Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[Buttercup]

Can we discuss something other than laws and legality issues here? I'd feel a lot better about this thread if we did.

Skwim, would you be in favor of laws that make it illegal to take pictures of a woman's, man's or child's rear end, boobs or crotch while they're out in public?

 

[Skwim]

Can we discuss something other than laws and legality issues here? I'd feel a lot better about this thread if we did.

I'll second that.

Skwim, would you be in favor of laws that make it illegal to take pictures of a woman's, man's or child's rear end, boobs or crotch while they're out in public?

Well, that didn't last long, did it.

As for your question; No. I don't see the need, and it would be too subjective and offer too many opportunities for misjudgment.

 

[Buttercup]

I

As for your question; I don't think so. Too subjective and too many opportunities for misjudgments.

Such as?

 

[Buttercup]

You edited your comment after I posted my comment so I'll go back to this comment.

I'll second that.

Well, that didn't last long, did it.

Glad you noticed my sarcasm.

As for your question; No. I don't see the need, and it would be too subjective and offer too many opportunities for misjudgment.

Should there be any laws regarding taking pictures of children out in public? What if a photographer is specifically targeting your child?

If your wife or girlfriend is sitting on the beach in a bikini and a photographer comes directly up to her and snaps a ton of shots, should that be legal? In other words, you'd prefer for people to have no personal privacy or ownership of their bodies while in public?

 

[Skwim]

Such as?

The subjectivity would be whether or not that pervy woman over there on the hill was taking telephotos of my wife's bazongas. She may deny it, but I'm convinced she was.

The misjudgement would be that the picture of my me and wife together was to really to get her bazongas on "film."

 

[4consideration]

Except for the Winn incident, what law could they have been breaking?

1st article, this law. Texas Penal Code - Section 21.15. Improper Photography Or Visual Recording - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws

2nd article is the Winn incident, where you seem to be acknowledging he was arrested for breaking a law.

3rd article, the last paragraph of the article: "Encisco was booked on charges of possessing child porn of a child under 14 years old and is being held on $30,000 bail."

The article said they obtained the smart phone. It did not say that the charges were limited to photographs from the phone taken at that event. Without further information on the exact details, and going only the article as written, it appears there was something on that phone that qualified as "child pornography."

If you think there are, Just give me one or two.

Sure. I think that a man placing himself in a lowered position, so as to capture crotch shots of children bending over, would appear to be taking those pictures for the purpose of using them for sexual gratification. In addition to being thoroughly objectionable not only to me, but to the people involved, I think it is a reasonable cause for considering this man may have sexual interest in and be a danger to children, and I think that justifies investigating further.

The article does not say the man was arrested for those actions. Those actions were what lead the other people to detain him and call the police. He was apparently arrested for having child pornography of a child under the age of 14, which is actually a crime.

All I'm asking is for a lawful reason for making an arrest.

I think we've covered that for all three articles.

Again, it's not a matter of what I or you deem acceptable, but what the law says. And so far, among all these 130 some posts no one has yet to provided one.

I understand what you are saying. I don't think people should just arbitrarily be arrested for things that are not crimes, just because people don't happen to like a particular behavior. I don't think that is what happened in these cases.

I think the people observed objectionable behavior, and laws were found to have been broken in the process of investigating the matters, which led to these arrests.

Just cite an applicable law, people. Just one.

​

I already did, in the case in Texas.

In the other two cases, the men were arrested for being in possession of child pornography, which is defined legally (and I'm not going to go look it up.) They were not arrested for photographing children in public.

Look up Texas Penal Code 43.21. for the definition of "promote," which is quite salient to 21:15.

I did look it up. Among other things the word "give" is part of the definition. So...if there was evidence this man gave and received these types of pictures, I think it would qualify there, and still may be considered a crime under that law. It is not necessary that he would have intended to sell them.

 

[dawny0826]

Certainly; however, it doesn't bear on the actions of police arresting someone for merely taking photos of children in public. Unless intent can be proven at the scene, it doesn't enter into the reason to arrest. THE ARREST— AT— THE— SCENE. And then I'm not even sure intent is reason enough. Maybe so. Maybe not.

Edited to: Police can typically arrest on probable cause.

 

[4consideration]

Thing is, there's no law that says that other than for purposes of gain or the promotion of a cause you have no control over any photo taken of you taken in public. Period! Any photo taken in public can be used for whatever personal use one desires: frame, wrap garbage, or masturbation.

Well, I guess that is where there is a difference between the moral/ethical points of a matter, and the legal aspect of it.

It may be that in many cases a person can legally take a picture of someone in public and go home and masturbate to it. Since this is in the Ethic and Morals section and you brought up the question that I was answering, I thought you were talking about the moral/ethical reasons as to why it may be objectionable, and not only whether or not one would technically be found to be in violation of a specific law.

Taking it a step further, going out and taking pictures for the purpose of masturbating to them, even if it is an adult, without the consent of the person being photographed, IMO, is a breach of what I consider to be moral or ethical behavior. You may disagree.

 

[Alceste]

Can we discuss something other than laws and legality issues here? I'd feel a lot better about this thread if we did.

Skwim, would you be in favor of laws that make it illegal to take pictures of a woman's, man's or child's rear end, boobs or crotch while they're out in public?

I'll buy that for a dollar. This is what I was thinking in post #2. Our right to feel that our children are safe and secure in public should take priority over any pervert's right to wank over pictures of whomever he's been creeping on.

 

[Buttercup]

I'll buy that for a dollar. This is what I was thinking in post #2. Our right to feel that our children are safe and secure in public should take priority over any pervert's right to wank over pictures of whomever he's been creeping on.

Exactly. My thought is that children should definitely have specific and detailed laws to protect them. In one of my early posts I mentioned the motive behind a man taking pictures of children he doesn't know cannot be good. Period. I can think of ZERO reasons why a man would take pictures of kids he does not know. If he does have a good reason, he will have gotten permission beforehand and the parents can be contacted for verification.

I'm waiting for Skwim to respond to my earlier comment from my version of "As the Tables Turn" as he only commented on an adult female's "bazongas". I'm more interested in the kid's welfare at this point.

 

[Thief]

Cops are now suiting up with cameras.
(basically to keep their own backsides covered)

So now Big Brother IS watching......up close and personal.

And now we have a class of people who can photo.....and you may not.

 

[Skwim]

You edited your comment after I posted my comment so I'll go back to this comment.

Glad you noticed my sarcasm.

Should there be any laws regarding taking pictures of children out in public?

None that I can think of.

What if a photographer is specifically targeting your child?

Not sure what you mean by "targeting," but if I read you right, Nope. I'm not a hypocrite.

If your wife or girlfriend is sitting on the beach in a bikini and a photographer comes directly up to her and snaps a ton of shots, should that be legal?

It already is.

In other words, you'd prefer for people to have no personal privacy or ownership of their bodies while in public?

The type of privacy we're talking about is given up when one goes out in public. And, I'm quite satisfied with it.

 

[Straw Dog]

I did start a paragraph but...

I don't believe anyone should be taking non-consensual pictures of anyone for wank material.

^^^ This pretty much covers it.

Thanks Alceste!

 

[Skwim]

I did look it up. Among other things the word "give" is part of the definition. So...if there was evidence this man gave and received these types of pictures, I think it would qualify there, and still may be considered a crime under that law. It is not necessary that he would have intended to sell them.

I give up. There's just no talking sense to you. Have a good day.

Edited to: Police can typically arrest on probable cause.

Yes, but so far no one here has been able to cite any law for which the police would have probable cause to arrest.

 

[Buttercup]

Not sure what you mean by "targeting," but if I read you right, Nope. I'm not a hypocrite.

Are you a parent? If so, please let me know if this scenario sounds acceptable to you. If you are not a parent, you aren't allowed to answer this question because I already know your answer. You've stated your opinion multiple times already.

You and your wife have a sweet, 5 year old daughter whom you take to the park one sunny Sunday afternoon for play time on the slide and swing set. She has on a cute little skirt and flowery top and looks utterly adorable. You notice a man you do not know sitting on a bench with a camera and a telephoto lens. He's approximately 20 yards away from the playground snapping photos of your girl as she slides down the slide. You know state laws are such that you cannot interfere with his taking pictures of your little girl so you say and do nothing even though you have an educated guess that his motive is not pure.

Is this really the kind of world you want to live in?

 

[roger1440]

The charges will be dropped.

 

[Skwim]

Are you a parent? If so, please let me know if this scenario sounds acceptable to you. If you are not a parent, you aren't allowed to answer this question because I already know your answer. You've stated your opinion multiple times already.

You and your wife have a sweet, 5 year old daughter whom you take to the park one sunny Sunday afternoon for play time on the slide and swing set. She has on a cute little skirt and flowery top and looks utterly adorable. You notice a man you do not know sitting on a bench with a camera and a telephoto lens. He's approximately 20 yards away from the playground snapping photos of your girl as she slides down the slide. You know state laws are such that you cannot interfere with his taking pictures of your little girl so you say and do nothing even though you have an educated guess that his motive is not pure.

Is this really the kind of world you want to live in?

If you're old enough to appreciate our freedoms you're old enough to recognize that they often come at a price. And I don't believe that mere dislike of anything is grounds to forbid it.

 

[roger1440]

The charges were made against these men in order to catch a bigger fish. Trust me, I know stuff.

 

[Buttercup]

If you're old enough to appreciate our freedoms you're old enough to recognize that they often come at a price. And I don't believe that mere dislike of anything is grounds to forbid it.

Although you would like to think I would merely dislike this man's behavior, that particular word is not strong enough as it's completely obvious he intends harm. Not imminent physical harm, but the odds are he's going to sell photos of my child to a gazillion other sleaze balls around the world just like himself. That is harming my child and perpetuates harm to other children. It's a no total no brainer assumption, dude.

Where do you derive your personal moral standards? I swiped this link from another thread but you should consider adopting this particular standard.

Note Moral Foundation One, please. This specific topic falls under that moral standard with a slam dunk.

Moral Foundations Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Straw Dog]

Mere dislike is not grounds for something to be illegal. Then again, I don't really have much faith in the universal rule of law to begin with. I'm an advocate of active community awareness. If I happen to see a suspicious fellow taking photographs of my own or someone else's kids, then I will simply approach and question his intentions. If no noble intentions are uncovered, then I may become more irritated to say the least.