Taking pictures of children is wrong!

Shaun Williamson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, there's also studies about not believing it =). Women are generally seen as much more harmless (I think everyone knows the gut feeling, especially men. They get away with ridiculously low sentences even for homicide.

Try this for a start, you can find a lot more with a bit of searching for "female perpetrators" etc:
http://www.jimhopper.com/male-ab/

The author Alexander Markus Homes was abused by his mother and has collected hundreds of pieces of evidence for the prevalence of abuse by females, but his books are in German and I don't know if there's an English version. Either way, this has been discovered independently in several countries.

Here's a list of all these recent cases of prosecuted fem http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52172

DMillier said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not even of your own child?? Nobody could take any photos at all?

That's ridiculous. They would've had to throw me out to keep me from doing it. That would have been quite a scene.

I used to be able to photograph anyone in a public setting without the fear of being harassed, threatened, or assulted. I no longer feel safe shooting just anyone without a reason any longer.. I have some beautiful pictures of children that were taken candidly.. Many of them were published in the newspaper.. Some of the time, I was on assignment shooting at local public swimming pools, and there was absolutely nothing "wrong" with it.. Heck, even the children's names,..(first and last) the city in which they lived ion, and their ages were also published along side their pictures in the news paper..

I no longer carry a valid press pass,... so I don't even bother photographing people candidly any more..

Gone are the days when I'd shoot some family at a local playground.. Gone are the days when I'd go to a local event where lots of people are to photograph people in just the way they are.. The reason why..? It's mainly because of numb-nuts over reacting to issues that aren't issues at all.. We hear about some guy taking pictures in a public setting...next thing you know, some over zealous DA looking for state wide name recognition..(like the one in my county).. makes the guy out to be a pervert, when in reality, he mitght have just been shooting for the sake of enjoyment......much like that fellow from Texas who was recently defamed, and libeled thanks to some really really dumb cops who watched him taking pictures, but were too stupid to see what he was actually doing, and presumed the worst,..and arrented him, and then the local media heard about this juicy story, and plastered his god awful looking mug-shot all over the internet, tv stations, and news print... It turned out that the actual images didn't show anything perverse at all... but hey, at least it got people interested in watching and reading the propaganda knows as the main stream media..

This word sucks!

This is more proof of that..

JP
--
http://www.onemodelplace.com/johnpaul
Myspace = jpphotographer

Barry Pearson said:

Barry Pearson said:

Yes everyone obeys all laws. I don't think the concern is use in
advertising. And simply because there is no law against somebody
phtographing my girlfriend in a bikini and taking it home for
'personal' use doesn't, mean its right to ignore her objections and
keep taking photos dispite them.

Click to expand...

[snip]

People have a right to ignore her objections, unless there is a law
against it.

Click to expand...

You are right, they do hav the right to ignore her objections. Does that make that action right and good and considerate and respectful?

Barry Pearson said:

This is not a trivial matter - I live in a democracy, where laws
gradually reflect either a consensus or whatever our elected
representatives sort out. It isn't a perfect system, but I am not
aware of a better one.

Click to expand...

Again you are corect. Do we want the consensus to determine that photography is enough of a issure that banning it is waranted. And you are also corect it isn't a perfect system, I believe that a good deal of it is based on a basic belief that people will respect each other. When they don't laws are then made to ensure they do and provide reprocusions when they don't. My point of view is that I wouldn't like to see such laws affect photography becuase a few couldn't observe simple respect for others feelings.

Barry Pearson said:

If there isn't a law against what you say, why should anyone assume
that you are not simply stating a minority opinion that will never
attain significance? Why should your opinion have any more
influence than the opinion of someone who says it is wrong to wear
a bikini in public? (And there ARE such people).

Click to expand...

Not sure what youare talking about? I didn't believe I made any such claims. Sorry if you read that into what I am saying. Unless you are refering to my point about when laws are made? And at one time wearing bikinis would have been illegal. The consensus changed and so did the law.

Barry Pearson said:

Many people believe that the law doesn't go far enough to enforce
their particular views. (And the set of such views is
contradictory!) That doesn't mean that people need to voluntarily
conform to their views - it is merely their choice if they choose
to do so.

Click to expand...

Sorry this last statement didn't really make sense to me . The first sentance did and I agree with that. Why is the set of such views contradictory? I never suggested that people need to conform to there views. I said that people should have respect for other peoples feelings,views, opinions and wishes. I don't think this is hard to do in the normal flow of life. If everyone did this there wouldn't need to be a concern for the law going to far.

Cheers
Jamie

DMillier said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is the problem today... political correctness. One may be doing
something innocent, but some sick minded person sees it as
unacceptable WITHOUT knowing the circumstances.

I will admit, I get pretty furious when I see "PC" in any form!
I consider it one of the evils of our society... probably the worst.

Just my two-bits worth.

--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada

Glen Barrington said:

...There are enough holes in the story, and
assumptions of guilt on the part of the reporter writing the story,
that to assume this person is guilty from this one article is
dangerous to the administrtion of justice. You guys who're willing
to hang this man from this one story scare the heck out of me.

Click to expand...

Well said, Glen!

I am NOT an American. I am not a Bush supporter. But, I totally
agree with what you say here. It is one of the strong points that
makes America a great place, in spite of its faults. As I said, I am
110% a in agreement with your statement. Hear, hear!!!

--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada

Chato said:

NB. The invasion of privacy on the Internet is being pushed as a
child protection act.

Click to expand...

Of course!!! Use something the public has been whipped up to
view as "really horrible", and you can pass any law if it deals with
that particular crime.

I am NOT saying that taking kiddie porn pics is good or fine, but
I am saying it is being USED by the people in power to make the
common person accept things that they would NOT normally
accept.

It smacks a little bit of this excerpt from the book mentioned
here:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

Find something to distract the people with "over there, , and they
won't notice the awful things you are doing "over here". It is a lot
like a magician... they do something obvious with their left hand,
while the slight of hand is done with the right hand.

Yes, be incensed, but be blind to the other issues that are being
abused.

--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada

DMillier said:

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.

Click to expand...

Very, very scary!!!!!

It is frightening what fear will make us do and think.

--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada

james arnold 71 said:

Barry Pearson said:

james arnold 71 wrote:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

[snip]

james arnold 71 said:

james arnold 71 said:

People have a right to ignore her objections, unless there is a law
against it.

Click to expand...

You are right, they do hav the right to ignore her objections. Does
that make that action right and good and considerate and respectful?

Click to expand...

[snip]

james arnold 71 said:

james arnold 71 said:

Many people believe that the law doesn't go far enough to enforce
their particular views. (And the set of such views is
contradictory!) That doesn't mean that people need to voluntarily
conform to their views - it is merely their choice if they choose
to do so.

Click to expand...

Sorry this last statement didn't really make sense to me . The
first sentance did and I agree with that. Why is the set of such
views contradictory? I never suggested that people need to conform
to there views. I said that people should have respect for other
peoples feelings,views, opinions and wishes. I don't think this is
hard to do in the normal flow of life. If everyone did this there
wouldn't need to be a concern for the law going to far.

Click to expand...

What if someone DOES "have respect for other peoples feelings,views, opinions and wishes", but decides that in this case, after consideration, those will NOT prevail? Would you still say that it is wrong to do so?

People must accept that other people do not need to, and often will not, do what they want them to do. In the UK, this has been visible as various religious groups try to censor perfectly legal material. It appears to be incomprehensible to those groups that other people have rights too.

In this case, a photographer could sensibly say "have respect for MY feelings,views, opinions and wishes". I live in a society where I consider there are already too many laws inhibiting me - I don't want to add further inhibitions just because other people want to stop me doing legal things. There has to be a point where my position is "if you don't want me to do this, get the law changed".

joe mama wrote:
[snip]

joe mama said:

P.S. I didn't read the blurb that inspired this thread. For all I
know, that particular guy is guilty as hell and deserves what he
gets!

Click to expand...

[snip]

The news article says: "A 47-year-old technician who admitted taking indecent pictures of girls with hidden cameras on a Dorset beach has been given a suspended jail sentence". The Recorder "also made a supervision order for two years and told Richardson he would have to attend and obey a sex offender group work programme and sleep every night at an approved address".

Barry Pearson said:

The news article says: "A 47-year-old technician who admitted
taking indecent pictures of girls with hidden cameras on a Dorset
beach has been given a suspended jail sentence". The Recorder "also
made a supervision order for two years and told Richardson he would
have to attend and obey a sex offender group work programme and
sleep every night at an approved address".

Click to expand...

...and it was pretty vague. Not enough info to say one way or another. If I had to choose on that scant blurb, I'd say he was most likely innocent, since if he were doing anything devious, more would have been said. But, like I said, there's not enough info to say one way or another.

To that end, I'll post some candid kid shots:

At the beach of a kid I don't know:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/42400384



At a birthday party, but the pic is of a kid I don't know:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/51005173



At another birthday party with another pic kid I don't know:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/54851551



Ditto the above, except make it two kids I don't know:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/57859941



Some kid I don't know at my daughter's preschool:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/52037724



At the beach (all family):

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/64318755



And another kid I don't know at another birthday party:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/65812673



So, am I a perv? Am I immoral? Impolite? Should I be arrested? Or do many just all succumb to fear and paranoia?

I'll tell you what -- if someone took those kinds pics of my daughter and didn't offer me a print, I'd be mighty upset! : )

--
--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.

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

The news article says: "A 47-year-old technician who admitted
taking indecent pictures of girls with hidden cameras on a Dorset
beach has been given a suspended jail sentence". The Recorder "also
made a supervision order for two years and told Richardson he would
have to attend and obey a sex offender group work programme and
sleep every night at an approved address".

Click to expand...

...and it was pretty vague. Not enough info to say one way or
another. If I had to choose on that scant blurb, I'd say he was
most likely innocent, since if he were doing anything devious, more
would have been said.

Click to expand...

[snip]

Which part of "admitted taking indecent pictures of girls" was vague? He pleaded guilty!

I dont know what the actual offence/charge was & which UK law he was charged under. Given the reported circumstances (hiding the cameras, running away etc, trying to throw a camera away etc) he'd destroyed large chunks of any possible defence he may have had. His lawyer will have told him to plead guilty in the magistrates court with a sob story in the probability he'd escape jail (which he did).

The way UK law works, if he'd said not guilty & gone to a full Crown Court judge & jury trial , if he'd then been found guilty there he'd almost certainly have picked up a prison sentence.

I assume the actual pics were not indecent as such (this was on a popular public beach) so presumably intent was the issue. This is an unclear & messy legal area in UK law and it needs sorting.

--
Dougal (previously some other fella)

Angular Mo said:

Imagine this....

Your pubescent/adolescent daughter walks out of the ladies room in
a bikini a hot summer day at the outdoor town tool, and someone
snaps a photo of her, and places it on the internet of her in her
bikini (or maybe altered to be nude)....she may not have known her
photo was taken, and neither did you, her guardian. She is not an
adult, unable to provide legal consent, and is just learning to be
comfortable with her maturing body.

It is a municipal pool, not a private club, so perhaps there is no
"right to privacy" as she is in a public place. She certainly has
the right to wear a bikini...maybe she is not, maybe she is wearing
a modest one-piece swim-suit...pick your own fact pattern....

Has she been harmed?

Click to expand...

Yes, however you're missing one important point here.

Harm was done not by taking the photo but by altering her photo ant publishing it on the internet.

What if someone just take nice photo of the same girl and doesn't publish it anywhere? Or publish nice portrait of her? I can't see any harm here.

I have small daughter (1,5 year old). And I don't care if someone takes pictures of her. And believe me, a lot of strangers do that, she's very cute. Some ask for permission (we allways grant it) some not. I am not paranoic. Unfortunately some people are and worst thing that they managed to to push some paranoic laws...

--
Edvinas

Can I take pictures of… your pictures? : )

Of course I can, but you'd also be entitled to know why, if you're curious.
The law is curious and has the power of scrutiny.
I like it that way.

If judges make mistakes we have to act to elect better judges,
not to take power away from the good ones.

Edvinas said:

Harm was done not by taking the photo but by altering her photo and
publishing it on the internet.

Click to expand...

How is the parent or guardian to know a priori what the photographer will do with the photograph ?

Angular Mo.

Barry Pearson said:

What if someone DOES "have respect for other peoples
feelings,views, opinions and wishes", but decides that in this
case, after consideration, those will NOT prevail? Would you still
say that it is wrong to do so?

Click to expand...

This is where the grey area starts and if a line had to be drawn it would not be equitable. I believe, that if the above statement is true and the someone does have genuine respect the other peoples feelings and views that this respect will ultimately prevail. There will be cases where what you suggest will and must happen, news worthy events, criminal activity . But does this include ignoring the wishes of someone who is only doing something that a photographer finds compositionally interesting? Besides if they noticed you chances are you already have a picture,

My point is that if photographers demonstrates courtesy and respect there will be few problems and more than likely they will continue to take there pictures. If not and they become a musance enough that the consensus changes they might find there "rights" curtailed much as they have around childrens swiming pools where they can't even take pictures of their own kids.

Barry Pearson said:

People must accept that other people do not need to, and often will
not, do what they want them to do. In the UK, this has been visible
as various religious groups try to censor perfectly legal material.
It appears to be incomprehensible to those groups that other people
have rights too.

In this case, a photographer could sensibly say "have respect for
MY feelings,views, opinions and wishes". I live in a society where
I consider there are already too many laws inhibiting me - I don't
want to add further inhibitions just because other people want to
stop me doing legal things. There has to be a point where my
position is "if you don't want me to do this, get the law changed".

Click to expand...

I am talking about showing enough courtesy and respect to point a camera in another direction when an individual going about day to day life doesn't want their photo taken. Not stopping the activity entirely. But we could go on for ever back and forth. IMO if enough people take that attidue and in doing so upset enough people the laws will change

In Canada we already have a crime called mischief. Essentially if you interfere with anothers enjoyment of a lawful activity you are guilty of mishief. It was explained to me by a police officer that this is what they would use to trump someones objections to being asked to stop taking photographs of people in a park or a beach if they objected. He also said that it is unlikely they would ever actually lay the charge but could if they wanted to. He said it was more likely if push came to shove that they would arrest the offending photographer to 'prevent a breach of the peace'. He also concluded by saying that in the few instances that fit this kind of scenario he had never seen it go beyond having to ask the person to move on.

Its funny my strong opinion about this stuff was in large formed through the study of a war photograph. The picture was of another photographer who had stopped taking photographs during a battle to help carry stretchers. Even in this very news worthy even he had chosen the wellfare of the fallen soldiers over the photographs he could have captured. That is extreme but I believe that it can be applied to day to day life. Of course the photograph was of 2 phtographers only one who can be seen.

Cheers and thanks for the good discussions
Jamie

Angular Mo said:

Angular Mo said:

Harm was done not by taking the photo but by altering her photo and
publishing it on the internet.

Click to expand...

How is the parent or guardian to know a priori what the
photographer will do with the photograph ?

Angular Mo.

Click to expand...

As the photo was taken in a public place, because I don't allow photogs access to my children in the bed/bath/shower/etc, and as that therefore means the photo must be of an everyday innocent situation, who cares what they do with the photo? Let me rephrase that: I couldn't care less what they do with the photo, why would I? I really really really can't undertand the paranoia.

--
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/

To justify the current state of hyper-sensitivity surrounding cameras and children there would have to be a large number of cases where children are harmed because they had been photographed in public, and the harm would not happen if photographers are prevented from taking the pictures.

I am sure that pedophiles take photographs of their victims but preventing them from taking the pictures will not stop the harm.

We can all dream up situations where someone takes a picture of a child or a pretty girl, it is posted on the internet, a pervert tracks down the victim and abuses. But the pervert is much much more likely to abuse someone in their own community - where they have easy access.

I will agree that there are points about privicy and harrassment. The internet brings in a new angle on the privicy point, but the internet is so huge that everything gets swamped and is easlily forgotten about.

This is an issue which requires common sense. Of course it is impolite (but maybe not immoral) to take a picture of someone - where that person is the main subject of the photo - without permission. But to take a scene which includes a child, even if the child is recognisable, do we need permission for that?

The largest number I could find was a claim that 25 percent were victimised by woman.

The most credible sources states numbers more like ten percent. This means that the statement that you contradict - i.e.:

"Sorry but I just don't believe that a sexual abuser is as likely to be female."

Is right on the money. The sexual abuser, in a worst case scenario is only 25 percent likely to be a woman, conversely, 75 percent are likely to be men.

If we use the more credible statistics, then the number rises to 90 percent being men.

I would say by the criteria you yourself set, you are mistaken.

BTW It's a good link you provided , and I used it to find all the others.

Dave

bionet said:

Shaun Williamson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, there's also studies about not believing it =).
Women are generally seen as much more harmless (I think everyone
knows the gut feeling, especially men. They get away with
ridiculously low sentences even for homicide.

Try this for a start, you can find a lot more with a bit of
searching for "female perpetrators" etc:
http://www.jimhopper.com/male-ab/
The author Alexander Markus Homes was abused by his mother and has
collected hundreds of pieces of evidence for the prevalence of
abuse by females, but his books are in German and I don't know if
there's an English version. Either way, this has been discovered
independently in several countries.

Here's a list of all these recent cases of prosecuted
fem http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52172

Click to expand...