Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[Alceste]

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.

Kicking the nutsack of a grown man who is creeping on your child up into his ribcage is actually a very rational reaction, for a parent.

 

[Skwim]

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.

Perhaps, but children are a salient part of it. If you read my note to the mods in my OP you'll find the reason.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Perhaps, but children are a salient part of it. If you read my note to the mods in my OP you'll find the reason.

I read it carefully when the thread was raised, and I read each post in the thread as they were put up (or at least, each time I came online). Primarily I thought there was a chance I might need to be across the thread for mod purposes, and trying to play catch-up on an active thread you haven't been at least lurking in is very tough.

The specifics of the issues you raised do have children at their heart. I would still suggest that anytime children are part of a discussion (around potential protective/harmful behaviours) there will be a strong emotive response. Hence my suggestion that tackling the same broad points using non-pedophilic examples may have got you more rational discussion. Also confused me a little as to the angle you were trying to take. Strictly legal, perhaps? Anyways, that's just my confusion, most likely. Some points on the OP, though perhaps not of interest (unsure)...

1) Parents act more extremely in the protection of their own children than they would in the protection of themselves (generally).

2) Police, rightly or wrongly, have discretionary powers and abilities. Moving someone along, or even arresting and then releasing without charge, are not difficult things for them to do.

3) Given (1), there is some sense in (2), since it stops escalations. I don't actually WANT to punch some sleazeball in the face for photographing my daughter. I just don't want my daughter photographed (with some exceptions). Proactive policing policies might be pushing the line of legalities in this area, but there are a lot of parents, grandparents, etc, and they form a substantial part of the community, particularly when talking about venues that children frequent. Police would get support, rather than harrassment, for flying the flag in the way the OP indicates.

Obviously they open themselves to civil action by the people arrested, or moved on (dependant on local laws, I guess) but as long as they follow due process, and release or charge within mandated times, AND have the support of the community within which the police action occurred, I doubt that will be much of a problem, pragmatically.

Multiple parents reporting someone with a camera in an area with children taking photos of said children without authorization by the parents or any overseeing body (eg. sports complex), and acting in a generally 'sleazy manner' would give the police said probable cause, and the ability to search their phone for the types of photos, etc, they are taking.

If this suspicious character was not breaking a law after this process, I would imagine they would be released without charge.

 

[Skwim]

I read it carefully when the thread was raised, and I read each post in the thread as they were put up (or at least, each time I came online). Primarily I thought there was a chance I might need to be across the thread for mod purposes, and trying to play catch-up on an active thread you haven't been at least lurking in is very tough.

The specifics of the issues you raised do have children at their heart. I would still suggest that anytime children are part of a discussion (around potential protective/harmful behaviours) there will be a strong emotive response.
Hence my suggestion that tackling the same broad points using non-pedophilic examples may have got you more rational discussion.

What you say here is exactly what I had to deal with in post after post, Exaggeration and misrepresentation. Pedophilia, a psychiatric disorder, was never established in any of the incidents. So, other than to mis-characterize the subjects as psychological degenerates there is no reason to introduce it. And these aren't "broad points" to be discussed in some other manner. They happen to be very specific issues that deserve be addressed in a like way. Focusing as I did on those points I feel are germane to the incidents.

Also confused me a little as to the angle you were trying to take. Strictly legal, perhaps? Anyways, that's just my confusion, most likely. Some points on the OP, though perhaps not of interest (unsure)...

As I made quite evident in my OP, I was looking for responses to four very specific issues.

The justification of the actions by the police

Whether or not children need protection from such photographers

Whether there's any harm in deriving sexual gratification from pictures of children.

Whether there's any harm in taking pictures of children for later sexual gratification
​

And as threads always go, the issues that are discussed are decided by the participants, not by the creator of the thread. Unfortunately, the thread became skewed toward the first issue, along with some very emotional reactions to the subject in general. I would have preferred that each of the four issues be discussed equally and with a fair degree of sobriety. Unfortunately, the thread became quite a mess, with only a few points getting a fair hearing.

 

[oldbadger]

Maybe, but the CA creeper was charged with possession of child pornography. Whether they defined his low angle crotch photos of kids as pornography or whether they charged him for other images on his phone is unclear.

Moral of that particular story is, if you don't want to be tackled by angry parents and held down until police arrive, don't squat behind their kids snapping crotch close-ups. That guy is lucky he survived.

Ahhh... Well...... I've been wading thru Minnesota Legislation facepalm and it mostly is saying that anybody can photo anybody for editorial purposes anywhere anyhow blah blah ........

Exceptions may exist if the photos or recordings include sexual overtones.

What we have to ask ourselves is 'Do low angle crotch photos of kiddies fall into the 'sexual overtones' bracket?'

Out of 100 folks-in-the-street, how many do you think would answer 'f---ing yes' to that survey? :biglaugh:

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What you say here is exactly what I had to deal with in post after post, Exaggeration and misrepresentation. Pedophilia, a psychiatric disorder, was never established in any of the incidents. So, other than to mis-characterize the subjects as psychological degenerates there is no reason to introduce it. And these aren't "broad points" to be discussed in some other manner. They happen to be very specific issues that deserve be addressed in a like way. Focusing as I did on those points I feel are germane to the incidents.

Apologies on characterising people charged with possession of child porn as pedophiles. I do understand the difference (honestly). I'm not convinced that characterising holders of child porn as 'psychological degenerates' is unfair, but I'm sure my wife (mental health care worker) might have a different opinion to me.

In terms of the broad versus specific points argument, I was purely offering my view that discussing child protection/harm related issues was always likely to result in emotive response.

As I made quite evident in my OP, I was looking for responses to four very specific issues.

The justification of the actions by the police
Whether or not children need protection from such photographers
Whether there's any harm in deriving sexual gratification from pictures of children.
Whether there's any harm in taking pictures of children for later sexual gratification
​

Yeah, but are we trying to justify them in a legal sense, or are we trying to justify them in a MORAL sense. Legally, as I said, I personally have little interest. It's boring (to me, personally) and laws in Oz are not going to be the same as in your location or the location of the incidents.

Morally, they're more interesting, and more applicable around the globe, to my mind.

So, I think the police are justified to proactively police (as mentioned), where there are complaints around anti-social behaviour. That anti-social behaviour could be loitering behaviour, or it could be photographing kids for no apparent reason. I think they are justified, because I think that is the sort of behaviour the community expects, particularly in 'family friendly' areas. Kids playgrounds, for example. The risk is balancing this license alongside the abuse of this licence. Targeting of homeless people, targeting of mentally ill, etc.

Do children need protection from photgraphers?
Sure, if they're predatory. If the swimming pool, council, whatever accredits a photographer to take photos for a purpose, that's one thing. If someone is hanging around a playground (for example) what is their purpose for being there? Does it enhance or detract from the utility of the playground? Does it contribute to the facility being used for what it's intended? I wouldn't take my daughter to a playground where there were random blokes photographing my child, so my daughter is restricted in her use of the facility.

Whether there's any harm in deriving sexual gratification from pictures of children.
Gut feel, with a modicum (only) of knowledge in this area is that the key risks are around escalation of behaviour, and opportunistic behaviours. I don't have access to the studies I used to, and frankly searching through this sort of stuff isn't my idea of fun. Do you believe there is no likelihood of opportunistic crime from people photographing children for non-apparent reasons? Or do you think there is, but the price we'd pay to control that is too high?

Whether there's any harm in deriving sexual gratification from pictures of children.
Someone who has access to a location my daughter frequenting then taking a photo of her, and going home to beating off to it? That sounds like an invitation to escalation.

However, if I am never aware of it, my daughter is never aware of it, the guy never escalates his behaviour, no-one else in the future is ever made aware of similar behaviour, etc, etc, then sure, no-one is harmed. It's simply gross.

And as threads always go, the issues that are discussed are decided by the participants, not by the creator of the thread. Unfortunately, the thread became skewed toward the first issue, along with some very emotional reactions to the subject in general. I would have preferred that each of the four issues be discussed equally and with a fair degree of sobriety. Unfortunately, the thread became quite a mess, with only a few points getting a fair hearing.

Yes, true. I've started threads I knew would be argument-starters, and asked for certain behaviours in the OP, generally without much success. Like I said, start ANY topic on child protection behaviours, and you'll get emotive responses, regardless of intent, and regardless of OP.

 

[Majikthise]

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.

You do realize that some of the strongest emotional reactions have been offered up by atheists, do you not?
You have been claiming that no one got your original intent but you yourself have missed the point of nearly everyone else's responses by light years. And it appears at times with purpose.
I've only kept following this thread because I really believed you would suddenly come out with some great revelation that would leave us all with egg on our faces.
I'm embarrassed.

 

[Majikthise]

Kicking the nutsack of a grown man who is creeping on your child up into his ribcage is actually a very rational reaction, for a parent.

That is as irrefutable as the law of gravity.

 

[Thief]

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?

I don't see that anyone has the right to search or seize property.
And with telephoto lenses.....how then would you be sure?

As for having kids.....
I happen to be a black belt.....
Look all you want.
No touchy feely.

As for photographers in the park......not a worry.
I could always move in view and flip him off.

 

[Alceste]

Ahhh... Well...... I've been wading thru Minnesota Legislation facepalm and it mostly is saying that anybody can photo anybody for editorial purposes anywhere anyhow blah blah ........

What we have to ask ourselves is 'Do low angle crotch photos of kiddies fall into the 'sexual overtones' bracket?'

Out of 100 folks-in-the-street, how many do you think would answer 'f---ing yes' to that survey? :biglaugh:

Out of 100? I'd say 100, unless Skwim was passing by, on which case, 99.

 

[Buttercup]

What we have to ask ourselves is 'Do low angle crotch photos of kiddies fall into the 'sexual overtones' bracket?'

Yes. Those types of pictures are considered child erotica and depending on the shot, may be illegal.

COPINE scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Child erotica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Out of 100 folks-in-the-street, how many do you think would answer 'f---ing yes' to that survey? :biglaugh:

Out of 100? I'd say 100, unless Skwim was passing by, on which case, 99.

Ditto.

 

[Skwim]

Yeah, but are we trying to justify them in a legal sense, or are we trying to justify them in a MORAL sense. Legally, as I said, I personally have little interest. It's boring (to me, personally) and laws in Oz are not going to be the same as in your location or the location of the incidents.

Morally, they're more interesting, and more applicable around the globe, to my mind.

I agree that the morality of the incidents are probably more interesting; however, it was legal aspect, the arrests, that brought the subject to our attention, and was therefore a focus of interest, particularly because the grounds for the arrests appeared highly questionable.

Do children need protection from photgraphers? Sure, if they're predatory.

Of course, but predatoriness was never raised.

Whether there's any harm in deriving sexual gratification from pictures of children.
Someone who has access to a location my daughter frequenting then taking a photo of her, and going home to beating off to it? That sounds like an invitation to escalation.

The possibility of escalation can probably be attached to any behavior: Firearm ownership should not be allowed because it's likely to escalate to gun related crime. Unless a strong correlation already exists, possibilities of escalation are irrelevant.

However, if I am never aware of it, my daughter is never aware of it, the guy never escalates his behaviour, no-one else in the future is ever made aware of similar behaviour, etc, etc, then sure, no-one is harmed. It's simply gross.

Okay, Just remember that emotional reactions alone aren't reasonable grounds for establishing laws.

____________________________

You do realize that some of the strongest emotional reactions have been offered up by atheists, do you not?

I do not.

You have been claiming that no one got your original intent but you yourself have missed the point of nearly everyone else's responses by light years.

I think they got my intent, but many chose to ignore it in favor of making irrelevant, and mostly emotional points. At times critical thinking is pretty scarce around here. This thread being a prime example.

And it appears at times with purpose.

Nope. I ignored them because they weren't germane.

I've only kept following this thread because I really believed you would suddenly come out with some great revelation that would leave us all with egg on our faces.
I'm embarrassed.

Why would you be embarrassed by what someone else doesn't do?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree that the morality of the incidents are probably more interesting; however, it was legal aspect, the arrests, that brought the subject to our attention, and was therefore a focus of interest, particularly because the grounds for the arrests appeared highly questionable.

One thing worth mentioning, although I'm sure you understand it, is the separation between the arrest, and the laying of charges. Police can arrest someone based on probable cause. Suspicious behaviour, reports from concerned citizens, and the inability to explain why one was taking photos around children in a convincing fashion would, I think, make an argument for probable cause, with the potential crime being committed being around inappropriate pictures of children being taken. (Exact wording/statutes involved depend on location, but in most, taking repeated closeups of a kid's butt, for example, would be illegal)

I am not arguing that was facts of the case, I am arguing that there was enough suspicion to allow an arrest on probable cause, and a search of the phone/questioning. Based on what was found during these processes, charges could be laid, or not.

Of course, but predatoriness was never raised.

My point was that you have men taking photos of kids for no apparent reason. Those men may be predators, they may be completely innocent of any ill intent whatsoever. If the former, the kids need protection. If the latter, they don't. How to determine which group the men fall into is germaine to this.

The possibility of escalation can probably be attached to any behavior: Firearm ownership should not be allowed because it's likely to escalate to gun related crime. Unless a strong correlation already exists, possibilities of escalation are irrelevant.

This is where it gets tricky. I live in a country where firearm controls are in place for exactly the reason described, so there is quite possibly a fundamental difference in balancing the rights of the individual against the rights of the community.

But what you're saying, I think, is that unless we can strongly prove a correlation between looking behaviours and touching behaviours, the possibility of escalation is not relevant.
I'd look at it a little differently.

Escalation is hard to prove. Convicted pedophiles, near as I can tell, generally do have escalating behaviours from touching to more intrusive behaviours. What I can't find is a clear link between looking to touching. So I think there are grounds to suspect escalation, but possibly not the ability to prove it in any meaningful way. What, then, does the community lose by allowing policeman the right to arrest people on probable cause where concerned parents are making complaints about their behaviour, and someone is 'acting suspiciously'?

Okay, Just remember that emotional reactions alone aren't reasonable grounds for establishing laws.

They aren't, or they shouldn't be?
Emotional reactions, and the majority opinion have commonly been grounds for establishing laws. I am guessing you mean laws should be evidence based.

 

[Alceste]

I agree that the morality of the incidents are probably more interesting; however, it was legal aspect, the arrests, that brought the subject to our attention, and was therefore a focus of interest, particularly because the grounds for the arrests appeared highly questionable.

Of course, but predatoriness was never raised.

The possibility of escalation can probably be attached to any behavior: Firearm ownership should not be allowed because it's likely to escalate to gun related crime. Unless a strong correlation already exists, possibilities of escalation are irrelevant.

Okay, Just remember that emotional reactions alone aren't reasonable grounds for establishing laws.

____________________________

I do not.

I think they got my intent, but many chose to ignore it in favor of making irrelevant, and mostly emotional points. At times critical thinking is pretty scarce around here. This thread being a prime example.

Nope. I ignored them because they weren't germane.

Why would you be embarrassed by what someone else doesn't do?

I haven't actually seen any of this "emotional" stuff you think you saw, which makes me wonder if we've been reading the same thread. Pretty much everyone here has either defended the arrests based on law or ethics, and nearly all have been lucid, easy to follow and well reasoned. Are you sure you aren't projecting?

To sum it up, we all believe children (and everybody else) have a natural right to be free from predation and sexual harassment in public. All of the men who were arrested were behaving in such a way that people thought they were a threat to children's safety worthy of police attention. Also, all three were charged with breaking real, live laws that have been cited for you. So... Where's all this irrationality you're seeing? Can you give an example?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I haven't actually seen any of this "emotional" stuff you think you saw, which makes me wonder if we've been reading the same thread. Pretty much everyone here has either defended the arrests based on law or ethics, and nearly all have been lucid, easy to follow and well reasoned. Are you sure you aren't projecting?

To sum it up, we all believe children (and everybody else) have a natural right to be free from predation and sexual harassment in public. All of the men who were arrested were behaving in such a way that people thought they were a threat to children's safety worthy of police attention. Also, all three were charged with breaking real, live laws that have been cited for you. So... Where's all this irrationality you're seeing? Can you give an example?

Well...Kilgore and I both kinda mentioned taking the law into our own hands to some degree. That could certainly be deemed as emotional. Don't see it as irrational, but still...

That was partly why I was confused about the religious comment, given KT and I are both...errr...less than theistic.

 

[Alceste]

Well...Kilgore and I both kinda mentioned taking the law into our own hands to some degree. That could certainly be deemed as emotional. Don't see it as irrational, but still...

That was partly why I was confused about the religious comment, given KT and I are both...errr...less than theistic.

Ah, well by the time two billion pages of this debate passed by I was advocating kicking their balls in myself, out of boredom, but I thought my first ten thousand posts were quite dispassionate.

 

[Thief]

My point was that you have men taking photos of kids for no apparent reason. Those men may be predators, they may be completely innocent of any ill intent whatsoever. If the former, the kids need protection. If the latter, they don't. How to determine which group the men fall into is germaine to this.



This is where it gets tricky.

.............................................. the possibility of escalation is not relevant.
I'd look at it a little differently.

What I can't find is a clear link between looking to touching. So I think there are grounds to suspect escalation, but possibly not the ability to prove it in any meaningful way.


They aren't, or they shouldn't be?
Emotional reactions, and the majority opinion have commonly been grounds for establishing laws. I am guessing you mean laws should be evidence based.

You can't find a clear link between looking and touching?
I hope you don't have a firearm permit!!!!!!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You can't find a clear link between looking and touching?
I hope you don't have a firearm permit!!!!!!

Erm...no, I don't have a firearm permit.

I'm talking about finding scientific studies proving that people who look/photograph kids in playgrounds (for example) exhibit a higher risk of escalation to predatory behaviours than those who don't.

Whilst I would believe there is an escalation model of behaviours towards children, that's just a mix of common sense, and extrapolation from other child predatory behaviours I was trained in.

I don't have a study which shows a causal link, via scientific method, of looking at children in public places escalating to touching.
It should be noted, I don't have a study which shows no link either.
In short, I have an absence of scientific evidence either way, based on 'extensive' google searching.

I might have some information at home, since I had to undergo mandatory training on this sort of stuff when teaching, but most of our training was more on identification of abused children, and how/when to report. Patterns of behaviour, injury recognition, etc. Unlikely anything in that pertains to this.

 

[Skwim]

My point was that you have men taking photos of kids for no apparent reason.

Oh, I think they had reason. Probably sexual gratification later on.

Those men may be predators, they may be completely innocent of any ill intent whatsoever. If the former, the kids need protection. If the latter, they don't. How to determine which group the men fall into is germaine to this.

"May be" being the operative word. And we can speculate until the cows come home, all which is a fruitless enterprise, which is why it's not worth doing.

What, then, does the community lose by allowing policeman the right to arrest people on probable cause where concerned parents are making complaints about their behaviour, and someone is 'acting suspiciously'?

You can't go around arresting people for what you think they may eventually do. Arrests are based on actually breaking laws. Not on the assumption of going-to-break-a-law.

They aren't, or they shouldn't be?
Emotional reactions, and the majority opinion have commonly been grounds for establishing laws. I am guessing you mean laws should be evidence based.

They aren't. And, yes, majority opinions are often at the root of laws (the job of legislatures). And the best laws are those based on evidence that addresses harm.


____________________________________

I haven't actually seen any of this "emotional" stuff you think you saw, which makes me wonder if we've been reading the same thread.

"There is potential harm there, in the form of creeped out parents worrying about their children attracting the attention of perverts and child molesters, and in the form of the children's privacy being violated."
​

"If I saw some pervert taking pictures of my daughter at the pool, I'd shove his camera up his cornhole,"

"Kicking the nutsack of a grown man who is creeping on your child up into his ribcage is actually a very rational reaction, for a parent."
​

Pretty much everyone here has either defended the arrests based on law or ethics, and nearly all have been lucid, easy to follow and well reasoned.

No they haven't. Many, if not most, are based on "not liking" what these photographers were doing. Even to the point of name calling---an emotional response:

"As I said, the law is irrelevant. If it permits perverts to creep on unsuspecting children, it should be changed."
​

and

"Skwim, perhaps you could explain why you believe pedophiles should be exempt from these laws,"

​

But most of the emotional nature of the responses is exhibited in replies such as.

"If someone placed a video camera in your house without you knowing it, and sexually gratified themselves while watching you, would you feel a violation was occurring?"
​

an appeal to one's emotional response rather than bothering to address the legality/illegality of the behavior. Or those that appeal to mass opinion, with a little exaggeration thrown in for flavor..

"You don't think sneaking around taking non-consensual pictures to wank to qualifies as indecent? Most other people do, thank heavens."
​

Thing is, the rationality that under-girds laws regulating behavior is too often ignored here in RF in favor of how one feels about the behavior, sometimes leading to ridiculous comments such as:

"Yes. So we have stalking, creation of child pornography, sexual harassment and violations of laws pertaining to the collection of personal information. Seems like ample reason for police to arrest and investigate the creepers in question."
​

Any evidence of "stalking, creation of child pornography, sexual harassment and violations of laws pertaining to the collection of personal information" mentioned in any of the three incidents in the OP? Nope. But that hasn't prevented the poster from making them up. Probably the best example of emotion winning out over reason.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Oh, I think they had reason. Probably sexual gratification later on.

Yeah...I'm a little less okay with that than you are, I suspect. I don't want people hanging around playgrounds, taking photos of my daughter so they can go home and jack off. I don't like the message it sends to my daughter, I don't like men hanging around facilities where they don't need to be.

You can argue that 'my likes' aren't legalities, and of course that is right. But I would think on this occasion what 'I like' is representative of the vast majority of the community. And pragmatically it will be enforced by police, at least to some degree, whether they use loitering laws, probable cause, or whatever else to either move on or (in more suspicious cases) detain people.

"May be" being the operative word. And we can speculate until the cows come home, all which is a fruitless enterprise, which is why it's not worth doing.

I disagree. In the examples you provided, the speculation proved accurate enough in at least two of the cases to identify criminal behaviours. These weren't bald-arsed guesses.

You can't go around arresting people for what you think they may eventually do. Arrests are based on actually breaking laws. Not on the assumption of going-to-break-a-law.

You can arrest people on the suspicion that they already have broken a law though, and a man in a playground without apparent need to be there, with a camera, taking photos has possibly broken a law.
If the guys is suspicious in his behaviour, and if the community is concerned, it's easy to justify probable cause based on what he's already potentially done.

They aren't. And, yes, majority opinions are often at the root of laws (the job of legislatures). And the best laws are those based on evidence that addresses harm.

I'd agree with that. No doubt the law in this area is going to struggle. That isn't because their behaviour is right though. There are a LOT of areas the law struggles in. Your contention seems to be that the law should stay out of it then. Fair enough, I can see that. But using existing laws, police have some scope to play 'fill the gaps'. You might see that as more of a risk to society than the actual behaviour of the men themselves. I don't.