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 » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Photographing children



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1011  
Old April 13th 05, 06:05 PM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

By today's twisted definitions, a woman
photographer is never suspect, no matter
what she is doing. Women never think
about sex, and they are never pedophiles
or perverts, no matter what thoughts they
actually have, and no matter what they
do to children or other people. (snip)




Nonsense. One of the cases I linked to earlier specifically discussed a
woman approached by police because of the pictures she took of a child.
While she was not ultimately charged with child pornography, she was
arrested on an unrelated charge (she fought with police when they attempted
to remove the child from the scene while they discussed the situation with
her).

Stewart


I recall a case where a mother was charged, and her children taken away
from her because she took two rolls of film to a pharmacy and the
pharmacy people saw most of the pictures were of a 3 year old boy
playing nude in the sprinkler. They said there were 'too many pictures
of him.' The woman eventually was exonerated, but it took most of a
year. Another advantage of digital.


--
Ron Hunter
  #1012  
Old April 13th 05, 06:05 PM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

By today's twisted definitions, a woman
photographer is never suspect, no matter
what she is doing. Women never think
about sex, and they are never pedophiles
or perverts, no matter what thoughts they
actually have, and no matter what they
do to children or other people. (snip)




Nonsense. One of the cases I linked to earlier specifically discussed a
woman approached by police because of the pictures she took of a child.
While she was not ultimately charged with child pornography, she was
arrested on an unrelated charge (she fought with police when they attempted
to remove the child from the scene while they discussed the situation with
her).

Stewart


I recall a case where a mother was charged, and her children taken away
from her because she took two rolls of film to a pharmacy and the
pharmacy people saw most of the pictures were of a 3 year old boy
playing nude in the sprinkler. They said there were 'too many pictures
of him.' The woman eventually was exonerated, but it took most of a
year. Another advantage of digital.


--
Ron Hunter
  #1013  
Old April 13th 05, 06:05 PM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

Actually, some new information has appeared in the last few days. But
feel free to kill the thread on your newsreader. Most newsreaders
have this facility.



We also have to think of newcomers to the NG. Don't want to give them
the, er, ... right impression. ;-)

Cheers,
Alan

It is sad when a subject isn't even open for discussion, isn't it?


--
Ron Hunter
  #1014  
Old April 13th 05, 06:05 PM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

Actually, some new information has appeared in the last few days. But
feel free to kill the thread on your newsreader. Most newsreaders
have this facility.



We also have to think of newcomers to the NG. Don't want to give them
the, er, ... right impression. ;-)

Cheers,
Alan

It is sad when a subject isn't even open for discussion, isn't it?


--
Ron Hunter
  #1015  
Old April 13th 05, 06:30 PM
Chris Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et,
Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Chris Brown" wrote:
(snip) This is not what you indicated that you
understood by these signs previously, namely
that they indicate that a turn is allowed. They
don't incidate that it's *allowed*, they indicate
that it's *mandatory*. (snip)



Actually, I wasn't trying to indicate anything that specific with that
example. Instead, it was simply offered as one example of how signs in
Europe differ slightly from the signs here. On most roads in Europe, one
will often see more signs indicating which direction travel is allowed,


You keep saying this, but it's not true. Here in the UK (one of the
countries where you claim this applies), there are no such signs. Turns are
allowed unless otherwise indicated, just like in the US. We don't have a
sign which grants permission to make a turn, because that permission already
exists. I'm pretty sure the same applies to the other countries you have
mentioned too.

The only examples of such signs which you have provided mean something
entirely different, as a number of people have pointed out.

while one is more likely to see signs indicating which direction is not
allowed here.


If a turn isn't allowed here in the UK, there will be a sign telling you so.
That sign could be one of a number - a simple "no left/right turn", "no
entry", etc., but if there's no sign, then you can make the turn. What you
have claimed is simply not true.

The ultimate irony is that the legal premise in the US that things are
allowed unless explicitly forbidden comes from its common-law ancestry, i.e.
English law, i.e. what we use in the UK.

Or, to spell it out, your legal system has that premise because it's
descended from a European legal system with the same premise.
  #1016  
Old April 13th 05, 07:04 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron Hunter writes:

No, but there certainly are perverted photographers.
Imagine, taking pictures of girls feet to feed the sexual appetites of
some strange men. What ever happened to 'breast men'?


What difference does it make?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #1017  
Old April 13th 05, 07:04 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wayan writes:

Of course there is.


Define perverted photography, then.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #1018  
Old April 13th 05, 07:06 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dwight Stewart writes:

I think you can understand the concept of photographing a young child in a
compromising manner.


No, I don't, and neither do you. Describe it to me and prove me wrong.

I'm all for defending photography. But, as I stated earlier, there are
proper ways of doing things and some limits which should not be breached.


Which limits?

If we consistently abuse the rights, or even perceived rights, of others,
photography as an institution will suffer.


Which rights of others do we abuse by taking pictures in public? And
why isn't it an abuse of photographers' rights when they are harassed
simply for taking pictures in public?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #1019  
Old April 13th 05, 07:06 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron Hunter writes:

That would depend on the age, and maturity of the 'victim'.


No, it wouldn't. It just depends on consent.

Some people feel that even children have a right to sexuality,
others find that idea downright alarming.


Who's right, and why?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #1020  
Old April 13th 05, 07:07 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
 




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
Best cat breed with young children at home -L. Digital Photography 2 February 11th 05 01:49 AM
Best cat breed with young children at home -L. 35mm Photo Equipment 0 February 7th 05 08:30 AM
Best large bird with young children at home Ron Hudson 35mm Photo Equipment 1 February 4th 05 09:10 PM
Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"? William J. Slater General Photography Techniques 9 April 7th 04 04:22 PM
Photographing children Steven Church Photographing People 13 October 21st 03 10:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:31 PM.


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.