Photographing children

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

wrote:

Ken Tough wrote:
A heck of a trick. Maybe some american states could be convinced
to return to the guillotine and we'll find out.

Please don't confuse us with the French.

The death penalty is outlawed by the European Convention on
Human Rights (protocol 13).

--
Ken Tough

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Mark² wrote:
"retoohs" wrote in message
...

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


Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them?
I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained
about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are
sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated.

I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the
equivalent of "news vaporware."

Any references?

Thanks.
Which ones?

None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated)
came with any indication of verification.

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Mark² wrote:
"retoohs" wrote in message
...

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


Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them?
I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained
about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are
sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated.

I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the
equivalent of "news vaporware."

Any references?

Thanks.
Which ones?

None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated)
came with any indication of verification.

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Mark² wrote:
"retoohs" wrote in message
...

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


Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them?
I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained
about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are
sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated.

I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the
equivalent of "news vaporware."

Any references?

Thanks.
Which ones?

None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated)
came with any indication of verification.

In article Xtu3e.65649$le4.27078@fed1read04, "Mark=B2" says...
=20
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message=20
...
Mark=B2 wrote:
"retoohs" wrote in message=20
...

There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for=20
photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were=20
dropped but how pathetic is that

Alan


Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe the=
m?
I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complai=
ned=20
about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. ar=
e=20
sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated.

I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the=
=20
equivalent of "news vaporware."

Any references?

Thanks.
Which ones?
=20
None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as state=
d)=20
came with any indication of verification.
=20
=20
=20

There was a case in the last few years here in the States that recieved LOT=
S=20
or "air time" on the TV news.

Some woman (a pro photographer IIRC) had, over the years, taken quite a few=
=20
photos of her own kids when they were todlers, in various stages of undress=
..

Some were of a little girl sitting naked in a backyard plastic wading pool,=
=20
some were of her little boy the same way, and on, and on, and on.(there wer=
e=20
LOTS of pictures)

She had, at some point decided to make a "work of art" out of these photos.=
=20
I cant remember whether it was just a collage, or a colection of collage in=
a=20
book.

IIRC it was in either Texas or Florida where some religious group decided=
=20
that it was "kiddie porn" and complained to the authorities about it.

The court case recieved a lot of television coverage, and I remember the=20
local News-casters having a lot of "Fun" with it, and showing some of the a=
rt=20
over the air.

In some of the collage that I remember seeing over the air, there "seemed" =
to=20
be inter-action between the toddlers and some adults.

This case dragged on for at LEAST as long as the OJ trial, but the crux of=
=20
the matter seemed to be the apparent interaction between the children and t=
he=20
adults.

As testimony revealed (slowly) the adults in the photos were the same peopl=
e=20
as the children, and the judge seemed to think the whole thing was=20
ridiculous. (the few times the cameras were in the courtroom the judge was=
=20
doing a LOT of eye-rolling and sighing loudly).

The sad part of all of this is that a totally innocent gesture on the part =
of=20
someone trying to present a small work of "art" was labeled a "kiddie porn"=
=20
producer, and ended up not being able to get work because of the bad=20
publicity. (free publicity is usually a good thing, but getting labeled a=
=20
Kiddie-diddler and then getting no publicity after your exhonoration isnt=
=20
going to help you).

Later (by a few years) when it became much easier than it used to be to alt=
er=20
photos and put things in them that werent there, it was decided that any=20
depiction of any child that could be considered "erotic" in nature, whether=
=20
photographed, drawn, or created out of "whole cloth" could be considered=20
"Child porn" in the eye of the law in several states. Since I dont follow=
=20
this stuff very closely, I dont know if any Federal (US) laws are the same.

Most of the stuff you hear about people "getting in trouble" with photos of=
=20
their own kids in various states of "undress" is usually "urban legend" mad=
e=20
up from snippets of this story with new MADE UP details to make it more=20
lurid.

There have been several cases where the people working in Wal-Mart,=20
Walgreens, CVS et al, have called the police because of naked children in t=
he=20
photos someone dropped off for printing, but I can remember hearing of any=
=20
case in which the PARENTS were prosecuted and found guilty of any crime.

As has been stated by others, its hard to say what is urban legend and what=
=20
isnt (including this story I have just told)




--=20
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Mark² wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...

Mark² wrote:

"retoohs" wrote in message
. ..


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


Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them?
I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained
about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are
sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated.

I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the
equivalent of "news vaporware."

Any references?

Thanks.

Which ones?


None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated)
came with any indication of verification.


You can get verification on those I stated by checking into the Texas
Statutes online. I am sure there are still some articles online about
the snafu on the previous laws that prohibited even parents from bathing
children, or changing diapers, or breast-feeding. Of course rational
people just ignored those idiot laws, just as they do speed limits...


--
Ron Hunter

Larry wrote:
In article Xtu3e.65649$le4.27078@fed1read04, "Mark²" says...

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...

Mark² wrote:

"retoohs" wrote in message
.. .


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


Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them?
I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained
about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are
sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated.

I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the
equivalent of "news vaporware."

Any references?

Thanks.

Which ones?

None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated)
came with any indication of verification.





There was a case in the last few years here in the States that recieved LOTS
or "air time" on the TV news.

Some woman (a pro photographer IIRC) had, over the years, taken quite a few
photos of her own kids when they were todlers, in various stages of undress.

Some were of a little girl sitting naked in a backyard plastic wading pool,
some were of her little boy the same way, and on, and on, and on.(there were
LOTS of pictures)

She had, at some point decided to make a "work of art" out of these photos.
I cant remember whether it was just a collage, or a colection of collage in a
book.

IIRC it was in either Texas or Florida where some religious group decided
that it was "kiddie porn" and complained to the authorities about it.

The court case recieved a lot of television coverage, and I remember the
local News-casters having a lot of "Fun" with it, and showing some of the art
over the air.

In some of the collage that I remember seeing over the air, there "seemed" to
be inter-action between the toddlers and some adults.

This case dragged on for at LEAST as long as the OJ trial, but the crux of
the matter seemed to be the apparent interaction between the children and the
adults.

As testimony revealed (slowly) the adults in the photos were the same people
as the children, and the judge seemed to think the whole thing was
ridiculous. (the few times the cameras were in the courtroom the judge was
doing a LOT of eye-rolling and sighing loudly).

The sad part of all of this is that a totally innocent gesture on the part of
someone trying to present a small work of "art" was labeled a "kiddie porn"
producer, and ended up not being able to get work because of the bad
publicity. (free publicity is usually a good thing, but getting labeled a
Kiddie-diddler and then getting no publicity after your exhonoration isnt
going to help you).

Later (by a few years) when it became much easier than it used to be to alter
photos and put things in them that werent there, it was decided that any
depiction of any child that could be considered "erotic" in nature, whether
photographed, drawn, or created out of "whole cloth" could be considered
"Child porn" in the eye of the law in several states. Since I dont follow
this stuff very closely, I dont know if any Federal (US) laws are the same.

Most of the stuff you hear about people "getting in trouble" with photos of
their own kids in various states of "undress" is usually "urban legend" made
up from snippets of this story with new MADE UP details to make it more
lurid.

There have been several cases where the people working in Wal-Mart,
Walgreens, CVS et al, have called the police because of naked children in the
photos someone dropped off for printing, but I can remember hearing of any
case in which the PARENTS were prosecuted and found guilty of any crime.

As has been stated by others, its hard to say what is urban legend and what
isnt (including this story I have just told)




Unfortunately, even if the parents aren't charged, or convicted, just
the report of the incident will involve the state's child welfare people
who always work under the guilty until canonized a saint theory. People
often lose their children for months over such stupidity. IN one case I
recall that a clerk in a chain store reported a woman for pictures of
her son playing in the sprinkler in the back yard nude. The clerk said
'she took too many pictures (more than one roll) of the boy.' Amazing.
It is a shame that so many people feel that any exposure of the human
body constitutes a sexual display. Is the pedophile who gets a sexual
thrill from these pictures worse than the person who sees them as sexual
but considers them evil? They seem the same to me.

As for the digital image issue. This one will never stand the test of
the first amendment protections since it doesn't fit the test of causing
harm to anyone to offset any loss of freedom to others, an old test for
such issues.

The real problem is defining what is (in Texas law 'provocative') as
what may be such to one is not to another. I have an old picture of one
of my nieces in a VERY modest swimsuit that is, nevertheless, quite
'provocative' because that is what she was trying to BE (and succeeded).
But there is nothing 'sexual' about the picture, and nothing immodest
in it. Frankly, I have never seen a picture of her from age 8 on that
WASN'T provocative. She is just that way.


--
Ron Hunter

"Ken Tough" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:
I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
about it.

In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
speaking to him.

That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.



It's hard to say since most people who are guillotined are complete basket
cases. At least their heads are.