Photographing children

Mike wrote:
In article ,
says...
RichA wrote:

Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?

If you quickly supply an air hose, he might ba able to... gotta slice
below the vocal cords, however.

Well - if you slice in the wrong place he could still
whistle - those "puckering" muscles are all up on the face.

It would have to be an awfully windy day, with the head and exposed neck
positioned in just the right direction........In that there are no
longer any lungs to provide air to move across the lips to.........
eeeewwwww

Ask a Saudi, next time he (no women allowed) is in the market square and
they are beheading some poor unfortunate, to shout out a question like, "can
you feel your legs?"

Mike Kohary wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 06:32:40 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Wayan writes:


Here is one story:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1290905.htm

Even if the author of the Web site had been using the photos for shady
purposes, the only question that raises is one of image publishing
rights.

The laws against child pornography are designed _in principle_ to
prevent children from being directly harmed to produce the images. In
practice, unfortunately, the laws are used to impose a moral code upon
others, and have nothing to do with protecting children.

In this case, no children were harmed by simply being photographed while
swimming. For those parents who find it offensive, well, life is tough.
They can sue the webmaster for publishing images without a model
release, but that's about it. And if the images are group images and
are not being used for commercial purposes, their chances of winning are
highly variable, depending on the jurisdiction.

I don't understand why people are upset by things like this. Like the
article says, there's nothing pornographic about the photos. And nobody
was harmed by them.


It's not about being harmed, but being exploited. You don't even have
to know the photographs were being taken to be exploited by them. The
article stated that there was sexually oriented material elsewhere on
the website. If the clear intent of posting swimming children was to
create sexual excitement for the pedophile community, it's a Good
Thing it was shut down. That's not "impos(ing) a moral code upon
others", it's just common sense decency.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We just had a prominent lawyer and council member, Wayne Mckeague here
in Queenstown, New Zealand arrested by customs and police for
downloading such images. If he had just browsed on the internet he would
have been within the law but as soon as he downloaded them customs had
him for importing objectable material. His court case is in progress at
present but he has said he will plead guilty. He has already resigned
from the council and will be disbarred from the Law Society. Even though
this type of photography as on this website that was shut down is on the
lower end of the scale society just won't accept it now.

Alan

Mike Kohary wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:47:01 +1200, retoohs
wrote:


There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for
photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were
dropped but how pathetic is that

Alan


There's got to be more to the story than just that.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well if you need to know more I'll email my brother and see what I can
find out but the point was not so much about this case in particular but
to point out that you have to be wary of pointing your camera at
children in public places. If you knew Queensland cops you would
understand this type of police behaviour also. They are known for going
over the top regularly and that comes from regular harassment I've had
when over there that I've never had an any other Australian State except
where you cross from South Australia into Western Australia and the
border cops at Eucla seem to presume most people will have a bag of weed
on them (thats the excuse they use) and get off on turning your car over
(*******s wrecked a camera last time)

Alan

Mike Kohary wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:47:01 +1200, retoohs
wrote:


There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for
photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were
dropped but how pathetic is that

Alan


There's got to be more to the story than just that.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My brother just replied with this:

V. Child pornography

‘Indecent treatment of children under sixteen (16)’, Section 210 of the
Criminal Code

'(1) Any person who-

(a) unlawfully and indecently deals with a child under the age
of sixteen (16) years;

(b) unlawfully procures a child under the age of sixteen (16)
years to commit an indecent act;

(c) unlawfully permits himself or herself to be indecently
dealt with by a child under the age of sixteen (16) years;

(d) wilfully and unlawfully exposes a child under the age of
sixteen (16) years to an indecent act by the offender or any other person;

(e) without legitimate reason, wilfully exposes a child under
the age of sixteen (16) years to any indecent object or any indecent
film, videotape, audiotape, picture, photograph or printed or written
master;

(f) without legitimate reason, takes any indecent photograph or
records, by means of any device any indecent visual image of a child
under the age of sixteen (16) years,

-is guilty of an indictable offence.

(2) If the child is of or above the age of twelve (12) years, the
offender is guilty of a crime,and is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.

(3) If the child is under the age of twelve (12) years, the
offender is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

They used (f) (3) to arrest the father because you could see the kids
panties on the swing. The arresting officers senior thankfully saw it a
different way. All you need is a prick of a cop to interpret things
wrongly and you can be in serious trouble and Queensland cops are known
for interpreting things however they want at times.

Mike Kohary wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:47:01 +1200, retoohs
wrote:


There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for
photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were
dropped but how pathetic is that

Alan


There's got to be more to the story than just that.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My brother just replied with this:

V. Child pornography

‘Indecent treatment of children under sixteen (16)’, Section 210 of the
Criminal Code

'(1) Any person who-

(a) unlawfully and indecently deals with a child under the age
of sixteen (16) years;

(b) unlawfully procures a child under the age of sixteen (16)
years to commit an indecent act;

(c) unlawfully permits himself or herself to be indecently
dealt with by a child under the age of sixteen (16) years;

(d) wilfully and unlawfully exposes a child under the age of
sixteen (16) years to an indecent act by the offender or any other person;

(e) without legitimate reason, wilfully exposes a child under
the age of sixteen (16) years to any indecent object or any indecent
film, videotape, audiotape, picture, photograph or printed or written
master;

(f) without legitimate reason, takes any indecent photograph or
records, by means of any device any indecent visual image of a child
under the age of sixteen (16) years,

-is guilty of an indictable offence.

(2) If the child is of or above the age of twelve (12) years, the
offender is guilty of a crime,and is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.

(3) If the child is under the age of twelve (12) years, the
offender is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

They used (f) (3) to arrest the father because you could see the kids
panties on the swing. The arresting officers senior thankfully saw it a
different way. All you need is a prick of a cop to interpret things
wrongly and you can be in serious trouble and Queensland cops are known
for interpreting things however they want at times.

"retoohs" == retoohs writes:

retoohs (f) without legitimate reason, takes any
retoohs indecent photograph or records, by means of any device
retoohs any indecent visual image of a child under the age of
retoohs sixteen (16) years,

[...]

retoohs They used (f) (3) to arrest the father because you could
retoohs see the kids panties on the swing. The arresting officers
retoohs senior thankfully saw it a different way. All you need is
retoohs a prick of a cop to interpret things wrongly and you can
retoohs be in serious trouble and Queensland cops are known for
retoohs interpreting things however they want at times.

1. What is defined as an "indecent photograph"?

dictionary.com has the following definitions of indecent:

--- cut ---
in·de·cent Audio pronunciation of "indecent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-dsnt)
adj.

1. Offensive to good taste; unseemly.
2. Offensive to public moral values; immodest. See Synonyms at improper.

[...]

indecent

adj 1: not in keeping with accepted standards of what is right or
proper in polite society; "was buried with indecent haste";
"indecorous behavior"; "language unbecoming to a lady"; "unseemly to
use profanity"; "moved to curb their untoward ribaldry" [syn:
indecorous, unbecoming, uncomely, unseemly, untoward] 2: offensive to
good taste especially in sexual matters; "an earthy but not indecent
story"; "an indecent gesture" [ant: decent] 3: offending against
sexual mores in conduct or appearance; "a bathing suit considered
indecent by local standards"
--- cut ---

This is very subjective, everyone is going to have their own
opinion. In fact, looking at various forums on the subject confirm
there are lots of different opinions out there. From "why would you
want to take a photo of a child that isn't yours unless you are a
pervert" through to "its OK as long as you get the prior permission of
the child and the parents" and "its OK as long as you aren't hiding"
(both these seem to rule out taking candid photos of children).

Personally, I think taking a photo of a child behaving naturally is
unlikely to be indecent (unless perhaps the photographer deliberately
highlights particular parts of the body) regardless if the child is
{fully clothed, wearing bathers, wearing nothing, swimming, on a
swing, walking to school, in the bath, taking self-portraits, or
watching Diehard 2 on TV} (depending how photo is used of course).

Taking lots of photos might indicate "professional" or "over
enthusiastic" photographer rather then anything sinister.

I don't think I would want to test this out to the fullest extent on
the law or the general public though. Same people might consider a
photo of a ten year old watching Diehard 2 as "offensive to good
taste"...

2. What is a "legitimate" reasons? Presumably "I wanted to put them on
my porn website" is not a legitimate reason. But would "I wanted to
file them away in our family photo album" be OK?


It is interesting to note that despite the paranoia, you can still
purchase photographic books from big chain stores (at least in this
country) that have photos of children at beaches, nude babies, nude
children... I see nothing wrong, illegal or abnormal with this.

If people didn't consider it such an issue, I think demand for
pornographic images (what is so good about them anyway?) would drop
and it would no longer be an issue.


Anyway, just my thoughts.
--
Brian May

In article ,
says...

They used (f) (3) to arrest the father because you could see the kids
panties on the swing. The arresting officers senior thankfully saw it a
different way. All you need is a prick of a cop to interpret things
wrongly and you can be in serious trouble and Queensland cops are known
for interpreting things however they want at times.




Here in New England (USA) there doesn't seem to be as much histeria about
taking photos of kids.

I have gone to the local parks and beaches many times to take pictures and
have only had one incident involving someone who questioned what I was doing.

One beach called "Eastern Point" in my area is surrounded on 3 sides by water
(Fishers Island Sound to the South-East, The Mouth of The Thames River is
directly West, and a full view North West of the Thames River for several
miles).

Its a nice place if you like to photograph waterfront views, and handy
because it provides several different types of view.

I was questioned by a Police Officer once as to why I was "taking pictures of
those kids at the edge of the parking lot" (thats the way he put it).

I simply told him I was waiting for the kids to move away, I was waiting to
get a shot of a classic lighthouse across the river, with the sunset behind
it.

It seems there had been a complaint because "there are children here, and you
are an old man with a camera" (again his words).

We talked a bit, and as it turned out, the police had recieved a call that I
was down at the beach taking pictures of every kid that was here! Actually,
I hadnt taken a single picture yet at all, and thats what I told the officer.

While he was still there, the children moved out of the "line of fire" and as
the sun set I got a half dozen shots of the New London Light to the left of a
lovely sunset.

It seems that to some people, a man with a camera is automaticaly "suspect"
while to other people (the police officer among them) a man with a camera is
just a man with a camera.

I think its just the mindset of a small, nervous, self important segment of
the public at large that causes most of what some might call "Photographer
Harrasment".

OTOH, if I still had a small child out in the world, I would be glad the cop
showed up, and I told him so. There are probably 2 square miles total area
in my town where photography is forbidden because of Defense Department
security regulations, so the police here are more reasonable when talking to
a photographer than they might be somewhere else where it doesnt come up as
often.




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Mike Kohary writes:

It's not about being harmed, but being exploited.

No, it's about being _harmed_.

You don't even have to know the photographs were being
taken to be exploited by them.

Lots of people are exploited in this way, but there is no general
prohibition on taking pictures for that reason alone.

The article stated that there was sexually oriented material elsewhere on
the website.

So?

If the clear intent of posting swimming children was to
create sexual excitement for the pedophile community, it's a Good
Thing it was shut down.

Why? The children in the photograph were not harmed in any case.

That's not "impos(ing) a moral code upon others", it's just
common sense decency.

"Common sense decency" _is_ a moral code.

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

Mike Kohary writes:

It's not about being harmed, but being exploited.

No, it's about being _harmed_.

You don't even have to know the photographs were being
taken to be exploited by them.

Lots of people are exploited in this way, but there is no general
prohibition on taking pictures for that reason alone.

The article stated that there was sexually oriented material elsewhere on
the website.

So?

If the clear intent of posting swimming children was to
create sexual excitement for the pedophile community, it's a Good
Thing it was shut down.

Why? The children in the photograph were not harmed in any case.

That's not "impos(ing) a moral code upon others", it's just
common sense decency.

"Common sense decency" _is_ a moral code.

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

Mike Kohary writes:

It's not about being harmed, but being exploited.

No, it's about being _harmed_.

You don't even have to know the photographs were being
taken to be exploited by them.

Lots of people are exploited in this way, but there is no general
prohibition on taking pictures for that reason alone.

The article stated that there was sexually oriented material elsewhere on
the website.

So?

If the clear intent of posting swimming children was to
create sexual excitement for the pedophile community, it's a Good
Thing it was shut down.

Why? The children in the photograph were not harmed in any case.

That's not "impos(ing) a moral code upon others", it's just
common sense decency.

"Common sense decency" _is_ a moral code.

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