ebiggs wrote in post #17783529
I can guarantee you a visit with real policemen if you tried that around here at our school playgrounds. It might be legal but it is still morally wrong.
1) You seem to be contradicting youself. This is legal, but I'm going to be visited by a policeman if I do it? Why? What is the cop going to do, frown at me really hard?
2) Can you give a detailed understanding of why taking pictures (innocent pictures, nothing lewd etc) of children is a fundamentally immoral act? I simply cannot follow this logic.
I'm not interested in street photography myself, but I certainly don't think of people who pursue it as somehow immoral.
Maybe where you live you don't protect kids that much but we do.
Protect them from what? How are children materially harmed by having their photo taken? Perhaps this gets back to the question on morality. I do not think kids are at risk of anything, really, from having their picture taken even by strangers. What is the real, actual risk you are envisioning here? And please, if possible please back this up with real world anecdotes and/or crime stats from the FBI database.
Because my understanding is that there are no actual, real crimes occurring that involve innocent photographs of children taken by strangers and I'd love to see your examples to the contrary.
Keep in mind, if the risk exists nowhere beyond your fervered dreams of pedophiles lurking at the park camera in hand, you are not going to win converts here. I have an excellent idea of just how tiny a risk children face from strangers. According to the FBI, an average of about 50 US children are abducted and harmed per year by strangers. By far, the typical abductor is a family member or friend.
And I've never been able to find even one case where a pedophile first encountered a child in a photo and actually tracked down and harmed the child in question.