Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

If you don't think we craft laws based on the emotional impact of behaviors and impacts on individuals and societies, then I fear you've got a lot to learn about societies, and how and why laws, customs, and mores develop.

 

[Alceste]

To elaborate on how privacy laws work, you can take pictures of public spaces with people in them, provided you are not zooming in on an identifiable individual. If any information captured in the photo would allow a viewer to single out who the subject is, consent is required in most cases. Particularly when the subject is a member of a vulnerable population. Ie children. While that doesn't necessarily apply to pictures of an individual where no other information is available, organizations that collect images of children take great pains to obtain parental consent to avoid complaints to the privacy commissioner in any given country where these laws apply.

Skwim, perhaps you could explain why you believe pedophiles should be exempt from these laws, given that they are specifically designed to protect children from the exact type of exploitation you describe.

 

[Buttercup]

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.

I understand the desire for a conversation regarding this hot top and I can appreciate the time you took to compose your OP.

However, when you say things like this:

Even if they took them for purposes of sexual gratification I don't believe this rises to the level of prohibition.

I am puzzled why you'd think you would get less than emotional responses? Do you sincerely think that a man (or woman) should be able to take pictures of innocent children or women for their own sexual gratification? Please explain why and why the law should be on their side.

 

[Skwim]

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

Ha! Ha!, Nice little twist you put on this one. In any case, It's the constitutional principle of English law that everything which is not forbidden is allowed. Look it up.

 

[Alceste]

Ha! Ha!, Nice little twist you put on this one. In any case, It's the constitutional principle of English law that everything which is not forbidden is allowed. Look it up.

I don't need to look it up. Enforcing privacy law in England was my job for two years. I could practically recite the Data Protection Act from memory, and have written dozens of policies and training programs to ensure compliance with it.

Perhaps you need to look it up yourself.

 

[Skwim]

If you don't think we craft laws based on the emotional impact of behaviors and impacts on individuals and societies, then I fear you've got a lot to learn about societies, and how and why laws, customs, and mores develop.

Never said they weren't, only that where no harm has been shown they shouldn't be. Which is why at the very outset I asked where the harm laid in taking such pictures.

" I seriously want to hear how people regard this behavior in light of our laws, and consider where the harm lies."
​

So far I've heard of no specific harm, only unsupported claims of attendant creepiness, characterizations of perversion and molestation, and future rapes.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Never said they weren't, only that where no harm has been shown they shouldn't be. Which is why at the very outset I asked where the harm laid in taking such pictures.

" I seriously want to hear how people regard this behavior in light of our laws, and consider where the harm lies."
​

So far I've heard of no specific harm, only unsupported claims of attendant creepiness, characterizations of perversion and molestation, and future rapes.

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?

 

[Alceste]

Never said they weren't, only that where no harm has been shown they shouldn't be. Which is why at the very outset I asked where the harm laid in taking such pictures.

" I seriously want to hear how people regard this behavior in light of our laws, and consider where the harm lies."
​

So far I've heard of no specific harm, only unsupported claims of attendant creepiness, characterizations of perversion and molestation, and future rapes.

Stealing is harmless if nobody notices. Does that mean it's permissible?

You have yet to explain why you believe perverts and pedophiles should be exempt from privacy laws prohibiting the non-consensual collection of personal information. Come on, give it a go. It's a slow morning and I could use a good chuckle.

 

[Alceste]

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?

Surely it's totally OK as long as you don't notice. Lol.

 

[Skwim]

To elaborate on how privacy laws work, you can take pictures of public spaces with people in them, provided you are not zooming in on an identifiable individual. If any information captured in the photo would allow a viewer to single out who the subject is, consent is required in most cases. Particularly when the subject is a member of a vulnerable population. Ie children.

Please cite this law.

Skwim, perhaps you could explain why you believe pedophiles should be exempt from these laws, given that they are specifically designed to protect children from the exact type of exploitation you describe.

Not until you tell me why you need to take this discussion off track. Short of that I decline to engage you in the issue.

I don't need to look it up. Enforcing privacy law in England was my job for two years. I could practically recite the Data Protection Act from memory, and have written dozens of policies and training programs to ensure compliance with it.

Perhaps you need to look it up yourself.

That's very nice; If England does have laws prohibiting photographing children in public place, and because you're so familiar with English privacy law---it must be at your finger tips---how about sharing this law with us. In the mean time, in as much as the three incidents I cited in my OP happened in the USA I'm going to pretty much ignore English law and focus on US law. Sorry if this disappoints, but I don't intend to start addressing the laws of various other countries---I don't have the time..

I am puzzled why you'd think you would get less than emotional responses?

Oh I was counting on them, but I was also hoping for more reasoned responses. So far it's been a matter of take what I can get.

Do you sincerely think that a man (or woman) should be able to take pictures of innocent children or women for their own sexual gratification?

So far I've see no rational reason to prohibit it.

Please explain why and why the law should be on their side.

No one has shown me where the harm lies, only emotion based claims and unsupported assertions. Do that and I'll change my mind. So far I see no reason to change the law as it stands. Give me a good reason to make a law prohibiting people from photographing children in public and I'll get behind it.

 

[Skwim]

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?

I suppose so, primarily because I expect a degree of privacy I don't expect in public.

Stealing is harmless if nobody notices. Does that mean it's permissible?

No, because there are laws against theft.

You have yet to explain why you believe perverts and pedophiles should be exempt from privacy laws prohibiting the non-consensual collection of personal information. Come on, give it a go. It's a slow morning and I could use a good chuckle.

Take someone else's thread off track.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I suppose so, primarily because I expect a degree of privacy I don't expect in public.

So, if you had a young child, you wouldn't expect to not have strangers taking pictures of them in public for sexual gratification?

 

[Buttercup]

Oh I was counting on them, but I was also hoping for more reasoned responses. So far it's been a matter of take what I can get.
So far I've see no rational reason to prohibit it.

No one has shown me where the harm lies, only emotion based claims and unsupported assertions. Do that and I'll change my mind. So far I see no reason to change the law as it stands. Give me a good reason to make a law prohibiting people from photographing children in public and I'll get behind it.

Ummm, let's start with the fact that my under aged child is not living on this planet for the sexual gratification of anyone? How is that not rational or reasoned?

 

[Alceste]

Please cite this law.

Not until you tell me why you need to take this discussion off track. Short of that I decline to engage you in the issue.

That's very nice; If England does have laws prohibiting photographing children in public place, and because you're so familiar with English privacy law---it must be at your finger tips---how about sharing this law with us. In the mean time, in as much as the three incidents I cited in my OP happened in the USA I'm going to pretty much ignore English law and focus on US law. Sorry if this disappoints, but I don't intend to start addressing the laws of various other countries---I don't have the time..




Oh I was counting on them, but I was also hoping for more reasoned responses. So far it's been a matter of take what I can get.

So far I've see no rational reason to prohibit it.

No one has shown me where the harm lies, only emotion based claims and unsupported assertions. Do that and I'll change my mind. So far I see no reason to change the law as it stands. Give me a good reason to make a law prohibiting people from photographing children in public and I'll get behind it.

Skwim, 1) YOU insisted we focus on the law. It's not relevant to my argument, but to yours. 2) Two different laws have been cited. One from Canada and the other from the UK. If you missed them, you need to review this thread and read more carefully. 3) You SPECIFICALLY cited English law as the precedent that allows pedophiles with cameras to creep on unsuspecting children. "Anything that is not prohibited is allowed", is how you summed it up. However, taking photos of unsuspecting children to wank over is indeed prohibited in most western countries, including England, so by your own criteria, this behaviour is illegal.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ummm, let's start with the fact that my under aged child is not living on this planet for the sexual gratification of anyone? How is that not rational or reasoned?

Stop being so emotional. After all, if the law can't protect a pedophile's right to jerk off to pictures of your kids, then all of our civil liberties are at risk of being taken away.

 

[Skwim]

So, if you had a young child, you wouldn't expect to not have strangers taking pictures of them in public for sexual gratification?

Nice double negative you've got going here. In any case, in as much as this is such an extremely rare thing I would be very surprised if it happened.

 

[Alceste]

I suppose so, primarily because I expect a degree of privacy I don't expect in public.

No, because there are laws against theft.

Take someone else's thread off track.

There are also laws against taking photos of children without parental consent. So whichever way you want to play it, you've lost this one.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nice double negative you've got going here. In any case, in as much as this is such an extremely rare thing I would be very surprised if it happened.

Nice avoidance of the question there. Would you mind answering it?

 

[Buttercup]

There are also laws against taking photos of children without parental consent. So whichever way you want to play it, you've lost this one.

I'm thinking Skwimmy isn't a parent or he would have never dared to tread these waters. I know you aren't a parent either, but you're smarter than him.

Sorry, Skwimmy.

 

[oldbadger]

At least if you don't know them.

Please consider these three incidents.

Thanks​

Has anybody pointed out to you that all three of these men either admitted to downloading child porn or were found to have child-porn images on their 'phones?

It looks as if the adults who detained or reported these three men got it right, doesn't it? Here.... read these three paras, each relating to one of the three men, in the same order as you placed them:-

Police say Riveire admitted to having child pornography on the phone that “he downloaded from the Internet, but due to the amount of pictures and videos that has not been located yet.”

He was asked to leave the area. When police were called to investigate, they found numerous pictures and videos of young females and children involved in sex acts on Winn’s phone.

ROCKLIN, Calif. (CBS13) – A man has been arrested and charged with possession of child pornography

Did you read those reports yourself? ​