Photographing children

retoohs writes:

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

So a woman raped by a 14-year-old is guilty of an indictable offence?

(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;

What are the "legitimate reasons"?

They used (f) (3) to arrest the father because you could see the kids
panties on the swing.

Do the cops there spend a lot of time looking for glimpses of kids'
panties?

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

Larry writes:

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.

Increasingly, the former is taking precedence over the latter.

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".

It's increasingly the mindset of the majority, thanks to the media.

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.

Why?

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

Larry writes:

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.

Increasingly, the former is taking precedence over the latter.

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".

It's increasingly the mindset of the majority, thanks to the media.

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.

Why?

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

Larry writes:

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.

Increasingly, the former is taking precedence over the latter.

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".

It's increasingly the mindset of the majority, thanks to the media.

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.

Why?

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

In article ,
says...
I often wonder about people who see pedophilic intent and "sexual
excitement" in every photograph of a child.

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



I wonder about it also, though Im unsure of the artistic value of taking
picturea of children in various stages of "undress" when they aren't allowed
to normally interact that way in the society of what most consider to be "the
civilized world".

What Im getting at is hard to explain I guess, but if some pervert "gets
off" on seeing a child on a swing, cant he just go to the park and look???

Why would he need a photo?

Its all in the MIND of the beholder, not the eye.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

In article ,
says...
I often wonder about people who see pedophilic intent and "sexual
excitement" in every photograph of a child.

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



I wonder about it also, though Im unsure of the artistic value of taking
picturea of children in various stages of "undress" when they aren't allowed
to normally interact that way in the society of what most consider to be "the
civilized world".

What Im getting at is hard to explain I guess, but if some pervert "gets
off" on seeing a child on a swing, cant he just go to the park and look???

Why would he need a photo?

Its all in the MIND of the beholder, not the eye.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

In article ,
says...
Why?


Why NOT???

He didn't cause me any trouble, and for all he knew, (until he got there)
there could very well have been some pervert taking advantage of the half
naked children running around.

I know all "cops" arent as polite and reasonable as this one was, but that
isnt the point. He got a complaint, he checked it out, and then he left
(after asking some questions about the camera I was using).

I have no quarrel with the police doing their job, and if someone files a
caomplaint (or makes a call) it is their job to check it out, no matter
whether they think its important or not. There have been times that calls
have gone ignored, and tragedy has resulted.

There is no major "crime wave" going on (at least none that I know of) and no
real reason for the police to not to come see if I was REALLY doing anything
I shouldn't be.

Do I sometimes take pictures of kids??? Yes, a lot of them, but NEVER where I
cant let people know that I am doing it.

I've been doing this since 1959 or 60 and I've only ever had ONE parent ask
me not to take a picture of her child (it WAS recent), I didn't ask why,
because I dont care why, the fact that she asked was sufficient to me (as it
should be to anyone not in the "photojournalist" trade. The line, sometimes,
between PAPARAZZI and Photojournalist can be very fine).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

In article ,
says...
Why?


Why NOT???

He didn't cause me any trouble, and for all he knew, (until he got there)
there could very well have been some pervert taking advantage of the half
naked children running around.

I know all "cops" arent as polite and reasonable as this one was, but that
isnt the point. He got a complaint, he checked it out, and then he left
(after asking some questions about the camera I was using).

I have no quarrel with the police doing their job, and if someone files a
caomplaint (or makes a call) it is their job to check it out, no matter
whether they think its important or not. There have been times that calls
have gone ignored, and tragedy has resulted.

There is no major "crime wave" going on (at least none that I know of) and no
real reason for the police to not to come see if I was REALLY doing anything
I shouldn't be.

Do I sometimes take pictures of kids??? Yes, a lot of them, but NEVER where I
cant let people know that I am doing it.

I've been doing this since 1959 or 60 and I've only ever had ONE parent ask
me not to take a picture of her child (it WAS recent), I didn't ask why,
because I dont care why, the fact that she asked was sufficient to me (as it
should be to anyone not in the "photojournalist" trade. The line, sometimes,
between PAPARAZZI and Photojournalist can be very fine).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

In article ,
says...
Why?


Why NOT???

He didn't cause me any trouble, and for all he knew, (until he got there)
there could very well have been some pervert taking advantage of the half
naked children running around.

I know all "cops" arent as polite and reasonable as this one was, but that
isnt the point. He got a complaint, he checked it out, and then he left
(after asking some questions about the camera I was using).

I have no quarrel with the police doing their job, and if someone files a
caomplaint (or makes a call) it is their job to check it out, no matter
whether they think its important or not. There have been times that calls
have gone ignored, and tragedy has resulted.

There is no major "crime wave" going on (at least none that I know of) and no
real reason for the police to not to come see if I was REALLY doing anything
I shouldn't be.

Do I sometimes take pictures of kids??? Yes, a lot of them, but NEVER where I
cant let people know that I am doing it.

I've been doing this since 1959 or 60 and I've only ever had ONE parent ask
me not to take a picture of her child (it WAS recent), I didn't ask why,
because I dont care why, the fact that she asked was sufficient to me (as it
should be to anyone not in the "photojournalist" trade. The line, sometimes,
between PAPARAZZI and Photojournalist can be very fine).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

retoohs wrote:
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.

I'm beginning to worry about your obsession with "point". Have you
checked local laws to see if there is any moral code prohibiting this? I
mean, _everyone_ knows about "pointers", don't they? Eh?


--
Frank ess