Photographing children

"Jer" wrote:
One of the big (and significant) differences
between the U.K. and the U.S. is the U.S.
has a constitution which explicitly defines
what a citizen's "rights" are. (snip)


Well, to be a little more specific, the Constitution provides protections
for rights which already exist. The Constitution didn't define or create
those rights. Instead, it restricts this government from infringing on some
of the rights all men have - some of the "endowed by their creator ...
inalienable rights" mentioned in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.


(snip) Now, this is not to say I don't think
other people's issues aren't important - they
certainly are - but they also need to realize
there are constitutional issues that sway
over their personal sensibilities as to whether
someone is snapping a shutter at someone
elses visible panty line. (snip)


I'm not entirely comfortable with that argument. You seem to be describing
an absolute right, while I'm reminded of the fact no right is ever absolute.
Every right is, and should be, balanced against the rights of others, the
common good, and so on. I suspect one would have a difficult time time
convincing a court one's supposed right to take pictures of a little girl's
panties outweighs the need to protect children. I said "supposed right" in
that sentence because there is no specific "right" to take pictures of
others. Instead, you simply argue a debatable interpretation of the rights
mentioned in the Constitution.

Stewart

"Jer" wrote:
One of the big (and significant) differences
between the U.K. and the U.S. is the U.S.
has a constitution which explicitly defines
what a citizen's "rights" are. (snip)


Well, to be a little more specific, the Constitution provides protections
for rights which already exist. The Constitution didn't define or create
those rights. Instead, it restricts this government from infringing on some
of the rights all men have - some of the "endowed by their creator ...
inalienable rights" mentioned in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.


(snip) Now, this is not to say I don't think
other people's issues aren't important - they
certainly are - but they also need to realize
there are constitutional issues that sway
over their personal sensibilities as to whether
someone is snapping a shutter at someone
elses visible panty line. (snip)


I'm not entirely comfortable with that argument. You seem to be describing
an absolute right, while I'm reminded of the fact no right is ever absolute.
Every right is, and should be, balanced against the rights of others, the
common good, and so on. I suspect one would have a difficult time time
convincing a court one's supposed right to take pictures of a little girl's
panties outweighs the need to protect children. I said "supposed right" in
that sentence because there is no specific "right" to take pictures of
others. Instead, you simply argue a debatable interpretation of the rights
mentioned in the Constitution.

Stewart

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote:

Why would they be described on the internet
as a matter of course? (snip)


I didn't say they would be, which is exactly why I added the disclaimer,
"at least not described on the internet."

Stewart

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote:

Why would they be described on the internet
as a matter of course? (snip)


I didn't say they would be, which is exactly why I added the disclaimer,
"at least not described on the internet."

Stewart

"Big Bill" wrote:
That's to be expected; the UK as an Official
Secrets Act, which, AIUI, basically says, if
we (the gov't) didn't give you the right to see
it, listen to it, record it, or know about it, if
you do any of those things, it's illegal.
In the US, it's basically the opposite of that;
it's illegal if they tell you it is. If they don't
tell you it's illegal, it isn't. Basically.


While I don't understand how the Official Secrets Act slipped into this
discussion, I do understand what you're talking about. To make it easier for
those who haven't lived in Europe, as I have, to understand, we can use a
highway traffic control example. Here in the United States, one is generally
allowed to make a left turn unless a "no left turn" sign specifically says
otherwise. In Europe, one is generally expected to not make a left turn on
certain roads (most often in cities) unless a sign specifically says it is
allowed. In actual practice, the end results are virtually the same.

Stewart

"Big Bill" wrote:
That's to be expected; the UK as an Official
Secrets Act, which, AIUI, basically says, if
we (the gov't) didn't give you the right to see
it, listen to it, record it, or know about it, if
you do any of those things, it's illegal.
In the US, it's basically the opposite of that;
it's illegal if they tell you it is. If they don't
tell you it's illegal, it isn't. Basically.


While I don't understand how the Official Secrets Act slipped into this
discussion, I do understand what you're talking about. To make it easier for
those who haven't lived in Europe, as I have, to understand, we can use a
highway traffic control example. Here in the United States, one is generally
allowed to make a left turn unless a "no left turn" sign specifically says
otherwise. In Europe, one is generally expected to not make a left turn on
certain roads (most often in cities) unless a sign specifically says it is
allowed. In actual practice, the end results are virtually the same.

Stewart

"Big Bill" wrote:
Yet, in Britain, you are limited in what, for
example, you can listen to on the radio waves,
no? Yes. (You can't, for example, listen to your
Government transmissions, even the local
police, unless things have really changed in the
last few years.) Nothing to do with what you
*reveal*, it's what you are allowed to listen to.


If one can obtain or build the equipment, one can listen. Indeed, unless
something is said, nobody would even know about it. So, in the end, it is
really what one reveals that can get one in trouble.

Governments around the world have, at various times, restricted the sale
of certain radio receiving equipment. The USA is no exception. For example,
radio scanners sold in the USA must now have segment of the 800MHz
frequencies blocked out. Those frequencies, mainly intended for cellular
telephones, are also commonly used by the police. Of course, there are often
fairly easy methods around those restrictions. For example, here in the USA,
one can legally purchase an older scanner built before the restriction.

Stewart

"Big Bill" wrote:
Yet, in Britain, you are limited in what, for
example, you can listen to on the radio waves,
no? Yes. (You can't, for example, listen to your
Government transmissions, even the local
police, unless things have really changed in the
last few years.) Nothing to do with what you
*reveal*, it's what you are allowed to listen to.


If one can obtain or build the equipment, one can listen. Indeed, unless
something is said, nobody would even know about it. So, in the end, it is
really what one reveals that can get one in trouble.

Governments around the world have, at various times, restricted the sale
of certain radio receiving equipment. The USA is no exception. For example,
radio scanners sold in the USA must now have segment of the 800MHz
frequencies blocked out. Those frequencies, mainly intended for cellular
telephones, are also commonly used by the police. Of course, there are often
fairly easy methods around those restrictions. For example, here in the USA,
one can legally purchase an older scanner built before the restriction.

Stewart

"Mxsmanic" posted:
"...
One day you'll run into deputy-Bubba, and not only will he not
understand... ;-)

He'll take you to court, and lose.
....:

HeHeHeHeHe ...

I think what "Alan Browne" was referring to is NightSTICK Court.

He may ... in the long run ... actually lose "in a Court of Law," but you
will probably spend a couple of weeks in the Hospital, and have several
areas of your body that will be constantly painful for the rest of your
LIFE.





"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne writes:

One day you'll run into deputy-Bubba, and not only will he not
understand... ;-)

He'll take you to court, and lose.

We are not living in caves, and society is not governed by street
fights. Everyone has to obey the law, including deputy Bubba. If you
cower and whimper every time someone rings a bell, perhaps you don't
really deserve to keep the rights that others have fought and died to
obtain for you.

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

"Mxsmanic" posted:
"...
One day you'll run into deputy-Bubba, and not only will he not
understand... ;-)

He'll take you to court, and lose.
....:

HeHeHeHeHe ...

I think what "Alan Browne" was referring to is NightSTICK Court.

He may ... in the long run ... actually lose "in a Court of Law," but you
will probably spend a couple of weeks in the Hospital, and have several
areas of your body that will be constantly painful for the rest of your
LIFE.





"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne writes:

One day you'll run into deputy-Bubba, and not only will he not
understand... ;-)

He'll take you to court, and lose.

We are not living in caves, and society is not governed by street
fights. Everyone has to obey the law, including deputy Bubba. If you
cower and whimper every time someone rings a bell, perhaps you don't
really deserve to keep the rights that others have fought and died to
obtain for you.

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