Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[Skwim]

... 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?'

Or car theft, embezzlement, or apartheid. Point being, unless you have good evidence to support any of these possible causes-effect outcomes, they're dead in the water.

Now.... what do you think the average person in your neighbourhood would say about this?

Why should I care?

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.

If so, then why aren't there laws addressing this specific activity? As it stands, people can lawfully take pictures of other people in public.

 

[Alceste]

Or car theft, embezzlement, or apartheid. Point being, unless you have good evidence to support any of these possible causes-effect outcomes, they're dead in the water.

Why should I care?

If so, then why aren't there laws addressing this specific activity? As it stands, people can lawfully take pictures of other people in public.

There are. Dust1n posted a very specific one prohibiting exactly the behaviour described in your OP.

 

[Skwim]

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

I would answer, but have tired of your pernicious misrepresentations. Have a good day.

 

[oldbadger]

Or car theft, embezzlement, or apartheid. Point being, unless you have good evidence to support any of these possible causes-effect outcomes, they're dead in the water.

Why should I care?

If so, then why aren't there laws addressing this specific activity? As it stands, people can lawfully take pictures of other people in public.

You're going to have to 'buy into' this even though you don't want to.
It's all about three factors which you personally might not need to worry about, but..... Ready?

Parents...... nearly all parents, would automatically wish for, vote for legislation which 'they perceive' will give extra security to their children.
....you can't do anything about that^^^^
next..........
Any Copper (law enforcer) who was called to a person photographing kiddies 'out of place' is going to take a very great deal of interest in them, and almost certainly will cause an inspection of any images that might be held on that person's equipment. Why? Well...... because of folks (like you, possibly?) who criticise Cops. Suppose that Copper did nothing, and later it was proved that that same person had been in a position to commit a serious sexual offence on a youngster..... when they could have been discovered and confined...?
.... you can't do anything about that ^^^^
next.....
In England we call this the 'Bootlocks... tough-shot' factor. I may have misspelled one or two words, there. When critics make fusses about actions that the general public approve of and wish for, the general reaction is 'Bootlocks! Tough Shot!'
.... and you can't do anything about that ^^^^

Sometimes.... just sometimes, you gotta go with the flow....

 

[columbus]

The problem is that both Skwim and Alceste are right, but in different ways. Modern technology has created yet another moral issue that never existed before.

Which is more important, protection of the privacy of people in public or freedom to document what happens in public. We all despise anything resembling kiddie porn, but think how convenient it would be for the police in Ferguson MO to confiscate images and make arrests based on a law forbidding the video of people without their consent.

The devil is in the details.

Tom

 

[Skwim]

There are. Dust1n posted a very specific one prohibiting exactly the behaviour described in your OP.

Which post?

 

[Alceste]

Which post?

You haven't been following your own thread?

 

[Skwim]

You're going to have to 'buy into' this even though you don't want to.
It's all about three factors which you personally might not need to worry about, but..... Ready?

Parents...... nearly all parents, would automatically wish for, vote for legislation which 'they perceive' will give extra security to their children.
....you can't do anything about that^^^^
next..........
Any Copper (law enforcer) who was called to a person photographing kiddies 'out of place' is going to take a very great deal of interest in them, and almost certainly will cause an inspection of any images that might be held on that person's equipment. Why? Well...... because of folks (like you, possibly?) who criticise Cops. Suppose that Copper did nothing, and later it was proved that that same person had been in a position to commit a serious sexual offence on a youngster..... when they could have been discovered and confined...?
.... you can't do anything about that ^^^^
next.....
In England we call this the 'Bootlocks... tough-shot' factor. I may have misspelled one or two words, there. When critics make fusses about actions that the general public approve of and wish for, the general reaction is 'Bootlocks! Tough Shot!'
.... and you can't do anything about that ^^^^

Sometimes.... just sometimes, you gotta go with the flow....

Irrelevant. Please take note of the issues at hand and keep them in mind. The law is particularly crucial to this issue, not what parents may think or wish.

 

[Skwim]

You haven't been following your own thread?

I'm too busy to try to figure out what you have in mind. If you can't look it up it's fine with me. I'll just take it s another empty assertion.

 

[oldbadger]

The problem is that both Skwim and Alceste are right, but in different ways. Modern technology has created yet another moral issue that never existed before.

Which is more important, protection of the privacy of people in public or freedom to document what happens in public. We all despise anything resembling kiddie porn, but think how convenient it would be for the police in Ferguson MO to confiscate images and make arrests based on a law forbidding the video of people without their consent.

The devil is in the details.

Tom

I can't see what your post has got to do with people taking pictures of minors in public places in ways which caused members of the public to notify or warn the police. The fact that in all three situations the police found enough evidence to arrest is clarification of the common sense of the public's responses.

If you hung around a kiddies play-park or beach with a camera in England you'd get watched very closely, and if you started to take photographs you would get reported for a police response.

If you were a pro-photographer or had good reason then you would go to your local cop-shop, introduce yourself, explain your reasons and (automatically) get an OIS operational information system number. Then, when confronted by any one in authority you would give number, ..... bingo..... no probs.

 

[oldbadger]

Irrelevant. Please take note of the issues at hand and keep them in mind. The law is particularly crucial to this issue, not what parents may think or wish.

Which State do you reside in?

 

[oldbadger]

Skwim..... which State do you reside in?
What could possibly take you so long to answer?

EDIT: Must go bed. Will come back when insomnia hits.....

 

[Skwim]

Skwim..... which State do you reside in?

Sorry. Private information. Moreover, I fail to see the relevance .

 

[dust1n]

#58 & #67

 

[Skwim]

#58 & #67

Thanks for doing what Alceste couldn't

From #58
"Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly videotaping, photographing, filming, recording by any means, or broadcasting an image of a private area of an individual, without that individual's consent, under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Defines a "private area" as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.)"

​

Okay, so how is this applicable? When one is out in public there should be no expectation of reasonable privacy from being photographed. There is no law against it. Moreover, your cited passage only applies to photographing private areas either "naked or undergarment clad." None of those in the three examples qualify, and even if someone was naked or undergarment clad it doesn't prevent one from photographing such a person in total.

 

[dust1n]

Thanks for doing what Alceste couldn't

From #58
"Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly videotaping, photographing, filming, recording by any means, or broadcasting an image of a private area of an individual, without that individual's consent, under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Defines a "private area" as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.)"

​

Okay, so how is this applicable? When one is out in public there should be no expectation of reasonable privacy from being photographed. There is no law against it. Moreover, your cited passage only applies to photographing private areas either "naked or undergarment clad." None of those in the three examples qualify, and even if someone was naked or undergarment clad it doesn't prevent one from photographing such a person in total.

The third one does.

The other two examples, one man admitted to have child pornography on his phone. In the second example, the guy was found to have child prognography on this phone.

Both would fall under: Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Skwim]

The third one does.

The other two examples, one man admitted to have child pornography on his phone. In the second example, the guy was found to have child prognography on this phone.

Having pornography on your cell phone is not the same as taking pictures of children in public. You do understand the difference, don't you?

 

[dust1n]

Having pornography on your cell phone is not the same as taking pictures of children in public. You do understand the difference, don't you?

I'm a little confused as to what you are asking. As far as I can garnish, no one was charged with the crime of "taking pictures of children in public."

Lawren “Larry” Mark Riveire, who was arrested by Early police in June after he was allegedly seen taking photos of young females at Heartland Mall, has been indicted on a charge of possession of child pornography, police said.

Police: Early man indicted for possession of child pornogrpahy - Local Area - BrownwoodTX

A 28-year old man is being held on $250,000 bail after his arrest Thursday on 24 felony child pornography counts resulting from an investigation that began with a complaint that he used his cell phone to illegally videotape young girls at the Mascoutah public swimming pool.

Nathaniel J. Winn of Mascoutah is charged with possessing photographs of girls under age 18 taken from the Internet that showed them engaging in sex.


According to St. Clair County Circuit Court documents, Winn also possessed photographs that showed underage girls "subject to masochistic or sado-masochistic abuse in a sexual context," and unclothed in a "lewd exhibition."

MASCOUTAH: Mascoutah man charged with having child porn, photographing girls at city pool | Crime | News Democrat

The Third example would follow under the act I would originally provided, regardless if they were children or not, though, when I looked up in the registry he had different crime charges:

ANNOY OR MOLEST CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE
POSSESS OR CONTROL OBSCENE MATTER DEPICTING MINOR IN SEXUAL CONDUCT

Leandro Quimosing Enciso Sex Offender in Unknown, CA | Homefacts

I don't know the ins and outs of California state law. Presumably a law exists that allows the state to make those charges, no?

 

[Alceste]

Having pornography on your cell phone is not the same as taking pictures of children in public. You do understand the difference, don't you?

You do understand the men were charged with possession of child pornography, not for taking the pictures, don't you?

As for why the police took an interest, their behaviour was disturbing enough that someone reported it. One was stalking kids, another was fondling himself while ogling young girls at the pool.

 

[Skwim]

I'm a little confused as to what you are asking. As far as I can garnish, no one was charged with the crime of "taking pictures of children in public."

Lawren “Larry” Mark Riveire, who was arrested by Early police in June after he was allegedly seen taking photos of young females at Heartland Mall, has been indicted on a charge of possession of child pornography, police said.

Police: Early man indicted for possession of child pornogrpahy - Local Area - BrownwoodTX

A 28-year old man is being held on $250,000 bail after his arrest Thursday on 24 felony child pornography counts resulting from an investigation that began with a complaint that he used his cell phone to illegally videotape young girls at the Mascoutah public swimming pool.

Nathaniel J. Winn of Mascoutah is charged with possessing photographs of girls under age 18 taken from the Internet that showed them engaging in sex.


According to St. Clair County Circuit Court documents, Winn also possessed photographs that showed underage girls "subject to masochistic or sado-masochistic abuse in a sexual context," and unclothed in a "lewd exhibition."

MASCOUTAH: Mascoutah man charged with having child porn, photographing girls at city pool | Crime | News Democrat

The Third example would follow under the act I would originally provided, regardless if they were children or not, though, when I looked up in the registry he had different crime charges:

ANNOY OR MOLEST CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE
POSSESS OR CONTROL OBSCENE MATTER DEPICTING MINOR IN SEXUAL CONDUCT

Leandro Quimosing Enciso Sex Offender in Unknown, CA | Homefacts

I don't know the ins and outs of California state law. Presumably a law exists that allows the state to make those charges, no?

On the CBS Morning News show I mentioned in my OP, they featured the Leandro Encisco story (#3) and presented it as an arrest due to photographing children at a public swim meet. I took them at their word, looked up the story, and included it in my list. It suggested that the police felt the pictures he had just taken were pornographic. The other two (#1 & #2) I found buy Googling the subject. I included the Riveire story (#1) because its headline said, " Early police: Man arrested for taking pics of children at mall," plus, no child porn was found on his device before he was arrested." The Winn story (#2) is obviously not about arresting him for taking pictures of children in public, but for having child porn already on his device. My mistake for including it for the purposes of my first question.

In any case, my objective was to address the arrests, not charges, for taking pictures of children in public as exemplified by posts #1 and #3. AND, some of the attendant issues. Hence, my questions.

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.

​

And, as I further explained in post #92, my objective was 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.
​

That some here felt it necessary to characterize these adults as perverts, pedophiles, and peeping toms; purposely conflating the photos with child porn; and proposing that such behavior leads to molestations and rape, was not only irrelevant but served to confuse the issue. All I was looking for was to discuss

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.
​

As I also said, some here have done just this, given some of these subjects good thoughtful responses, although for everyone of these I bet there were two that went into outer space. Emotion laden replies that served no purpose and just cluttered the thread.

That's it. It's bedtime and I'm late.