Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

Gregory W. Blank wrote:

In article ,
J C wrote:


In the 1990s the government changes the laws. Now you can be pulled
over for simply not wearing one.

First, I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt, have since they started putting them
in cars. But I would MUCH rather see the laws just allow insurance
companies to NOT PAY if the person injured wasn't wearing one. Put the
onus on the individual.



Are you offering to pay the car insurance rate hikes for all those accidents where people
were not wearing them ?


Our government takes small but ever increasing incremental steps
toward controlling our lives.


Do you vote? About 50% of Americans don't.

Usually. Sometimes the candidates available don't make it worth the
trip to the polling place (less than 1 mile).



Now they we have cameras installed at stoplights and in some downtown
areas. And this too will spread.


Maybe a good thing, maybe bad, some intersections have a lot of people running
yellow and red lights.....it only takes one head on accident to change your attitude.


Our local police could write tickets all day at the signal light closest
to where I live. We wouldn't even need property taxes! But they don't,
it would obstruct traffic. The cameras get around that, and still get
that revenue for the city/county/state....

Maybe survelliance is not such a bad idea, yesterday some criminals got the
bright idea to rob a church in Baltimore.

We are being watched.

George Orwell was a prophet.
-- JC


Maybe you should get off the computer right now.

Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:52:45 GMT, "Jeremy"
wrote:


You missed the point, entirely.


Did I?


I think you did. The point is that there's a lot of over zealous
application of these protections. While I agree with the protections,
I do not trust that everyone can apply them equitably. Some innocent
people, as the articles in this thread show, are actually hurt by the
idiotic blind enforcement.

Here's a statistics joke that sums that up:

"You know how stupid the average guy is, right? Well half of them are
even dumber than that."

And by the way I don't favor anarchy. I just resent it when stupid
people abuse authority (often unknowingly because, after all, they're
stupid).

Take all the nude photos you want--just don't exploit innocent children in
the process. Confine your photography to adult subjects, and you will not
hear a peep out of me, nor from virtually anyone else.

Of course you do realize that the problem with that is determining who
gets to judge what is and is not exploitation.

And we're back to the stupid people problem.


-- JC

Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

Giorgis writes:

Often ? That is getting a little paranoid in it self :-)

I'm not so sure. People really interested in child pornography are
going to gravitate towards the largest, safest sources of that. The
largest collections of child pornography are in the hands of law
enforcement agencies, and employees of those agencies often have access
to the collections under cover of a legitimate interest in
anti-pornography activities. But for someone who actually loves kiddie
porn, there would be no better occupation than as an investigator of
kiddie porn.

Similarly, pedophiles in general are attracted to jobs that bring them
in contact with children, and some of the most suitable jobs in that
category are the ones in which they are supposed to be helping children.
So priests, counselors, cops, child psychologists, and the like are more
likely to be pedophiles. Of course, pedophilia is rare, and most people
who enjoy working with children have no sexual interest in them.

Yes, it does follow from this that someone who takes a keen interest in
photographing children exclusively might have some prurient interest in
kids (although most such photographers don't). However, it does _not_
follow that someone who photographs children is automatically a
pedophile. A lot of photographers photograph anyone who looks
interesting, including kids.

Incidentally, it is often assumed that photographers who take pictures
of beautiful women are sexually motivated. However, one mark of a good
photographer is that he does not have sex on his mind when taking
pictures of pretty women. He might notice before or after the shoot
that a particular woman is pretty--but never while taking the photos.
When you take pictures, it's focus, composition, lighting, etc. ... but
not sex. The ones who think about sex behind the viewfinder are con
artists.

Its a pity that you cant even smile at a child in a park
and they look at you funny.

Yes. Especially since 99.999% of people who smile at children in parks
are not pedophiles.

Additionally, the person most likely to abuse a child (sexually or
otherwise) is one of his parents (usually his mother).

Having said that, I foudnd it funny today driving along when I saw a
fire engine with a sign.

"Wanna feel the heat, how about work for the fire brigade"

A lot of people who are fascinated with fire become firefighters.
Others become arsonists. In the first case, a person recognizes his
preoccupation and puts it to good use. In the second case, a person
just indulges his preoccupation, despite the damage it does. There are
probably parallels among pedophiles.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

Ron Hunter writes:

No. The ideal job for a pedophile is gymanstics coach. Not only do
they get to see children in skimpy, or tight clothes, and watch them
move, and pose, and show off, they get PAID to touch. A fox hired to
guard a hen house doesn't have it so good.

I've often had my doubts about school coaches. Some of the ones I
recall in boys' P.E. were pretty strange. The ones in girls' P.E. were
far stranger. My impression was that some of the male coaches were just
motivated by an interest in sports, whereas a lot more of the female
coaches were motivated by an interest in young girls.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

J C writes:

AND therein lies one of the problems with strangers taking pics of
kids in public places, as mentioned in the above thread.

Strangers are no more likely to use the photos in perverse ways than you
are.

Today it's simply too easy for the stuff to be mass distributed.

But almost nobody mass-distributes pictures taken of children,
particularly innocent, normal photographs.

Most people are paranoid because they watch too much TV, and see too
much sensationalism on news programs. The world is not filled with
pedophiles, no matter what you've heard on CNN.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

Jeremy writes:

You must be some kind of pervert, to suggest that, short of RAPE, it is OK
for children to be exploited in this way.

It's not okay to exploit anyone without his consent, but just taking
pictures of a child isn't exploitation in itself. It doesn't matter
whether the child is dressed or undressed. What matters is whether or
not the child is being harmed.

Too many people are wrapped up in their own perception of what is
"dirty" or "clean," and they don't care at all about what is "harmful"
or "harmless." The two are not the same thing.

Your trying to associate PARENTS with the radical far right, because we are
opposed to anyone's children being USED just so creeps like you can get off,
is typical of the agenda of most sexual miscreants.

The emotion of your reply is unwarranted with respect to the original
post.

Are you a member of N.A.M.B.L.A., too ("The North American Man-Boy Love
Association"), whose motto is "Sex before eight, or it's too late."

Grow up and get yourself a real woman, you sick *******.

See above.

The people who worry me are the ones who fly off the handle at the
slightest misperception.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

gr writes:

Let's say some twisted perv, named "Jeremy" for example, goes to a public
beach and snaps a bunch of pictures of little Johnny swimming nude. Now,
let's say Jeremy then enjoys "getting off" on the pictures in the privacy of
his own home. Where's the harm? Where's the victim? Nobody is hurt by that
action, any more than some pervert taking pictures of women at the beach and
"getting off" on them at home.

Correct.

Yet, I'd be willing to bet that 90% of people would claim Jeremy should be
jailed. Ridiculous! Go after people that do real harm. They're the ones that
should be stopped. The State has no business being a moral guardian. Every
time they do so, they end up screwing it up.

Correct again. It's a case of people acting based on their own
emotions, instead of acting based on the best interests of others. If
nobody is harmed by something, there's no reason to outlaw it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

Jeremy writes:

"Little Johnny" is the victim, because images of him were captured by
someone without any permission, and with absolutely no guarantee that they
wouldn't be shared with other perverts.

Apart from the standard violation of his right to control the use of his
image, in what way is he a "victim"?

Look, if you don't like it, call your congressman. That's the law, enacted
by a democratically-elected legislative branch, and never challenged or
overturned by the Supreme Court.

I feel certain that you'd immediately adopt the opposite opinion if
Congress passed legislation in direct conflict with your own
preferences.

The security of children has more importance than your supposed "freedom" to
take photos of someone else's naked kids.

Children are not generally made insecure simply by having photographs
taken of them. Neither are adults.

Can't you find some other issue to vent on?

The only person I see venting is you, and I'm not sure where you found
the source of all this steam.

Why all this indifference to the rights of kids to be left
unmolested by dirty old men?

Taking pictures of someone in public is not molestation. (In fact,
taking pictures is never molestation, but the exact rights differ based
on the situation.)

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

"gr" wrote in message
...
Wow... orginally I thought you were just a troll. I now see you're just a
warped bible-thumper.

"There wouldn't be a NEED for homosexuality laws if there weren't all
those
perverts out there, taking photos and doing lots of other despicable
acts."



Nice try, troll, but again, NO CIGAR.

You replaced the words "KIDDIE PORN" with the word "HOMOSEXUALITY," in a
deliberate attempt to troll these newsgroups. I am filtering you and this
thread out, as it is clear that you had no intention of discussing matters
pertaining to photography.

Adios, troll, and I urge others to block him as well.