A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Techniques » Photographing People
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Be careful about photographing your kids!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 14th 03, 05:18 PM
J C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Be careful about photographing your kids!

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:32:25 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Still, were I to dig it out, I wouldn't take it to WalMart for printing.


Yes. Too bad really.

I think that most loud voices posting in this thread don't want to
acknowledge (or simply don't see) that freedoms are being erroded.

Here's another example of government gone wild:

In the early 1960s (or thereabouts) Chrysler puts seatbelts into some
of their cars and touts it in its marketing as a safety feature.

Soon thereafter the government mandates seatbelts in all cars.

In the 1980s the government decides that you must wear them, and if
you are stopped for any violation and are not wearing a seatbelt, you
get an extra fine. They also, however, stipulate that you cannot be
pulled over and fined solely because you are not wearing a seatbelt.

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

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

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

We are being watched.

George Orwell was a prophet.


-- JC
  #12  
Old October 14th 03, 05:23 PM
Unclaimed Mysteries
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Be careful about photographing your kids!

J C wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:32:25 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:


Still, were I to dig it out, I wouldn't take it to WalMart for printing.



Yes. Too bad really.

I think that most loud voices posting in this thread don't want to
acknowledge (or simply don't see) that freedoms are being erroded.

Here's another example of government gone wild:

In the early 1960s (or thereabouts) Chrysler puts seatbelts into some
of their cars and touts it in its marketing as a safety feature.

Soon thereafter the government mandates seatbelts in all cars.

In the 1980s the government decides that you must wear them, and if
you are stopped for any violation and are not wearing a seatbelt, you
get an extra fine. They also, however, stipulate that you cannot be
pulled over and fined solely because you are not wearing a seatbelt.

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

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

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

We are being watched.

George Orwell was a prophet.



This sounds like something an "enemy combatant" might say.

--

It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." - US President
George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, October 2003

  #13  
Old October 14th 03, 05:30 PM
J C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Be careful about photographing your kids!

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:23:51 GMT, Unclaimed Mysteries
wrote:


This sounds like something an "enemy combatant" might say.


Like I said...

You are being watched. Your behavior is being assessed. And you're
being assigned by some ****** into either of two categories: the good
or the bad. There is no middle ground. No room for dissent. No method
of appeal.



-- JC
  #14  
Old October 14th 03, 06:15 PM
gr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Be careful about photographing your kids!

"Jeremy" wrote

"Kiddie porn", if it doesn't actually involve real incidents of rape,

is
nothing more than lewd photos. As such, it is quite unsurprising to

see the
moral majority step in and outlaw such victimless crimes.


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

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.

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 *******.


Okay... obvious troll, however it brings up an interesting tangent.

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.

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.


  #15  
Old October 14th 03, 06:27 PM
Gregory W. Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Be careful about photographing your kids!

In article ,
J C wrote:

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


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.

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.

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.

--


website:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
  #16  
Old October 14th 03, 06:52 PM
Jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Be careful about photographing your kids!

"J C" wrote in message
...

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


You missed the point, entirely.


Did I?

Camera gear, like so many other commodities, can be used for good or ill.
Our laws acknowledge that, by restricting certain types of photographs and
freely allowing others.

Without belaboring the point, your position favors, not freedom, but
anarchy.

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.

THAT is the point . . .


  #17  
Old October 14th 03, 07:00 PM
J C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Be careful about photographing your kids!

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:27:44 GMT, "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.


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


Nice flippant comment. But let's consider that a moment ... if you
examine it then you find that there's actually only anecdotal
evidence that seatbelts save lives. This is because there's always
that bad crash in which the person survives and everyone says, "Lucky
he was wearing a seatbelt."

Unfortunately, there's no way to scientifically prove that had he not
worn it he would have died. To prove it you'd have to have two
identical crashes where one person wore a seatbelt and the other did
not. And when I say identical, I mean exactly identical.

Further... it is interesting how the seatbelt advocates, those that
say they save lives, ignore all the other confounding variables that
lead to their statistics.

There are a lot of confounding variables that also could reduce the
accident rate and/or injury rate. These include:

-- In the last 50 years, the road system has gotten better
-- In the last 50 years cars have gotten structurally better
-- In the last 40 years tires have gotten better (anyone old enough to
remember the fanfare of steelbelted radials)
-- In the last 30 years the systems in cars have become better
(anti-lock brakes is a good example)
-- In the last 30 years there has been a big push to raise awareness
of drunk driving (so presumably there's less of that happening)
-- In the last 30 years many states have also raised the drinking age
-- in the last 20 years many states have also increased the driving
age or placed increased restrictions on young drivers.

AND there are other factors that can contribute to an increased
accident and injury rate, such as the increased conjestion leading to
all that road rage.

SO, the problem is that all those variables cannot be scientifically
eliminated from any experiment. The statistics on seatbelts are flawed
and have to be looked at from that perspective.

Now I realize that you are foaming at the mouth over the intuitive
guess that seatbelts save lives. It does seem reasonable to guess at
that. However, an intuitive guess, is not proof.

Proof requires a higher standard.


-- JC
  #18  
Old October 14th 03, 07:52 PM
gr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Be careful about photographing your kids!

"Jeremy" wrote

The security of children has more importance than your supposed "freedom"

to
take photos of someone else's naked kids.


Again... how is the "security" of a child affected by whether someone takes
a picture of them? Does it only apply to photographs? What about drawings,
or written stories, or even thoughts?

The kiddie-porn thing basically boils down to thought-police. It's an issue
of a majority of people outlawing something that offends their moral
standards. Even some parts of the U.S. still have laws outlawing
homosexuality.

"Freedom" should not apply only to the majority. The true test of freedom is
how free are the minorities.


  #19  
Old October 14th 03, 07:55 PM
gr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Be careful about photographing your kids!

"Jeremy" wrote

Just look at some of the Calvin Klein ads for underwear, if you want a

good
example of pushing the envelope. Those kids all look underage, and they

are
always posing in sexually suggestive attitudes.


Oh... shudder!

Here's a suggestion: turn off your T.V. if it offends your moral standards.
Don't go around forcing everyone else to turn off their TVs.

Burn any good books, lately?


  #20  
Old October 14th 03, 08:35 PM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Be careful about photographing your kids!

J C wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:32:25 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:


Still, were I to dig it out, I wouldn't take it to WalMart for printing.



Yes. Too bad really.

I think that most loud voices posting in this thread don't want to
acknowledge (or simply don't see) that freedoms are being erroded.

Here's another example of government gone wild:

In the early 1960s (or thereabouts) Chrysler puts seatbelts into some
of their cars and touts it in its marketing as a safety feature.

Soon thereafter the government mandates seatbelts in all cars.

In the 1980s the government decides that you must wear them, and if
you are stopped for any violation and are not wearing a seatbelt, you
get an extra fine. They also, however, stipulate that you cannot be
pulled over and fined solely because you are not wearing a seatbelt.

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

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

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

We are being watched.

George Orwell was a prophet.


-- JC


In the 50's and 60's, the hysteria was about communism. In the 70's, it
was Viet Nam. Back then, a few nude pictures of children wouldn't have
upset anyone, unless they were doing sexual things. Now, in the US, it
is illegal to even VIEW a picture of a nude person under 18, and fully
clothed ones under 18 in 'provocative' poses are similarly illegal.
Now, if we still haven't been able to legally define 'obscene', how in
hell are we to cope with 'provocative'?

So, I guess the baby books these days don't have spaces for pictures of
baby's first bath, and the bearskin rug thing is gone for good. Sigh.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is photographing the homeless unethical? Mike Henley 35mm Photo Equipment 11 June 16th 04 01:48 AM
Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"? William J. Slater General Photography Techniques 9 April 7th 04 04:22 PM
photographing moose in the "Anchorage Hillside" area? Bill Hilton Photographing Nature 4 March 9th 04 09:03 PM
Cyanotypes as a kids art project. Lots of questions... RiffRaff General Photography Techniques 1 January 28th 04 08:13 AM
Photographing In The Shower -- Help Requested This Guy Here General Photography Techniques 2 December 7th 03 05:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.