Taking pictures of children is wrong!

And I see you got it off your chest.

There are some true points you make, but they are almost besides the issue.

If you're familiar with US history, then I can answer everything you just said with three words, "The Five Points."

Pedophilia is inherent in some people. But most instance, Acts of pedophillia are not done by these people. They are commited by people on the edge of insanity, people whose acts are not quite subject to rational control. The reason instances of this kind of child abuse are on the increase is a reflection of the way society portrays both children and sex.

It would not be my point to simply say, that, "It's societies fault, and we have to change society."

This might be true, but it is not necessary to alter all our societal problems to deal with this kind of abuse - So, nowhere do I raise this broad an issue.

A glance, of the way children are treated in fashion magazines as opposed to when I was a child should be enough to show you, that "Legitimate" kiddie porn is now perfectly acceptable. It differs only in degree in what you can find surfing the net.

We probably ALL disagree on what changes should be made to deal with the larger problems of society - But my point here is not really a matter of left or right, liberal or conservative. It's just common sense.

The first step is to turn children back into children and not "hot little sex objects."

It is not to ban the photography of children, but to promote it as what it should be.

I have a strong political agenda - This is NOT part of it.

I do not claim to have all the answers and certainly not all the solutions. If you want my overall take on what's wrong with society - That would be a leftist analysis. THIS is a common sense analysis about all of us, because whatever our politics, we all live in a world where children are the future.

Dave

doctor digi said:

Chato said:

I'm trying to ask, and in some respects answer the question of, not
how absurd this situation is, but rather where does it come from,
and how we can change it.

Click to expand...

It comes from the same paranoid and weak-minded people who insist
that "human rights" should trample over the rights of society in
general - no matter what the consequences - and that kids are more
important than the adults who (supposedly) are meant to be rearing
them.

doctor digi said:

In my opinion it is a crime that taking pictures of the innoscense
of childhood can be a criminal act. Ok, why?

Click to expand...

Because these evil people who collect pictures of naked children
and send them over the Internet are a modern phenomena and, of
course!, have never ever existed before... Yeah, right. Therefore
we must ban everyone - whether they be parents at their child's
school play, people taking photos on holiday at the beach, or
parents taking photos of their sprogs playing football in a public
park.

doctor digi said:

What can we do?

Click to expand...

Stand up to backboneless idiots who seem to be in charge, perhaps?

doctor digi said:

No one is going to support abusing children, so we are all on the
same page as far as that goes.

Click to expand...

That depends on your definition of "abuse". When a woman was
recently accused of pushing her finger gently into the forehead of
a little girl who was naughty and then taken to court for GBH, I
thought the world really had gone mad.

Can't photograph 'em. Can't touch 'em. Soon you won't be able to
tell them off (mental trauma). No wonder we have the feral kids
that you now see loitering on the streets (or the roofs of nearby
schools). You can look forward to more of this - and worse - as the
years progress.

There are solutions to all these things. However, it will require a
new generation of politicians and community leaders who aren't
afraid to say and do things that might offend someone.

Click to expand...

Barry Pearson said:

John Motts said:

I find it hard to understand why people here think that it's their
right to point a camera at whoever they please, wherever they
please, whether at children or adults. There seems to be a
particular arrogance about photographers.

Click to expand...

[snip]

Step away from photography - it may be confusing the issue.

Click to expand...

The issue isn't looking, it is photography. Tyring to imply that taking a photo is the same as looking is an attempt to confuse the issue. They are not the same and to argue that they are is obtuse at best.

I agree with John. There wouldn't be an issue if people were up front open and honest about what they are doing. And demonstrated respect for others by respecting the feelings about being photographed or not as the case may be. Regardless of what the law says and what you believe your rights are.

Simply because a particular activity hasn't been made illegal doesn't mean its right or harmless, in only means that it hasn't become enough of an issue for a law to be made. Keep ignoring the feelings of the people in the park that you are pointing your camera at and eventually that will change. Show a little respect and all should remain cool.

Jamie
Cheers

A pupil of a photo course I was involved in used to work in the summer for a beach photographer. What he did was walk the beach, ask children, and young ladies, and families “Hey, make me a smile!”, take the shot, and then pass the business card of the photographer to people photographed. If they liked, they could drop in the shop in the afternoon, retire the photographs, pay for the prints and take them happily home. It had been like this for years. The summer after the first criminal case involving children in Internet photo exchanges, this chap went to the beach as usual. At the first “give me a smile” said to a child, he found himself surrounded by menacing and angry people: relatives of the little boy (or girl) but also other people sunbathing around. They accused him to steal images to put them on the Net, and made clear he was not welcome. He had to give up the job, and nobody dares to make photographs on the beach anymore. Collective paranoia? New sensibility towards the right of image? Who can tell. I know one thing for certain. I wouldn't point a camera towards a minor withouth explicit consent of the parents. I do not know who is right or wrong, but I know for certain what the collective sensibility is, and do not want to collide with it.

I must also remind that when I was a child, in the middle of last century, I was accompanied to school for the first day, and that was all: after that I had to take care of myself, and walk from home to school and back, trying to avoid cars (not so many, at the time), pedophiles (nobody talked of them at the time) and gangs of youngsters bigger than what I was, the real menace in those days. Today no child goes to primary on his own, and most are taken to the door of the school by car and taken by car back home. That must mean something, and we photographers must take in account it as a fact.
Fabio

doctor digi said:

doctor digi said:

What can we do?

Click to expand...

Stand up to backboneless idiots who seem to be in charge, perhaps?

Click to expand...

You've got my vote.

--
Geoff

'The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.' - George Bernard Shaw

WSSA member#68
PBase Supporter
Apprentice Strobist (www.strobist.com)

http://www.pbase.com/tuckeruk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tuckeruk/

Suppose you found someone taking a picture of your daughter using a
VISIBLE (i.e. non hidden camera) what would you think then.
Someone taking pictures of your daughter even with a hidden camera in
no way harms your daughter even if the the person taking the pictures
is a paedophile and you are not justified in taking the law into your own
hands. You have just become part of the hysterical majority ready to
murder people for what you think might be in their heads. You can get
treatment for this.
If you are going to give your children a sane and balanced view of life
then you need to become a sane and balanced person yourself.

Sorry but I just don't believe that a sexual abuser is as likely to be female
rather than male. Please quote any research that shows that this is so.

Chato said:

So if I went to the beach to take pictures of children playing in
their innoscense, there's a good chance that I would be verbally
assaulted, if not physically assaulted.

And yes, I understand that such a result would not be ALL paranoia.
But if we're going to change things, the first step is to cease
sexualising children in the "legitimate" way it is done and done
acceptably. When we finally create an atmosphere where children are
children, the rest will change.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but... The problem with that logic is that during the moment, the people/parent who spots the man hiding behind the bushes with his camera aren't going to suspend taking immediate action to engage in an evaluative exercise to determine his motives. They are going to ACT NOW.

While it may be "noble" to do so to help cure the larger problem you describe, no one is going to be the point-man for such an exercise when their child is involved or they are a witness to the event.

It may be a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality, but that's the mindset these days, thanks to the drive-by media hyping up the danger to our children and bemoaning the world in general at every turn.

The e-coli on spinach problem had the drive by media in paroxysms of breathless joy at covering this story. Hundreds of people die every year and thousands made ill from e-coli infections, resulting from man-made conditions far more obnoxious than this. But the spinach "story, sweet, wholesome spinach", the food that made popeye strong, hit the right nerve -- and blammo, front page news that ultimately cost spinach growers untold millions.

I personally do not believe the world is any more dangerous today, at a personal level, than it was when I was a kid (40 years ago). But the drive-by media, (yes, I've used that term 3x now) has whipped the pseuso-news lapping public into a panic. That's the problem, as I see it.

--
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/digirob

Angular Mo said:

Taking photos of children without parent consent is just plain
immoral....

Click to expand...

And what church is that rule from? Depending on the scoiety/religion, drinking alcohol is immoral, sex before marriage is immoral (and even then, sex for reasons other than procreation is immoral), dancing is immoral, etc. etc. However, I'm not aware of the chruch/society that say "taking photos without parental consent is just plain immoral". Illegal, yes (England?), immoral, no. There's a huge difference between the two. Huge. And I mean huuuuuuge ! : )

Angular Mo said:

Taking photos of children for the purpose of sexual gratification
is illegal, even if the child or parent does not know what the
photographer did in their own privacy. So, what is the harm one
may ask? It is the "slippery slope". Such behavior of fantasy
could lead toward actual behavior that does a child harm, Imagine
the psychological damage if a child's head is grafted to a nude
body?

Click to expand...

Agreed, on the first sentence only. However, the rest is just silly. People care far less for the safety of the child than they care about denying "immoral pleasure" to the sexual deviant. You'd save far, far, far more children a brtual and painful death by requiring them to stay in booster seats in cars until an older age, or requiring the use of helmets in vehicles. How about requiring pool covers for people with children? Honestly, as the father of a young girl, I can tell you straight up I'd rather a thousand pervs, nay, make that a billion pervs, whacking off to pics of my daughter than to come home one day to find her floating lifeless in the pool.

Angular Mo said:

However, as in most legal situations, it is all fact-based...

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It's all hysteria based.

Angular Mo said:

A fashion photographer taking pictures of children on the street
would likely ask for consent.

Click to expand...

Because they're making money off the pics. That's a whole different thing.

Angular Mo said:

I am not a lawyer, but in the U.S., criminal activity is often
determined by "intent", not the acgtion alone. Secretly taking
photos certainly displays some untoward intent.

Click to expand...

Not a lawyer you say? How about a congressman:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0609300083sep30,1,1719985.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

"Some of those who work forces, are the same that brought crosses."

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.

Chato said:

And I see you got it off your chest.

Click to expand...

If you consider that a rant then I fear you have completely misinterpreted my post.

But that's just your opinion - and like mine, counts for very little.

No-one seems to have mentioned the link that was included on that page which lead to a report of the earlier proceedings at the trial.

Reading that may help explain the sentencing?

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/5303244.stm

--
Peter - on the green island of Ischia
http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde

digirob said:

Chato said:

So if I went to the beach to take pictures of children playing in
their innoscense, there's a good chance that I would be verbally
assaulted, if not physically assaulted.

And yes, I understand that such a result would not be ALL paranoia.
But if we're going to change things, the first step is to cease
sexualising children in the "legitimate" way it is done and done
acceptably. When we finally create an atmosphere where children are
children, the rest will change.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but... The problem with that logic is that during the
moment, the people/parent who spots the man hiding behind the
bushes with his camera aren't going to suspend taking immediate
action to engage in an evaluative exercise to determine his
motives. They are going to ACT NOW.

While it may be "noble" to do so to help cure the larger problem
you describe, no one is going to be the point-man for such an
exercise when their child is involved or they are a witness to the
event.

Click to expand...

Let's not panic over a photographer taking pictures. The plain fact is that no one is harmed by this. These kinds of pictures do not wind up on the net. They can't compete with the "legimate" kiddie porn. Taking photographs is not the abuse. It may be that you can ask such a person to desist, and or, take a hike, but those are not the actions that result in harm to the child.

digirob said:

It may be a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality, but
that's the mindset these days, thanks to the drive-by media hyping
up the danger to our children and bemoaning the world in general at
every turn.

Click to expand...

(snip)

While the media is of course sensationalist, to a certain extent it reflects what we want to hear. The McMartin Sex Scandal of the eighties was not created by the media, but by the hysteria of a community. Yes there is a feedback relationship...

digirob said:

I personally do not believe the world is any more dangerous today,
at a personal level, than it was when I was a kid (40 years ago).
But the drive-by media, (yes, I've used that term 3x now) has
whipped the pseuso-news lapping public into a panic. That's the
problem, as I see it.

Click to expand...

Well, I disagree. And I believe it is not only sexual predators who make it more dangerous. But I wont go there - because you then enter the rhealm of my left wing politics.

I believe we can limit this to the question of child abuse, where as I said in another post, we, whatever our politics, are on the same page. Evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of truly harmful child abuse is NOT done by people whom medicine can call pedophiles. Rather it is done by people who suffer from other problems and seek some sort of relief from the reality of their lives. Children are an ideal target for this because they are portrayed by society as willing participants. They are in fact no longer children, to people who long ago forgot (or remember to well) what being a child is all about. By targeting a child, they are in fact targeting Adults, and targeting physically weak adults who cannot fight back.

NB. Look, the problem is complex. Is the recent harrassment of pages in Washington Child abuse? Not in my book. It may be wrong and it IS ludicrous, but it's not child abuse. I am concerned about Young children - and the long term harm that occurs to them when they are molested.

Why are we so concerned over some guy taking pictures, which harms no one, and tolerate advertising, fashion, etc, etc, which creates an atmosphere that puts our children at risk? That in fact appeals directly to the disturbed minds that ARE more common today then when I was a kid.

The world will never be a "safe place," pedophillia will never be eliminated. Nontheless, if we ceace to display young children as adults, if we depict them as children, celebrate the difference, instead of minimise it, we shall go a long way to changing at least This problem.

Dave

i did not quite understand what is your point. anyway

i assume you are from the same squad ready to lynch anybody who looks suspicios to you. welcome to witch hunting

We took our 4 month old baby girl to the public swimming baths for her first swimming lesson today.

I was not allowed to photograph the event. It seems a pity to me that I should be banned from recording an important family moment because of the risk that there might be someone with someone peculiar ideas about children and a camera lurking around.

Obviously there are unpleasant things and unpleasant people in the world but I wonder sometimes if the things we do to 'protect' are worse than the things we are supposedly protecting against. Not an easy call I suppose.

Tom Meeks said:

olezhyk said:

its good you are not judge. you would've send to jail too many people

Click to expand...

But, we'd have a LOT fewer perverts taking secret pictures of young
girls on the streets. LOL

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

if somebody is pervert, that's his own business until it's not damaging to others. i do not know the case in detail, i have not seen the pictures. from what i've read, i did not see any susbstance for inprisonment

there are hundreds of millions of men jerking home at pictures. so what

BBC news has an enviable world wide reputation that is probably justified.

The BBC website is more mixed. They go down the tabloid route a lot IMO.

aardvark7 said:

I agree as to the need for more information.
I suspect this is another of those instances when a limited news
report is enough to incite deep feelings at extremes of the
spectrum, without any of the participants actually being aware of
the whole truth.
Indeed, I have witnessed people reading such limited reports and
then relating opinions to me based on a complete misapprehension of
the incomplete article read just minutes before!
Such is life and I think it incumbent on us to keep a sense of
perspective. If we do, it becomes clearer when dispensing justice
and those who deserve to be punished can feel the full force of the
law.

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

I do agree with you re children not generally harmed by innocent pics, even those shot by stangers in a park, although I did not articulate that well in my previous post.

The problem is, like I said, no one in the moment is going to attempt to determine the motive of the shooter. If some man is snapping pictures of children in a park, he is very likely to raise suspicion if he exhibits any of the "classic signs of ill-motive" 1. Shooting from distance and not intimately part of the scene. 2. Appearing to be lurking, in any manner. That means using cover or glancing about furtively, 3. attemtping to hide his camera between shots, and whatever else a "perv" might do to conceal his activities.

Even if he the shooter does none of these things, IF someone accuses him of impure motive, he will often be presumed guilty -- maybe not in a court of law, where, thankfully, evidence is still (usually) important -- but certainly in the "court of the moment". If a cop is nearby, the shooter will almost certainly be questioned, possibly asked to display/erase his pictures, asked to show id, and whatever else the LEO can do to harass the shooter while staying just this side of the legal line.

And this isn't just about kids. It's about anything else that a bystander, in their clueless and misguided thinking, believes to be a threat. Shooting pictures of bridges, gov't buildings, other infrastructure. We've seen post after post on these forums of photogs being harassed for doing nothing more than taking pictures in an upfront and non-furtive manner. Yet they continue to be harrassed.

Shooting pics of kids in a park is simply the pedophilic equivalent of the "terrorist" shooting pictures of "sensitive" targets.

No one in the moment is going to analyze the metrics of the situation. Why? Because they fear the worst, no matter how remote that possibility may be. Any why is that? The drive-by media!

--
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/digirob

Hi John

As a new father of a baby girl I know what you mean.

BUT... this viewpoint and the fear of paedophiles has got out of hand. I was taking pictures in my local park the other day (of architectural features) and was accosted with the implication I must be some kind of pervert.

I was taken pictures of landmarks with my camera on a tripod on another occasion and was 'moved along'.

It appears it is fine to take snaps with a compact as long long as you look and behave like a typical tourist but the idea of the photo enthusiast taking amateur 'art' photos is increasingly viewed by suspicion by law enforcement, private security and members of the public.

John Motts said:

I'm surprised you think it's okay to photograph anything you like.
If I found anyone taking pictures of my young daughter with a
hidden camera in a park I would go absolutely berserk.

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

I believe, and everyone can disagree, that parents have an ABSOLUTE right to not have their child's picture taken if they do not consent...even if they are in public. No one can determine the motive of the photographer, or any subsequent recipient of such photos.

I am a parent, and a hobbiest photographer. I am always on the watch for suspicious people based on their behavior, it is called a "zone of safety". If someone were to be taking pictures, I would ask that they do not take pictures of us.

I also believe, parents are not entitled to enforce their rights themselves and violate the rights of the phtographer through physical intimidation, or menacing.

Angular Mo

--
'Photos are what remains when the memories are forgotten' - Angular Mo.

Yes they do.

I was actually followed by a bunch of 'concerned citizens' because I was doing the utterly bizarre and incomprehensible crime of photographing grafiti.

It seems to me that although there are a lot of amateur photographers i.e. holiday/boozy night out snapshooters, 'serious' photographers do arouse suspicion unless you at the top of a mountain or something.

John Motts said:

I wonder who is being paranoid? I don't think people object to
innocent photography as much as you say. The case you brought up
was one of a man effectively stalking young children and hiding
behind bushes.

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

I believe the hysterai is mostly from law enforcement concerned about photographers "casing" a building, and doing things such as determining trajectory, whcih executive occupies which office etc.

When I take such architectural phtos, I try to do so when poeple are not in the viewfinder, so they do not think I am trying to get them in a stealthy way.

Angular Mo.

--
'Photos are what remains when the memories are forgotten' - Angular Mo.