians are simply protecting themselves from being photographed.

[AvailableLight]

Originally Posted by onona

...the "you've got nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" mentality allows the government to keep eroding privacy...

I hate that mentality with a passion.

[Noitca]

Originally Posted by cdifoto

You explicitly stated you would do more than just talk.

Following around could potentially be stalking. That does not require a camera and is also currently illegal.

I assume you are referring to the part that Gonzo has bolded above. Please read the sentence before that where it says "STARTS with a conversation".

Following around could potentially also be NOT stalking too.
If your wife were Kim Kardashian, such behavior by a photog would be both legal and in line with expectations. (despicable, yes, but expected.. they do it all the time)

Originally Posted by onona

I suspect the law differs from country to country but I think that celebrities are considered differently because of their status as "public figures". Not that it makes the paparazzi behaviour okay (because frankly I find their behaviour despicable), but I recall this line of reasoning brought into a number of high profile cases here in the UK over the last few years, with regards to photos of footballer holiday antics and whatnot.



Do you know that the overwhelming majority of paedophiles are known to their victims and victims' families? The likelihood of a stranger snapping photos of your son for nefarious purposes are very slim indeed, which is why legislation which would affect a broad scope of people engaging in wholly innocent activities like photographing simply because a minuscule percentage of them may be up to no good is pointless. It demonises everyone and frankly it has a negative effect on society as a whole because it breeds paranoia. Or perhaps that's ultimately the goal; many governments have learned that fear-inducing legislation is an effective way to control a population.

Over here in the UK we have excessive camera surveillance in cities - everywhere you go, you're being watched, and yet the number of crimes that are actually solved as a result of this surveillance are pathetically insignificant considering the costs involved. But the government has continued to use them, likely because by continuing to breed fear in the hearts of people, they get to keep doing whatever they want. And people are so hoodwinked that they totally buy into it; the "you've got nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" mentality allows the government to keep eroding privacy. Next stop, Big Brother!

My point is that these paranoid legislations do nothing but harm.

Agree on many many points.

My main point is that, as a parent, there should be a level of reason and expectation behind a photographers motives for taking pictures of kids in public places.

If a photog has targeted my kid, to a point where I am uncomfortable with it. I want to know why. I don't care if he has the legal right to do so, I still want to know why. Because my first objective is the protection of my kid. Perhaps upon me finding out why now makes me ok with the photos? Maybe it doesn't and a course of action goes from there.

EDIT: I would hope that I am mature enough to avoid conflict... by the way. It could mean that I get the authorities involved. It could mean that I realize that no matter what I do, I lose this effort and I just cease to do the activity. Morally, I would not invoke violence, or at least try my best. Being that my primary objective is to protect my family, it would be difficult to do so if I am the one in jail for battery and/or damage of property. Doesn't exactly send a good message to the ones I am supposed to be protecting either.

Anyway, my point for bringing all of this up was simply to say that I feel some photographers do some shady crap. And that some of the crap is technically legal when it shouldn't be (IMO).

[AvailableLight]

I wonder if there are other hobbies where one could be associated with being a pedophile. Kind of sucks in a way.

[Noitca]

Also, for what it's worth... I recently took pictures of my kid's baseball team (5U). I asked all of the parents on the team if they had any issues with me taking pictures of their kids.

I suppose that I technically didn't have to do that, right? I could have freely taken all the pictures I wanted and did what ever I wanted with them, short of violating any model release stuff, right? Morally, I disagree with that, thus I cleared with the parents first and disclosed what I would do with them (which was give the photos to the parents). IF any would have had a problem with it, I would have not taken pictures of that kid as a subject.