Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[Skwim]

Skwim incorrectly claimed that being in public negates the legal concept of privacy. This is why google blurs out streetview images of people and property on request. It would be illegal for them not to.

Depends on how the image is used. If the photo is used for gain or to promote a cause a person can have his image altered so as to prevent identification. Of course, outside these circumstances a source may alter an image out of courtesy. Aside from this, all's fair in love and war. So your reply here is immaterial to the issue of privacy in regards to the personal use of a photo taken in a public setting. Which, after all, is what we're talking about in the thread---let's try to stay on point here. Okay? So, if you're out in public and some commoner takes a picture of you, about all you can do about it is stomp the ground, pout, and whine a bit.

 

[Majikthise]

If you wanted to debate the legality of questionable photos in public places you could have gone with creeps taking upskirt pics or beach photos. But you went right for the children.
Why go to that extreme when it really wasn't necessary?
A few years back we a pedo here on RF who claimed he would never act on his desires with an actual child. He wanted to know if it was ok to masturbate to naked pics of himself as a child. Opinions were tossed around, things were discussed.
I told him i believed he had two choises, my opinion. Seek professional help and bring his proclivities into the open, or, find some way to end his miserable exsistance without bothering anyone.
I'm in no way suggesting you have such leanings, but you could have gone a different route as i stated earlier.
Just for the record, i don't recall who the mod was that took the guy off this site and apologized to us, but it doesn't matter. How the mods now react to what I've just said I'll just have to deal with.

There are real monsters, Will Robinson.

Cheers, Dan

 

[Alceste]

Depends on how the image is used. If the photo is used for gain or to promote a cause a person can have his image altered so as to prevent identification. Of course, outside these circumstances a source may alter an image out of courtesy. Aside from this, all's fair in love and war. So your reply here is immaterial to the issue of privacy in regards to the personal use of a photo taken in a public setting. Which, after all, is what we're talking about in the thread---let's try to stay on point here. Okay? So, if you're out in public and some commoner takes a picture of you, about all you can do about it is stomp the ground, pout, and whine a bit.

Word salad. Try again.

 

[dawny0826]

Depends on how the image is used. If the photo is used for gain or to promote a cause a person can have his image altered so as to prevent identification. Of course, outside these circumstances a source may alter an image out of courtesy. Aside from this, all's fair in love and war. So your reply here is immaterial to the issue of privacy in regards to the personal use of a photo taken in a public setting. Which, after all, is what we're talking about in the thread---let's try to stay on point here. Okay? So, if you're out in public and some commoner takes a picture of you, about all you can do about it is stomp the ground, pout, and whine a bit.

It's not immaterial to the discussion.

The photographer's rights may come into question if his/her actions are deemed intrusive, concerning or poses security risk.

I can do more than stomp on the ground, pout and whine if I feel that my rights or the rights of my children are being infringed upon.

To comment again on your provided examples - Mr. Snap Video of Girls at the Pool & Mr. Stalk Children were investigated because of their behavior and the photographs they were taking. They were arrested because the photographs supported suspicion of foul play/illegalilty.

Your third example, Mr. Photographer at Swim Meet clearly depicts that citizens can express concern for the privacy of their children, as children do have the right to present in public without being sexually exploited. Parents essentially made a citizen's arrest and that appears to have been okay. That particular article suggests that this man had taken photographs that were pornographic in nature.

 

[Skwim]

If you wanted to debate the legality of questionable photos in public places you could have gone with creeps taking upskirt pics or beach photos. But you went right for the children.
Why go to that extreme when it really wasn't necessary?

As I noted in my OP. The subject arose because of a news report.

" 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."
source: the OP.
​

And this idea that the issue of photographing children in public should be, what, kept on the back burner(?), is because _____________fill in the blank_______. If an issue is too delicate for you to discuss or read please feel free to refrain from doing so.

_______________________________

Word salad. Try again.

Thanks. I'll take this as an

"Okay, you got me there, I have nothing to counter it with, so let me try another tack. I'll leave the discussion"
​

_________________________________

It's not immaterial to the discussion.

Yes it is.
As for the balance of your reply, either I've already addressed the points you make, they're misconstruals, or they're not relevant. Sorry.

 

[Alceste]

You didn't "get me there", Skwim. Lol. It doesn't "depend how the picture is used". Photographs of identifiable individuals are legally defined as "personal information" and are therefore subject to the applicable laws governing their collection. And the bit about altering images is way, way, way irrelevant to this particular situation.

 

[Buttercup]

I'm calculating the odds regarding the prospect of Skwim conceding his position.

There's money to be had here, people! Step right up and place yer bets!!!

 

[Alceste]

I'm calculating the odds regarding the prospect of Skwim conceding his position.

There's money to be had here, people! Step right up and place yer bets!!!

I will bet you a billion dollars he doesn't budge an inch, and that he doesn't attempt to honestly address any of the legal or ethical arguments brought up in the thread.

 

[oldbadger]

Skwim,.......
9 pages.....
Your three examples show that adults/parents became very worried about the way that children were being photographed. In all three situations the police became involved and arrested the suspects because of either (2) finding downloaded images of child-porn on their phones or (1) there was a confession of having done so.

But you have turned this into 'if you photograph children you will be arrested/convicted'.

Yes?

It's quite simple......... 'Don't photograph children unless there is a bloody good reason for doing so.'

Simple stuff. Honestly

 

[Skwim]

You didn't "get me there", Skwim. Lol. It doesn't "depend how the picture is used". Photographs of identifiable individuals are legally defined as "personal information" and are therefore subject to the applicable laws governing their collection. And the bit about altering images is way, way, way irrelevant to this particular situation.

Oh, you're so easy. and still trying far too hard. Your supposed familiarity with this issue has gotten the best of you. At the risk of being trite, remember. . . . . .

AND

​

 

[Alceste]

Oh, you're so easy. and still trying far too hard. Your supposed familiarity with this issue has gotten the best of you. At the risk of being trite, remember. . . . . .

AND

Giving others advice that you desperately need to start following yourself?. Classic hypocrisy, and an amusing lack of self awareness into the bargain. Lol.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim,.......
9 pages.....
Your three examples show that adults/parents became very worried about the way that children were being photographed. In all three situations the police became involved and arrested the suspects because of either (2) finding downloaded images of child-porn on their phones or (1) there was a confession of having done so.

But you have turned this into 'if you photograph children you will be arrested/convicted'.

Yes?

It's quite simple......... 'Don't photograph children unless there is a bloody good reason for doing so.'

Simple stuff. Honestly

Sorry, but that's not how our freedoms are supposed to work: Do what you lawfully may, but be fearful of what others may do to you for it.

In as much as this thread has gone off on several tangents, let me be clear in my purpose for creating it: to discuss the following . . .

The justification for arresting someone for taking pictures of children in public.

The legality of photographing children in public for one's own use.

The grounds for protecting children from such activity.

The possible harm in deriving sexual gratification from the pictures of these children.

The possible harm in taking pictures of children for later sexual gratification.

​

For a large part few of these were addressed dispassionately, but were attacked in a most muddled manner, most often with irrelevancies abetted by emotional reasoning. Very disappointing. This said, I do recognize that there have been some very good responses buried within the chaff, but because of the barrage of poorly reasoned, error filled posts I've had to respond to I haven't been able to give these better responses their just due. So I apologize to those of you whom I've neglected; I do recognize your points and do appreciate your efforts.

 

[Majikthise]

As I noted in my OP. The subject arose because of a news report.

" 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."
source: the OP.
​

And this idea that the issue of photographing children in public should be, what, kept on the back burner(?), is because _____________fill in the blank_______. If an issue is too delicate for you to discuss or read please feel free to refrain from doing so.

_______________________________

Thanks. I'll take this as an

"Okay, you got me there, I have nothing to counter it with, so let me try another tack. I'll leave the discussion"
​

_________________________________



Yes it is.
As for the balance of your reply, either I've already addressed the points you make, they're misconstruals, or they're not relevant. Sorry.

When I firdt saw the name of this thread I was thinking ot was about some stupid old law that needs repealing or some new ultra-pc wackyness. Imagine my whimsy stopped dead in its tracks upon seeing pedos being defended.

The issue of child abuse and pedophiles is not on any back burner as indicated by these parents willingness to speak up in a society that often will protect the rights of such deviants over that of their victims.

I agree , you have no interest in children.
For good or ill it would appear.
Enjoy your little circus. I'm not super offended , just disappointed.

 

[Alceste]

Sorry, but that's not how our freedoms are supposed to work: Do what you lawfully may, but be fearful of what others may do to you for it.

In as much as this thread has gone off on several tangents, let me be clear in my purpose for creating it: to discuss the following . . .

The justification for arresting someone for taking pictures of children in public.

The legality of photographing children in public for one's own use.

The grounds for protecting children from such activity.

The possible harm in deriving sexual gratification from the pictures of these children.

The possible harm in taking pictures of children for later sexual gratification.

​

For a large part few of these were addressed dispassionately, but were attacked in a most muddled manner, most often with irrelevancies abetted by emotional reasoning. Very disappointing. This said, I do recognize that there have been some very good responses buried within the chaff, but because of the barrage of poorly reasoned, error filled posts I've had to respond to I haven't been able to give these better responses their just due. So I apologize to those of you whom I've neglected; I do recognize your points and do appreciate your efforts.

See post number two, which dispassionately addresses all of these points.

 

[oldbadger]

Sorry, but that's not how our freedoms are supposed to work: Do what you lawfully may, but be fearful of what others may do to you for it.

In as much as this thread has gone off on several tangents, let me be clear in my purpose for creating it: to discuss the following . . .

The justification for arresting someone for taking pictures of children in public.

The legality of photographing children in public for one's own use.

The grounds for protecting children from such activity.

The possible harm in deriving sexual gratification from the pictures of these children.

The possible harm in taking pictures of children for later sexual gratification.

​

For a large part few of these were addressed dispassionately, but were attacked in a most muddled manner, most often with irrelevancies abetted by emotional reasoning. Very disappointing. This said, I do recognize that there have been some very good responses buried within the chaff, but because of the barrage of poorly reasoned, error filled posts I've had to respond to I haven't been able to give these better responses their just due. So I apologize to those of you whom I've neglected; I do recognize your points and do appreciate your efforts.

OK........ Let me try for an answer to you.....
Not all adults who photograph children in public will certainly be confronted/detained/arrested. It was probably the demeanour of these persons whose conduct alerted the public........ and...... come with me on this ...... they were right. True? All three were discovered to have committed criminal offences.

I may have come closer to this than you. :yes: In the early 90's I watched a man in his 50's taking and concealing handfuls of toy coins from a shop-display bowl into his pockets. The coins were free with a toy or game purchase. OK? So when he left the store I decided not to stop him (on a legal technicality) but simply to see what he did. He went to a play-park and started to hand them out to kiddies. So far....... no offence, just like your photographers. But I was worried enough to go and speak with the man, and asked him if he would like to give the remaining coins back to the shop manager. He returned. The manager called the Police. The Police spoke with the man, asking him for an explanation. The man broke down and told the Police various shocking confessions. The Police arrested him and took him away. OK? Ready?
If you help yourself to free items in a shop, you can get arrested!
.......... that's where I am coming from......... that could have been your thread title.....

 

[Skwim]

See post number two, which dispassionately addresses all of these points.

No it doesn't.

I suppose your post could be said to comment on questions 1 and 2, but they certainly don't address 3 and 4.

3) Is there harm in deriving sexual gratification from pictures of children.

4) Is there harm in taking pictures of children for later sexual gratification?
​

Reply as you like, but because I don't care to go over old ground and listen to more of your exaggerations and unwarranted characterizations, don't expect a response.

 

[Skwim]

OK........ Let me try for an answer to you.....
Not all adults who photograph children in public will certainly be confronted/detained/arrested. It was probably the demeanour of these persons whose conduct alerted the public........ and...... come with me on this ...... they were right. True? All three were discovered to have committed criminal offences.

I may have come closer to this than you. :yes: In the early 90's I watched a man in his 50's taking and concealing handfuls of toy coins from a shop-display bowl into his pockets. The coins were free with a toy or game purchase. OK? So when he left the store I decided not to stop him (on a legal technicality) but simply to see what he did. He went to a play-park and started to hand them out to kiddies. So far....... no offence, just like your photographers. But I was worried enough to go and speak with the man, and asked him if he would like to give the remaining coins back to the shop manager. He returned. The manager called the Police. The Police spoke with the man, asking him for an explanation. The man broke down and told the Police various shocking confessions. The Police arrested him and took him away. OK? Ready?
If you help yourself to free items in a shop, you can get arrested!
.......... that's where I am coming from......... that could have been your thread title.....

Hardly any meat here to chew on, and I fail to see your anology between the theft of coins and subsequent arrest, and talking pictures of children in public and getting arrested.

 

[oldbadger]

No it doesn't.

I suppose your post could be said to comment on questions 1 and 2, but they certainly don't address 3 and 4.

3) Is there harm in deriving sexual gratification from pictures of children.

4) Is there harm in taking pictures of children for later sexual gratification?
​

Reply as you like, but because I don't care to go over old ground and listen to more of your exaggerations and unwarranted characterizations, don't expect a response.

... There will almost certainly be harm, Skwim.
This is a totally separate pov to my last post, which was covering 'innocent' actions which arouse suspicion, thus leading to questioning and a later arrest.

I do believe that most societies would agree that an adult deriving sexual gratification from child pictures, however obtained, is potentially a high-risk situation. The question arises.... 'Could this lead to a rape, an abduction, a downloading of child-porn material...... a very high risk for children?'

Now.... what do you think the average person in your neighbourhood would say about this? There.... you have answered the question, and whatever your answer was, that is how legislators in your State/Country will legislate, because they try to Legislate for the people in that particular instance.

 

[Alceste]

Hardly any meat here to chew on, and I fail to see your anology between the theft of coins and subsequent arrest, and talking pictures of children in public and getting arrested.

How can you not see the connection? He explained it perfectly well, Imo. Are you perhaps TRYING not to understand his point?

 

[Alceste]

... There will almost certainly be harm, Skwim.
This is a totally separate pov to my last post, which was covering 'innocent' actions which arouse suspicion, thus leading to questioning and a later arrest.

I do believe that most societies would agree that an adult deriving sexual gratification from child pictures, however obtained, is potentially a high-risk situation. The question arises.... 'Could this lead to a rape, an abduction, a downloading of child-porn material...... a very high risk for children?'

Now.... what do you think the average person in your neighbourhood would say about this? There.... you have answered the question, and whatever your answer was, that is how legislators in your State/Country will legislate, because they try to Legislate for the people in that particular instance.

That's exactly right. The pedophile in question may not escalate from wanking to ordinary, non-sexualized photos of children to touching them up or viewing sexualized images (the harm of which should be obvious), but how are we to know that? How are the police to know the extent or legality of the pedophile 's behaviour without investigating?

And in all three of these cases, they discovered illegal activity causing real, irreparable harm to children, so they were justified in investigating.

And really, what idiot stalks children through a mall or a swimming pool taking pictures of their bums and expects not to run into trouble with the law?