Hmm....that would seem to clarify things.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Taking pictures of children in public is illegal
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Hmm....that would seem to clarify things.
Alceste
Vagabond
Yes, it sure would. I take pictures of kids all the time and I've never tangled with the law over it. Helps if you're not masturbating at the time I imagine.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
Do you not understand how the two could correlate? Snapping photographs with the intent to harm or intent to utilize such images for pornographic material isn't lawful.
As a parent, I can't know the intentions of someone snapping photgraphs of my kid and I do have the right to address such concerns with law enforcement.
Clearly, the folks at the pool had good reason to be concerned. Do you not see that connection?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Ha! You talk of what is lawful, but refuse to name your State!!! Your State may very well have its own legislation with regards to how Police can react to reports of persons taking pictures of minors in strange circumstances!
Your thread title: Taking pictures of children in public is illegal, is just bull-dust. Police can probably stop, question and search anybody who is reported for acting strangely ........ but we're not going to be able to quote specific State law/policy at you because you won't name your State.
In England they would stop, question, search as they pleased if a person took pictures of children in unusual circumstances.
Don't like it? Tough-cookie.......
I think in these cases, the behavior of the individual seems to have given probable cause for looking further at them.
I would say that simply snapping photographs in public that happen to contain some children in them would not be probable cause. However, being observed in a way of targeting specifics for photography would, IMO, prompt reasonable concern over what it actually going on in a situation.
So...in the case of a man being reported as going around a mall and snapping photographs of children -- and if snapping photographs of nothing else -- can produce a question in the mind of a reasonable person that this man may pose some threat to those children. A person observed to be taking photographs of a bank, it's security system, etc. may be questioned as if he may be casing the place. There are other, non sexual intent, related situations where a potential for danger is perceived, and not directly related to the simple act of taking the photograph.
In the third article, it seems you did not quote the next following paragraph, which I think takes the matter from merely photographing children at a pool, to intentionally positioning oneself to get shots of the crotches of children. That, I think, creates reasonable suspicion of nefarious intent. It is not merely taking pictures of kids at a pool.
'He was doing it from a low angle and from behind swimmers, and if you are familiar with swimming, swimmers are getting ready to race and bend over, said Suburban Swim League representative Mike McIntee.'
Skwim, you confused two issues in your OP. It is not illegal to take pics of kids in public places. Apparently what happened (I didn't click any links, I'm low on brain bleach) is that the perps behaved in a sufficiently lewd and suspicious way to attract attention. If a parent thinks you're stalking their kids and give the police something to go on I would expect the cops to check it out. If the cops find evidence of illegal behavior (not proof, just evidence) I expect them to follow up on it.
By making the issue about minors you conflated two different things. We expect the rules to be different and much more protective than if it were adults. If somebody were caught taking pics of men in the shower at the local swimming pool locker room I wouldn't expect them to be prosecuted, but banned from the facility for sure. At a public nude beach the rules would be even more lax. There is no expectations of privacy there at all, not even for kids.
I still think the fundamental problem is that the ability to capture images and video easily and surreptitiously has exploded and our social technology hasn't been able to keep up with the changes.
Tom
dust1n
Zindīq
1.) People can be arrested and held for two days plus before charges are brought to someone. Presumably, since these are felonies, a cop doesn't have to see anyone break a statue, they just need probably cause that a felony has occured by someone. Using your cell phone to take pictures of random kids without consent is likely a probable cause. In all three cases, looks like the probably cause was right.
2.) Photographers such as the three presented? Yes, of course. On grounds that it hurts children. See (for various information):
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing | Problem Guides | Child Pornography on the Internet
3.) From pictures? Yes, because real children were involved.
4.) I don't know. Ask the children.
I'm not really interesting in justifying anything, other than the grounds in which they were arrested.
Alceste
Vagabond
The pool guy was also fondling his own crotch as he took those crotch pics of kids. The mall guy was following them around, and apparently stalking some individuals.
Speaking as a person who was followed through a mall myself by a creepy old pervert at 13, to question whether that behaviour is harmful to the wellbeing of a child is absurd. He didn't catch me, but I was very scared during the experience and it made me feel permanently less safe in the world and less trusting of men in general. The following bit was harmful enough on its own, even without him taking pictures of me to masturbate to later. God. That would have been so much worse. Yuck.
It seems you may have interpreted my words with the opposite meaning than what I meant. I didn't see the part about the pool guy fondling his own crotch, but positioning oneself is a way to catch the crotches of children bent over, and most likely up on a platform if at a swim meet, is enough for me to think he should be questioned, and stopped.
I think in all three cases there was reasonable cause for the men to be questioned.
edit: Are you referring to me, with the following part of your post? "...to question whether that behaviour is harmful to the wellbeing of a child is absurd."
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
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.
________________
What does reacting to reports have to do with anything? Focus oldbadger. FOCUS. We're talking about making arrests here. . .among other things.oldbadger said:
Okay
Can't bring myself to care about your probables.
Don't care.
___________________________
Which is fine.4consideration said:
Which is understandable. But such a threat ( involving a violation of law) would have to be confirmed in order for an arrest to be made.
Sorry, but I cant conceive of any kind of suspicious nefarious intent that would lead police to arrest the photographer on the spot.
________________________________
Lewdness was not mentioned, and for the purposes of my thread should not be assumed. Please see post #92 to see my objective in creating the thread. I don't want anyone introducing any elements other than those I presented in my OP.columbus said:
But that's not what the law says, and that's what arrests are based on: violation of the law.
___________________________
But there has to be an applicable law to justify the arrest.dustin said:
First, they're not felonies or even misdemeanors. Secondly, there has to be a statute to break.
Under what law?
What is this harm? (I'm not about to read your link. If you have evidence to present then do it here.)
Gotta show the harm, dustin.
???? Are you serious here?????
Then what are you waiting for? What have your found?
Alceste
Vagabond
Me too. I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, just adding to your catalogue of suspicious behaviour that caused these men to come to the attention of police.
I agree, even if he hadn't been touching himself while taking the pictures, there was still good reason for pool staff to report him.
Alceste
Vagabond
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.
________________
What does reacting to reports have to do with anything? Focus oldbadger. FOCUS. We're talking about making arrests here. . .among other things.
Okay
Can't bring myself to care about your probables.
Don't care.
___________________________
Which is fine.
Which is understandable. But such a threat ( involving a violation of law) would have to be confirmed in order for an arrest to be made.
Sorry, but I cant conceive of any kind of suspicious nefarious intent that would lead police to arrest the photographer on the spot.
________________________________
Lewdness was not mentioned, and for the purposes of my thread should not be assumed. Please see post #92 to see my objective in creating the thread. I don't want anyone introducing any elements other than those I presented in my OP.
But that's not what the law says, and that's what arrests are based on: violation of the law.
___________________________
But there has to be an applicable law to justify the arrest.
First, they're not felonies or even misdemeanors. Secondly, there has to be a statute to break.
Under what law?
What is this harm? (I'm not about to read your link. If you have evidence to present then do it here.)
Gotta show the harm, dustin.
???? Are you serious here?????
Then what are you waiting for? What have your found?
Are you still denying that stalking children and / or fondling your crotch in public while photographing kids bent over in swimsuits is both illegal and harmful to the victims?
You might want to brush up a little on society's expectations before your next trip to the beach.
OK. Cool.Me too. I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, just adding to your catalogue of suspicious behaviour that caused these men to come to the attention of police.
I agree, even if he hadn't been touching himself while taking the pictures, there was still good reason for pool staff to report him.
Alceste
Vagabond
OK. Cool.
I also tacked on my own recollection of being followed by a pedophile in a mall to address the issue of specific harm done to kids who attract the attention of pedophiles, even if no inappropriate touching is involved. It just popped into my head, and wasn't directly related to your post. Sorry for being sloppy.
I don't think so. I think an arrest can be made with reasonable cause. His behavior was such that he attracted the attention of mall staff, and they watched him for some time before calling the police. The article says he admitted to having child pornography on his phone, and even though it was not located at the time of arrest, is enough to hold him for the duration of time allowed before charges are made.
If a person told the police they had killed someone, and the body was located somewhere on their property, the person would probably (and reasonably) be held while the police searched the property -- even though police had no actual evidence of someone being harmed, except the person's own words.
Wow. Then, I probably can't convince you.
If you don't see a difference between a person simply taking photographs in general at a swimming event, and one that (as reported) has positioned himself in a way to get a shot of the private areas of children, I'm not sure I can say anything to have you consider it another way.
I have some questions, though.
Let's say an adult woman was sitting in her bathing suit at this event. Let's say this same guy knelt down directly in front of the women and aimed his camera at the location directly between her legs. Would you consider this acceptable behavior for public photography, and something he should be completely free to do?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
The above sent to Columbus....
But stops, questionings and searches are based upon suspicions.....
....which can lead to crime discoveries....
.... which can lead to arrests.......
...... exactly as happened in your three OP's examples.
Simple stuff........
Skwim, I'd like to address one of the points I've seen mentioned a while back in this thread, and that is what harm is there if the person derives sexual pleasure from the photographs?
I think the harm is that whether or not it is known to the person now, or whether the person later becomes aware of a photograph of them being used for a purpose they would object to, or whether a person never knows it at all and is therefore not traumatized by it, I think a person has a right to certain things that actually belong to them, and do have a right to have the say in how things (like images of themselves, or products of their own work/creativity) are used, or not to be used.
For example, let's say you wrote something. It was published, but did not receive much attention, so it did not become well known and neither did you for having written it. Then, down the road someone came across your writing and passed it off as his own. Let's say he received no financial benefit from it, and that the work was not really part of the person's overall success, because the person did later write some things on his own for which he became well known for -- but your work was a stepping stone in the person building up a respectable reputation for himself.
In this example, let's say you discovered what had occurred many years later. Would you feel violated for someone using your own work as though it was his own? Would you consider it a moral and ethical breach for someone to use something that you had the right to have a say in, in a way that was objectionable to you? Even if it did not damage your career or reputation, and could arguably be said to have caused no tangible "harm" to you, would you not think that harm had been done to you?
I would, and I think many parents and people would, consider that a person who uses a photograph of a child for sexual pleasure is in some way molesting that child in his own thoughts, even if no one else knows about it. I think it is reasonable for a parent, or anyone, to object on behalf of the child. (edit: I also think the law upholds this objection, as well.)
I think the harm is that whether or not it is known to the person now, or whether the person later becomes aware of a photograph of them being used for a purpose they would object to, or whether a person never knows it at all and is therefore not traumatized by it, I think a person has a right to certain things that actually belong to them, and do have a right to have the say in how things (like images of themselves, or products of their own work/creativity) are used, or not to be used.
For example, let's say you wrote something. It was published, but did not receive much attention, so it did not become well known and neither did you for having written it. Then, down the road someone came across your writing and passed it off as his own. Let's say he received no financial benefit from it, and that the work was not really part of the person's overall success, because the person did later write some things on his own for which he became well known for -- but your work was a stepping stone in the person building up a respectable reputation for himself.
In this example, let's say you discovered what had occurred many years later. Would you feel violated for someone using your own work as though it was his own? Would you consider it a moral and ethical breach for someone to use something that you had the right to have a say in, in a way that was objectionable to you? Even if it did not damage your career or reputation, and could arguably be said to have caused no tangible "harm" to you, would you not think that harm had been done to you?
I would, and I think many parents and people would, consider that a person who uses a photograph of a child for sexual pleasure is in some way molesting that child in his own thoughts, even if no one else knows about it. I think it is reasonable for a parent, or anyone, to object on behalf of the child. (edit: I also think the law upholds this objection, as well.)
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
It is simple, isn't it? It's enough to make me wonder what Skwim thinks police actually do for a living.
On a totally unrelated note, have you seen Happy Valley? Your country has a lot of great cop shows, but that one was amazing. Totally blew me away. I'm reminded of it because the detective is investigating someone throughout based on nothing more than her own personal knowledge of the suspect's character. Sort of makes it clear what the papers mean when they say the victim or suspect was "known to police".
It seems the law under which the man in Texas may have been arrested was this.
Texas has a law that makes it illegal to take photographs of a person (any person) in public if it done without the consent of the person and if it is intended for the sexual gratification of anyone.
Texas Penal Code - Section 21.15. Improper Photography Or Visual Recording - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws
In the case of the first article, if any of the photographs were deemed to have been taken with the intent of being for sexual gratification, it would have been considered a crime, and worthy of arrest.
edit: I just found another article that said the Texas Supreme Court has just this past week struck down the law, but it would have been in effect at the time of this incident. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...urt-first-amendment-protects-perv-photos.html
Texas has a law that makes it illegal to take photographs of a person (any person) in public if it done without the consent of the person and if it is intended for the sexual gratification of anyone.
Texas Penal Code - Section 21.15. Improper Photography Or Visual Recording - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws
In the case of the first article, if any of the photographs were deemed to have been taken with the intent of being for sexual gratification, it would have been considered a crime, and worthy of arrest.
edit: I just found another article that said the Texas Supreme Court has just this past week struck down the law, but it would have been in effect at the time of this incident. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...urt-first-amendment-protects-perv-photos.html
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
As long as you're making up stuff why not add that he/they had AK-47s and were shooting up heroin?
_______________________________
Except for the Winn incident, what law could they have been breaking?4consideration said:
Perhaps and perhaps not. Although I think it would be a justifiable reason. Good point.
If you think there are, Just give me one or two.
All I'm asking is for a lawful reason for making an arrest.
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.
Just cite an applicable law, people. Just one.
Look up Texas Penal Code 43.21. for the definition of "promote," which is quite salient to 21:15.
_____________________________
But some law has to have been violated. In one of the examples I provided, child pornography was found on the device, in which case the arrest was justified. In another, the person admitted he had child porn on his device, which is most likely grounds for arrest. In the other, the only reason given for the arrest was that he was photographing children in public. So, as it stands, only one of the incidents now fits the issue I raised. My apologies for not more carefully reading the other two and excluding them from the issue of arrest.oldbadger said:
_______________________________
Thank you for changing the subject.4consideration said:
To return to your question at the top.
"I think a person has a right to certain things that actually belong to them, and do have a right to have the say in how things (like images of themselves, or products of their own work/creativity) are used, or not to be used."
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.