Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[Skwim]

At least if you don't know them.

Please consider these three incidents.

EARLY, Texas -
Early police have arrested a 44-year-old man after he allegedly took photographs of young girls inside Heartland Mall in the 300 block of Early Boulevard.
source

________________________________________________

MASCOUTAH, IL (KTVI) –Police: Metro East man videotaped young girls at local pool, now facing child porn charges.
source

_________________________________________________

ROCKLIN, Calif. (CBS13) – A man has been arrested and charged with possession of child pornography after parents spotted him taking allegedly inappropriate pictures at a kids’ swim meet.

Parents at a recent children’s championship tournament for the Suburban Swim League allegedly spotted 46-year-old Leandro Encisco using his smart phone to snap photos of childrens’ backsides.
source

​

Now, according to law you can take a picture of anyone if they're out in public. There are no exceptions I'm aware of. However, in the three incidents above the police have arrested these men for doing just that. Granted that for various reason the parents of these children and other people don't like such picture taking, but should their mere dislike trump the law? From where I sit, even though their motives may be less than laudable, these men have broken no law. Even if they took them for purposes of sexual gratification I don't believe this rises to the level of prohibition.

So my questions here are:

1) Can you justifying the actions of the police? If so, go ahead and show your work.

2) Should children be protected from such photographers? If so, on what grounds?

3) Is there harm in deriving sexual gratification from pictures of children. If so, please explain ( and please no "it will lead to future child abuse" without showing your evidence).

4) Is there harm in taking pictures of children for later sexual gratification? If so please explain.
​

To the mods here. I know this is a delicate subject, and it may seem as if I have some vested interest in defending such photography, but I don't. Children don't interest me in the least. I'm only posting this because CBS Morning News ran a segment on it today that raised the first two questions. Questions 3 and 4 came to mind after I reflected on the issue a bit. So please don't delete the thread on the basis of inappropriateness or some other reason. I seriously want to hear how people regard this behavior in light of our laws, and consider where the harm lies.

Thanks

 

[Alceste]

I don't believe anyone should be taking non-consensual pictures of anyone for wank material. I don't care what the law says. 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. Those rights are a much higher priority than the right of perverts to creep on unsuspecting targets on public streets. We have a right to feel safe, and to feel that our kids are safe. Nobody is entitled to collect images of anyone else for sexual gratification without consent.

Just to head off the argument that people wank to pictures in underwear catalogues and so forth, those photos are consensual, so my comments above do not apply.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If I saw some pervert taking pictures of my daughter at the pool, I'd shove his camera up his cornhole, so I have no problem with laws being implemented to address the realities of ever-present cameras in public and people's privacy - particularly in terms of perverts and weirdos.

 

[Erebus]

Pretty much what they said. If it's not currently illegal, then to my mind it should be.

 

[Skwim]

I don't believe anyone should be taking non-consensual pictures of anyone for wank material. I don't care what the law says. 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.

Not talking about child molesters. Let's stay on point. What kind of privacy should children in public have that trumps the law? And why? Moreover, children in public have no greater right to privacy than anyone else.

Those rights are a much higher priority than the right of perverts to creep on unsuspecting targets on public streets. We have a right to feel safe, and to feel that our kids are safe.

So why is it a photographer makes you feel unsafe? And what is the harm from which you wish you seek to keep your kids safe?

Nobody is entitled to collect images of anyone else [IN PUBLIC]* for sexual gratification without consent.

Please cite the applicable law. Thank you.

*Added to keep your statement on track.

 

[Skwim]

If I saw some pervert taking pictures of my daughter at the pool, I'd shove his camera up his cornhole, so I have no problem with laws being implemented to address the realities of ever-present cameras in public and people's privacy - particularly in terms of perverts and weirdos.

But until such laws are enacted you're fine with violating the laws as they now stand. Gottcha.

Pretty much what they said. If it's not currently illegal, then to my mind it should be.

Why? Has some harm been committed, if so what is it? If no harm has been done then on what basis should such a law be be made, your personal disgust?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But until such laws are enacted you're fine with violating the laws as they now stand. Gottcha.

Yes, no problem whatsoever. I'm more interested in actual results and reason than blindly following arbitrary rules like a mindless drone.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, no problem whatsoever. I'm more interested in actual results and reason than blindly following arbitrary rules like a mindless drone.

Results, I assume, based on your dislike. But go ahead and take the law in your own hands, just be sure you have bail money set aside. And are you suggesting that those who follow the law are mindless drones. or just those laws you don't agree with?

 

[Alceste]

Not talking about child molesters. Let's stay on point. What kind of privacy should children in public have that trumps the law? And why? Moreover, children in public have no greater right to privacy than anyone else.

So why is it a photographer makes you feel unsafe? And what is the harm from which you wish you seek to keep your kids safe?

Please cite the applicable law. Thank you.

*Added to keep your statement on track.

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

Regardless, there are laws in many countries that protect the privacy of children, even in public. I used to have the job of issuing guidance and training for complying with the UK's version of those laws - the Data Protection Act. In brief, the greater the vulnerability and sensitivity of the subject and their personal information (which includes photos of them), the higher the threshold for obtaining consent for collecting data about them. The council I worked for was not legally entitled to collect images of children without the signed consent of their parents.

Canada has a similar law, as does the US, but as I said, wherever those laws don't protect us from perverts with cameras on the street, they are imperfect and should be changed to do so.

 

[Skwim]

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

Don't quite understand what you mean by "creep." Do you mean "creep up on"? If so, what if the photographer stays a ways back and uses a telephoto lens? And how do you decide when a law is irrelevant, when it doesn't suit you?

 

[Buttercup]

Why is a man taking pictures of children he doesn't know? I can't think of a wholesome answer.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Results, I assume, based on your dislike. But go ahead and take the law in your own hands, just be sure you have bail money set aside. And are you suggesting that those who follow the law are mindless drones. or just those laws you don't agree with?

I'd say that those who think that protecting perverts who take pictures of children for sexual pleasure is somehow an issue of "civil liberties," are either naive, dense, or perverts themselves.

 

[Skwim]

Why is a man taking pictures of children he doesn't know? I can't think of a wholesome answer.

My guess is sexual gratification.

I'd say that those who think that protecting perverts who take pictures of children for sexual pleasure is somehow an issue of "civil liberties," are either naive, dense, or perverts themselves.

Okay. Kind wish you'd answer my question though.

 

[Buttercup]

Okay. Kind wish you'd answer my question though.

Do you really think you'll find someone who will side with the "law" in this regard of taking pictures of kids or anyone for sexual gratification? I mean, what are you looking for exactly?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Okay. Kind wish you'd answer my question though.

Your question was not worth answering, as it was rhetorical, and somehow meant to diminish my argument and perspective, which it failed to do.

 

[Vinayaka]

But there already are laws ... in some places. When I taught, we were very careful to abide ... even for school yearbooks.

FOIP - Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy:

 

[Alceste]

Results, I assume, based on your dislike. But go ahead and take the law in your own hands, just be sure you have bail money set aside. And are you suggesting that those who follow the law are mindless drones. or just those laws you don't agree with?

It's best to nip rapey behaviour in the bud, IMO. It's not illegal to peer into someone's window from the street, but to do so with your pecker in your fist will get you into hot water with the law. And rightly so. Peeping Toms, if left to their own devices, tend to escalate to B&E rapists. The kick of peeping and wanking gets stale and they escalate. Isn't it better to have an opportunity to teach them about consent before this happens? Likewise, a man who thinks it's OK to take pictures of strangers without their consent for his sexual gratification is in dire need of an introduction to the concept of consent, before his behaviour escalates rather than after.

 

[Alceste]

But there already are laws ... in some places. When I taught, we were very careful to abide ... even for school yearbooks.

FOIP - Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy:

Yes, that's the Canadian version of the law I was tasked with enforcing in the UK. They're substantially similar.

 

[Alceste]

Don't quite understand what you mean by "creep." Do you mean "creep up on"? If so, what if the photographer stays a ways back and uses a telephoto lens? And how do you decide when a law is irrelevant, when it doesn't suit you?

What specific law are you referring to that states people are allowed to take sneaky, non-consensual pictures of children in bathing suits for masturbation purposes?

 

[Skwim]

Do you really think you'll find someone who will side with the "law" in this regard of taking pictures of kids or anyone for sexual gratification? I mean, what are you looking for exactly?

For a good discussion of the pros and cons of each side that aren't based on emotional reactions. So far every response has been propelled by the "GASP-ICK" factor.

Your question was not worth answering, as it was rhetorical, and somehow meant to diminish my argument and perspective,

Glad to see that you recognize that your "argument" and "perspective" are diminishable. And, of course, I asked my question because your "argument" and "perspective" don't hold any water. Both are based on your emotional reaction and not reason. And this isn't how we should be crafting and applying laws.