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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1011
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Wayan writes:
Of course there is. Define perverted photography, then. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#1018
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |