Photographing children

Owamanga writes:

The problem is that legally, the child is unable to consent. However,
even with parental permission, it is still considered rape. Go figure.

That's why it's a victimless crime (if the "victim" consents).

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

Dwight Stewart writes:

I don't think it's fuzzy at all. I suspect most Americans, when asked
about a man photographing a young girl's underwear in a public park, would
have fairly consistent responses - why, is he some kind of pervert, and so
on.

Does that make them right?

Most Americans used to have fairly consistent opinions about blacks and
Jews; did that make their opinions right?

For that matter, millions of Small
Bothers (individuals with cameras) snapping pictures without regard to how
intrusive or embarrassing, isn't that much more comforting.

If you go out in public, take care not to do anything that embarrasses
you.

On a more fanciful note, some of the arguements used previously in this
discussion (not yours) remind me of the arguments used by researchers in the
past to justify rogue science - it is the right and mandate of science to
proceed where and however possible without regard to the concerns of the
ignorant masses (simply replace "science" with "photographers" in this).

Why not replace "science" with "parents"?

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

Ron Hunter writes:

My feeling when I hear people complaining about 'big brother watching'
is what do you have to hide?

My feeling is: what need to know do others have?

Many aspects of our lives are private, and many are public.
Anyone who expects privacy in a public place as to his
movements, and actions, is pretty much living in a dream world.

I agree.

While waiting in line at the bank one day, I counted 14 cameras watching
every inch of the main lobby. I suspect there are more in the vault,
and in the office areas. Far from making me feel insecure, they
reassure me that someone is taking precautions to guard my money against
loss.

But there is probably only one person watching them all.

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

Dwight Stewart writes:

I've already answered each of those questions in the message you replied
to.

No, you haven't, and you can't, because you don't actually have a way to
define these things. Your reaction is emotional, not rational, and so
you cannot provide an objective basis for your opinions.

My response was that restrictions should
be placed on perverts, not children in this society.

What sorts of restrictions should be placed on perverts, and how do you
define a pervert?

Since it is fairly easy to photograph the crotch area with an identifiable
face also in the picture, there is no mandate here to assume the child would
not be recognizable.

I'm not assuming either way. I'm just pointing out that you only need a
model release for people who are identifiable. A crotch shot that
cannot be identified requires no release.

Regardless, assuming the face is not included, the
picture you describe would likely fall in the rhelm of child pornography.

In some jurisdictions, yes. That's also true of a great many movies and
books. So?

Studies and years
of empirical evidence have shown a substantial, if not conclusive in the
minds of most, link or relationship between child pornography and child
sexual assault.

Certainly a fair amount of child pornography is created by abusing
children. But there are already laws against abusing children, so laws
against the pornography itself do not serve the purpose of protecting
children.

To help prevent child sexual assault, laws were passed to
restrict unusual activities possibly relating to it.

People who abuse children engage in all sorts of mundane activities that
are related directly to their abuse. Restricting these activities
serves no purpose if the abuse itself is already illegal, especially
when no effort is being made to actually isolate and prosecute the
abuse.

Viewing child pornography is one of those unusual activities possibly
relating to it.

Then watching movies in which guns are seen is possibly related to
murder. Why, then, is it legal to show guns in movies?

You're certainly free to disagree with that, but you face a substantial
uphill battle to convince the vast majority who think otherwise.

Many of the most important battles are rather steeply uphill.

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

Dwight Stewart writes:

There is no reason to. If one discovers a person with a camera zoomed into
a child's naked crotch in the bushes of a park, there is no immediate reason
to delve into the person's mind to find the reasons - that person has broken
the law.

Which law?

If photographing a child's crotch in a public park is also against
the law, and it certainly should be ...

Why should it be?

... the reasons for doing so are not an overriding issue.

The reasons for doing so are the entire justification for the law, so
they are more than just overriding, they are _everything_. So what are
those reasons?

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

Jer writes:

Ya know what... I realize I have to trust those folks fighting the good
fights, and I wish them luck in their endeavours, because that's one job
that I just could not do, no sir, not even. I'd be a basket case inside
a week.

So would a lot of people. Which makes one wonder what sorts of people
are able to do it eight hours a day, as their job. The most obvious
category would be people who are actually excited by such things
themselves.

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

Owamanga writes:

I know quite a few cops, and the one thing they have in common that
you don't - they are *relaxed* all the time. They aren't fighting a
fight, they are just doing a job.

Another thing that most of them have in common is that they are control
freaks. And control freaks are always extremely relaxed, as long as
they are in control.

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

Alan Browne wrote:

Not stating this at anyone in particular, but this thread has outlasted
its usefulness.

What, we can't keep talking? Whatareya, somekinda newsgroup Nazi?

[A very unsubtle attempt to invoke Godwin's Law]

--
Ken Tough

Alan Browne wrote:

Ken Tough wrote:
Absolutely. I remember as a kid (in canada) we had some kindof
taboo against drinking "bathroom water" (from the taps not in
the kitchen).

Totally unwarranted in most NA water systems. But it may have been a
Brit carryover, or just plain ignorance. There was an All-in-the-family
episode where Archie goes bug eyed when somebody suggests drinking water
from a bathroom tap.

It was a kid thing. Like worms & smelling farts.

Didn't know that. When in Europe I drink bottled water. Except France,
Germany and Sweden. Them, I trust. If I went to Norway or Denmark, I'd
probably trust them too.

Heh. From the land of Walkerton and North Battleford, and you worry
about UK water? I hope you drink bottled at home, too.

--
Ken Tough

Alan Browne wrote:

Ken Tough wrote:
Absolutely. I remember as a kid (in canada) we had some kindof
taboo against drinking "bathroom water" (from the taps not in
the kitchen).

Totally unwarranted in most NA water systems. But it may have been a
Brit carryover, or just plain ignorance. There was an All-in-the-family
episode where Archie goes bug eyed when somebody suggests drinking water
from a bathroom tap.

It was a kid thing. Like worms & smelling farts.

Didn't know that. When in Europe I drink bottled water. Except France,
Germany and Sweden. Them, I trust. If I went to Norway or Denmark, I'd
probably trust them too.

Heh. From the land of Walkerton and North Battleford, and you worry
about UK water? I hope you drink bottled at home, too.

--
Ken Tough