Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[Alceste]

An interesting quote about freedom and its price.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."
source
​

Sexual harassment isn't "free speech".

 

[Father Heathen]

Has this nonsense really gone on for 19 pages?

Following children around and taking lewd pictures of them falls under sexual harassment, stalking, and violating privacy. And even if there is a legal loophole that allows children to be exploited in such a way, that doesn't make it something that we should accept or tolerate. This has nothing to do with free speech when it clearly crosses boundaries that go well beyond the realm of speech.

Also, for someone to defend this behavior so adamantly, you can't help but suspect pedophilic tendencies.

 

[4consideration]

I give up. There's just no talking sense to you. Have a good day.

Yes, but so far no one here has been able to cite any law for which the police would have probable cause to arrest.

I think your response is very funny. If I were you, I'd give up, too.

(Just for clarity in reading this quote, the first paragraph is directed to me, and the second was to Buttercup.)

Skwim...I presented to you my contention, which anyone can read, that two of the articles actually stated the men were arrested for being in possession of child pornography.

The third one was in Texas, in which the man was stopped by mall security for questionable behavior, was seen photographing children without them being aware of it, had "disturbing" photographs that were seen on his phone, and admitted that he had child pornography on his phone.

I presented to you a Texas law in place at the time of the occurrence, which states, this (my highlighting):

§ 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING. (a)
In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section
43.21.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic
means visually records another:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person; or
(2) knowing the character and content of the
photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording
described by Subdivision (1).
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor
may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.

Your only response to me about this law was that the definition of "promote" was "salient". I addressed what you seemed to be thinking about how relevant that word may be to the situation. However, given the description of the story, the highlighted section is enough, and it is not necessary for this person to have "promoted" anything for him to found to be in violation (or suspected of being in violation) of this law.

Now you tell me I'm being unreasonable. And, in the same response you tell another member that no one has presented a law which gives probable cause for an arrest.

If I had your apparent agenda to stay on a position that these men were treated outside the law, with their rights being violated, because you think people have some kind of right to photograph children and go home and masturbate to it, and that no one is giving evidence of laws that prohibit it -- when it has already been clearly pointed out to you there appears to be probable cause for making these 3 arrests, I wouldn't want to talk to me, either.

I don't buy your argument or your disregarding of information that people have presented as though they are saying nothing. I think you have attempted to dismiss those that actually make a point you can't refute -- so you call us unreasonable.

I don't have to leave this conversation simply because you don't like what I have to say.

 

[Thief]

Quite some time ago.....a hand full of women sued the company they worked for.

Seems they were greatly out numbered in a male dominant work place.
The guys had posters and calendars everywhere....and the few ladies were just additional eye candy.

Apparently one rude remark led to another.

So the Supreme court rendered decision favoring the ladies.
The company was held responsible for the 'unsafe' work environment.

So now I can't have my calendar......anywhere USA.
Can't tell a joke.....even if it really is clever and funny.
Can't look twice at a pretty girl....even if she dresses for it.
and heaven forbid I might ask the wrong one for a date!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So much for freedom.

As this is a moral issue....I'd like to see a similar topic for the religious debate section!

 

[Skwim]

From here: probable cause legal definition of probable cause

Please revisit my statement. In fact, I'll repost here:

"Yes, but so far no one here has been able to cite any law for which the police would have probable cause to arrest."
​

What are your specific concerns with their arrest?

As I said, that no law had been broken---now only applicable to the Encisco case where it appears the police decided the photos he took at the swim meet were pornographic.


_______________________________

Sexual harassment isn't "free speech".

Nor is armed robbery. *sigh* Let's stay relevant.

 

[Buttercup]

Good bye. We're done here.

Should I take this response to mean that you're only interested in discussing legal semantics even though you placed this thread in Ethics and Morals? The questions your proposed below are much more important to discuss, imo. Come on, my response to you wasn't that snarky. This is a very controversial topic we're discussing and I have four kids. People are going to get a little hot under the collar when the the topic hits close to home and those we love.

From the OP:

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.


Is your answer NO to each of these questions? Because, that's the gist I'm getting so far.

 

[Buttercup]

Sorry if this reference have been linked or posted already, but I didn't feel like going back 18 pages to check.

" Depictions of even a clothed child violate U.S. federal law 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4), and 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(E) if they constitute "lascivious" exhibitions of the genitalia or pubic area.[5] The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined "lascivious" as "tending to excite lust; lewd; indecent; obscene; sexual impurity; tending to deprave the morals in respect to sexual relations.""

Child erotica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Alceste]

Please revisit my statement. In fact, I'll repost here:

"Yes, but so far no one here has been able to cite any law for which the police would have probable cause to arrest."
​

As I said, that no law had been broken---now only applicable to the Encisco case where it appears the police decided the photos he took at the swim meet were pornographic.


_______________________________



Nor is armed robbery. *sigh* Let's stay relevant.

The sexual harassment of children is illegal. One man was also stalking them, which is illegal. Another was also fondling himself at the pool while sexually harassing children, which is illegal.

There's just no wiggle room for you here, I'm afraid. You're going to have to just use your imagination if you don't want a rude encounter with the police while building your DIY kiddie porn collection.

 

[Skwim]

I think your response is very funny. If I were you, I'd give up, too.

(Just for clarity in reading this quote, the first paragraph is directed to me, and the second was to Buttercup.)

Skwim...I presented to you my contention, which anyone can read, that two of the articles actually stated the men were arrested for being in possession of child pornography.

The third one was in Texas, in which the man was stopped by mall security for questionable behavior, was seen photographing children without them being aware of it, had "disturbing" photographs that were seen on his phone, and admitted that he had child pornography on his phone.

I presented to you a Texas law in place at the time of the occurrence, which states, this (my highlighting):

§ 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING. (a)
In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section
43.21.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic
means visually records another:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person; or
(2) knowing the character and content of the
photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording
described by Subdivision (1).
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor
may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.

Your only response to me about this law was that the definition of "promote" was "salient". I addressed what you seemed to be thinking about how relevant that word may be to the situation. However, given the description of the story, the highlighted section is enough, and it is not necessary for this person to have "promoted" anything for him to found to be in violation (or suspected of being in violation) of this law.

Now you tell me I'm being unreasonable. And, in the same response you tell another member that no one has presented a law which gives probable cause for an arrest.

If I had your apparent agenda to stay on a position that these men were treated outside the law, with their rights being violated, because you think people have some kind of right to photograph children and go home and masturbate to it, and that no one is giving evidence of laws that prohibit it -- when it has already been clearly pointed out to you there appears to be probable cause for making these 3 arrests, I wouldn't want to talk to me, either.

I don't buy your argument or your disregarding of information that people have presented as though they are saying nothing. I think you have attempted to dismiss those that actually make a point you can't refute -- so you call us unreasonable.

I don't have to leave this conversation simply because you don't like what I have to say.

Dear 4consideration.

I must apologize for my error in not reading Section 43.21.correcting. It does, in fact, state the very thing you claim: Prohibits photographing children in public for ones own sexual gratification.

"(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic
means visually records another:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person;

​

Thank you for pointing this out and correcting me.

The only difference here is that in the Texas case, ostensibly Riveire wasn't arrested under 43:21, but under the statute(s) pertaining to possession of child pornography. In any case, he deserved to be arrested.

In the California case, if their codes state the same then Encisco would be equally guilty. The answer remains in the "if."

Thanks again for your work in digging up the Texas law.

 

[Skwim]

The sexual harassment of children is illegal. One man was also stalking them, which is illegal. Another was also fondling himself at the pool while sexually harassing children, which is illegal.

There's just no wiggle room for you here, I'm afraid. You're going to have to just use your imagination if you don't want a rude encounter with the police while building your DIY kiddie porn collection.

Just to clear up this matter of one or more of the men in the articles fondling himself, and stalking, please show us where your found these references. I couldn't find either. Copy-paste or whatever.

 

[oldbadger]

"Yes, but so far no one here has been able to cite any law for which the police would have probable cause to arrest."
​

ummmm....... let's try this again.........
Please tell us your home State,
Then US members will give you your State laws.......
No?

 

[Buttercup]

ummmm....... let's try this again.........
Please tell us your home State,
Then US members will give you your State laws.......
No?

You don't need state laws. The case of Leandro Enisco falls under federal laws.

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



Depictions of even a clothed child violate U.S. federal law 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4), and 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(E) if they constitute "lascivious" exhibitions of the genitalia or pubic area.[5] The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined "lascivious" as "tending to excite lust; lewd; indecent; obscene; sexual impurity; tending to deprave the morals in respect to sexual relations."


Child erotica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[oldbadger]

You don't need state laws. The case of Leandro Enisco falls under federal laws.

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



Depictions of even a clothed child violate U.S. federal law 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4), and 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(E) if they constitute "lascivious" exhibitions of the genitalia or pubic area.[5] The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined "lascivious" as "tending to excite lust; lewd; indecent; obscene; sexual impurity; tending to deprave the morals in respect to sexual relations."


Child erotica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thankyou.....
Please may I still seek the OP's State?
Although in this instance I would doubt that any State would ignore such Federal Legislation, I have read before that some States have tended to ignore some Federal Legislation in the past..... therefore I do wonder if the OP's State has reinforced such legislation in any way. That's all.

In England this would be stopped, questioned, searched, and if anything was discovered, or if answers to questions were in any way suspicious, certain detention and probable arrest would ensue......... Done. Dusted. Sorted.

 

[Skwim]

ummmm....... let's try this again.........
Please tell us your home State,
Then US members will give you your State laws.......
No?

Let's say it's Minnesota.

 

[Alceste]

Dear 4consideration.

I must apologize for my error in not reading Section 43.21.correcting. It does, in fact, state the very thing you claim: Prohibits photographing children in public for ones own sexual gratification.

"(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic
means visually records another:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person;

​

Thank you for pointing this out and correcting me.

The only difference here is that in the Texas case, ostensibly Riveire wasn't arrested under 43:21, but under the statute(s) pertaining to possession of child pornography. In any case, he deserved to be arrested.

In the California case, if their codes state the same then Encisco would be equally guilty. The answer remains in the "if."

Thanks again for your work in digging up the Texas law.

Sounds like in the CA case, the police asked if he had child pornography on his phone and he said yes. Boom.

 

[Skwim]

Sounds like in the CA case, the police asked if he had child pornography on his phone and he said yes. Boom.

I think you have this confused with the Texas case.

 

[Alceste]

I think you have this confused with the Texas case.

Maybe, but the CA creeper was charged with possession of child pornography. Whether they defined his low angle crotch photos of kids as pornography or whether they charged him for other images on his phone is unclear.

Moral of that particular story is, if you don't want to be tackled by angry parents and held down until police arrive, don't squat behind their kids snapping crotch close-ups. That guy is lucky he survived.

 

[Thief]

Any chance of perspective?....the moral problem is in the eye of the beholder.

If someone handed you a photo.....your reaction is really your problem.

If you can't muster the maturity to see the photo without your emotions jump starting.....
THEN who has the emotional problem?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Any chance of perspective?....the moral problem is in the eye of the beholder.

If someone handed you a photo.....your reaction is really your problem.

If you can't muster the maturity to see the photo without your emotions jump starting.....
THEN who has the emotional problem?

You're gonna have to be clearer, mate.
Are you suggesting that people taking photos of my kids (as an example) is only a problem if I make it one?

 

[dawny0826]

Please revisit my statement. In fact, I'll repost here:

"Yes, but so far no one here has been able to cite any law for which the police would have probable cause to arrest."
​

As I said, that no law had been broken---now only applicable to the Encisco case where it appears the police decided the photos he took at the swim meet were pornographic.

I understood you the first time. I was under the impression that your issue was with the arrests. If the police had probable cause to suspect foul play, an arrest would be warranted without "proving intent" at the scene.

I appreciate 4consideration and others' job of posting law that I failed to.