Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[Thief]

You're gonna have to be clearer, mate.
Are you suggesting that people taking photos of my kids (as an example) is only a problem if I make it one?

Is it?
You're not paranoid are you?
Suspicious of your fellow man.?

 

[Skwim]

Any chance of perspective?....the moral problem is in the eye of the beholder.

If someone handed you a photo.....your reaction is really your problem.

If you can't muster the maturity to see the photo without your emotions jump starting.....
THEN who has the emotional problem?

And this has been a common thread through far too many of the posts here. Emotional reactions have dominated the replies making any rational discussion next to impossible. But I guess this is to be expected on a web site constructed around religion, where faith is the predominant infrastructure.

 

[Father Heathen]

Does that mean I win?

It was won before the thread reached two pages.

 

[Thief]

And this has been a common thread through far too many of the posts here. Emotional reactions have dominated the replies making any rational discussion next to impossible. But I guess this is to be expected on a web site constructed around religion, where faith is the predominant infrastructure.

How about everyday distrust of your fellow man?
I see my fellow man as self seeking and self serving.

But does that make him worthy of my distrust?

 

[Skwim]

How about everyday distrust of your fellow man?
I see my fellow man as self seeking and self serving.

But does that make him worthy of my distrust?

If that's how you see him, distrust seems only reasonable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is it?
You're not paranoid are you?
Suspicious of your fellow man.?

I'm actually just trying to clarify your post/question/point, not make a point of my own. I have no idea how to respond, because it made limited sense to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And this has been a common thread through far too many of the posts here. Emotional reactions have dominated the replies making any rational discussion next to impossible. But I guess this is to be expected on a web site constructed around religion, where faith is the predominant infrastructure.

Actually, I don't think it has to do with 'religion', given the range of religious views of the respondents.
I think you'll find it has more to do with 'children' being involved.

 

[Thief]

If that's how you see him, distrust seems only reasonable.

Therefore the law shall stand!
No cameras in public.....ban all things of a lens!
No spying on the public.
No photos of intersections!
No security cameras.
No cameras anywhere!

No one can be trusted!!!!!!!!!

 

[Thief]

I'm actually just trying to clarify your post/question/point, not make a point of my own. I have no idea how to respond, because it made limited sense to me.

Not really up for this?
Indeed!...how then to trust your posting?!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Therefore the law shall stand!
No cameras in public.....ban all things of a lens!
No spying on the public.
No photos of intersections!
No security cameras.
No cameras anywhere!

No one can be trusted!!!!!!!!!

Hyperbolic, much?

 

[Thief]

Hyperbolic, much?

Where would you like to draw the line?

Trust your government?.....do you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not really up for this?
Indeed!...how then to trust your posting?!

Again, I am trying to clarify what your actual point or question was? It has nothing to do with being 'up' for anything. I am trying to make sense of the words tapped out on your keyboard so I can respond appropriately.

What that has to do with 'trusting' my posting, I have no idea.

Whether the fault is with the way you've phrased your point, or my reading of it doesn't matter. Communication requires us to understand each other, and I don't understand your original question or point.

Happy to respond, but you might need to reword.

 

[Father Heathen]

This "debate" reminds me of a particular scene from a classic film.

[youtube]g8aWs5hEku0[/youtube]

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Where would you like to draw the line?

Trust your government?.....do you?

On some things, and only up to a point.
Which line is it I am supposed to be drawing?

 

[Thief]

On some things, and only up to a point.
Which line is it I am supposed to be drawing?

Try the op.
Should we stone anyone with a camera?

We have the right to carry guns ...nowadays.

 

[Skwim]

Actually, I don't think it has to do with 'religion', given the range of religious views of the respondents.
I think you'll find it has more to do with 'children' being involved.

In my experience those not wedded to religion tend to be more pragmatic and able to set aside subjective reactions and focus on the core issues. This was my approach and found myself virtually alone---a few reasonable comments did make their way through, which were almost exciting.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Try the op.
Should we stone anyone with a camera?

We have the right to carry guns ...nowadays.

Should we stone anyone with a camera? No.
Would I stone anyone taking photos of my daughter just because of that? No.
Would I be protective of her, regardless of the law, if said photographer was focusing on her, and struck me as suspicious. Yep.
Am I interested in digging up legal precedence on this? Actually, not really. Trawling through laws doesn't interest me too much, particularly when the OP is in a different hemisphere to me.

Thing is, it's a hard thing to legislate around. How do you legislate against creeps without restricting our freedom to take photos?
There were stories over here (Oz) for example where a mother was given a tap on the shoulder by a school because she was taking photos of her daughter and a bunch of her friends by the school sign.

Nothing to do with pedophilia, but the school suggested to her that she wasn't allowed to take photos on school property which identified kids (apart from her daughter). Presumably the risk is those photos ending up online and someone (eg. estranged father) using them to locate kids.

So sure, I could see an argument that there are limited legal recourses where people are photographing other people in public, be those people children or otherwise.
It doesn't change the fact that I'll act if someone is target-photographing my daughter, and the nature of those actions would depend largely on the presentation of the photographer in question, to be honest.

I'm sure the OP would see that as an emotive response, since it is. Unsure how we expects me to uncouple emotion from my children, honestly.

 

[Thief]

Should we stone anyone with a camera? No.
Would I stone anyone taking photos of my daughter just because of that? No.
Would I be protective of her, regardless of the law, if said photographer was focusing on her, and struck me as suspicious. Yep.
Am I interested in digging up legal precedence on this? Actually, not really. Trawling through laws doesn't interest me too much, particularly when the OP is in a different hemisphere to me.

Thing is, it's a hard thing to legislate around. How do you legislate against creeps without restricting our freedom to take photos?
There were stories over here (Oz) for example where a mother was given a tap on the shoulder by a school because she was taking photos of her daughter and a bunch of her friends by the school sign.

Nothing to do with pedophilia, but the school suggested to her that she wasn't allowed to take photos on school property which identified kids (apart from her daughter). Presumably the risk is those photos ending up online and someone (eg. estranged father) using them to locate kids.

So sure, I could see an argument that there are limited legal recourses where people are photographing other people in public, be those people children or otherwise.
It doesn't change the fact that I'll act if someone is target-photographing my daughter, and the nature of those actions would depend largely on the presentation of the photographer in question, to be honest.

I'm sure the OP would see that as an emotive response, since it is. Unsure how we expects me to uncouple emotion from my children, honestly.

So...you would kick his ...and take his camera....call the law....and sue him?
How nice!

And what if the judge found him innocent?
a simple apology?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In my experience those not wedded to religion tend to be more pragmatic and able to set aside subjective reactions and focus on the core issues. This was my approach and found myself virtually alone---a few reasonable comments did make their way through, which were almost exciting.

Honestly, I think you would have gotten more meaningful and rational commentary if you looked at this issue without bringing pedophilia or children into it.

I suppose the larger issue is around the law and it's boundaries as it pertains to distasteful behaviour. But I would think any parent, regardless of religious view, is going to get their buttons pushed when discussing kids.

Personally, I would happily step in front of a bus to save either of my kids. (err...okay, not happily, but you get the point...)
This doesn't eliminate my rational brain, but the actions I would take are not limited or controlled by hair-splitting over legal statutes.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So...you would kick his ...and take his camera....call the law....and sue him?
How nice!

And what if the judge found him innocent?
a simple apology?

I would make him show me his photos of my daughter. If said photos were graphic (upskirts or whatever), I'd confiscate his camera as evidence and hand it to the cops.

If he refused to show me what photos he was taking of my daughter I'd call the cops. If he ran, I'd probably (rightly or wrongly) tackle him.

Not interested in suing him. I'm interested in him not taking photographs of my daughters without explaining to me what he was doing.
To be clear, if he had accreditation, if he was taking photos of school sports generally, and not targeting my kids, etc, then I'd be watchful, nothing more.

What action would you take? Is there a line, and how would you identify it? Also, do you have kids?