Reading mode: Light Dark

Paddling toddler photos 'porn'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
L

LB_55

Active member
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney, AU
The item below just appeared on the Sydney Morning Herald web site:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/paddling-toddler-photos-porn/2008/12/01/1227979877673.html

Paddling toddler photos 'porn'
Peter Hawkins
December 1, 2008 - 12:33PM

A man allegedly taking mobile phone photographs of young children paddling at Sydney's Darling Harbour faces child pornography charges.

Police say they were called to the tourist spot when onlookers saw the man pointing his mobile phone at a group of 15 young children, aged two to 12 years old about 3.15pm yesterday.

The homeless 40-year-old man was arrested by police, who later found a number of photographs and videos of young children on his phone.

He has been charged with possessing child pornography, and was refused bail to appear in Central Local Court today.

Police said there were no previous photos and video on the man's mobile that were incriminating and all images were of the children yesterday afternoon.
"That's the evidence, taking pictures of children in partial undress.

Inspector Brenton Lee from City Central Local Area Command said: "It was a matter where it was totally inappropriate for the time and place and I think that's what the court will look at."
  • with AAP
Darling Harbour is a large popular public park adjacent to Sydney's CBD, where families go to let the children play in the water fountains, and office workers and tourists go for a stroll or to lunch in the restaurants and cafes scattered around.

I was surprised that the person was arrested on such serious charges given the stated evidence. It will be interesting to see what further information comes out in court, and if the court accepts that the evidence supports the charge. In this case the media report implies the person was behaving in a way that seemed very suspicious to parents and onlookers. There is no explanation of what is meant by "partial undress".

If you are a street shooter this case could set an important precendent, as it seems to be based on public and police perceptions of intent. Your professional reputation could be ruined even if you believe you have acted lawfully with your camera.

--
Lynn
 
Doug J said:
I wonder if the parents were arrested as well, the article doesn't
mention this.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it.

From the article: "That's the evidence, taking pictures of children in partial undress."

Should the photographer be found guilty of taking porno pictures, then the parents should be found guilty of providing the model.

In my opinion child pornography is never acceptable. This is not a case of child pornography.

--

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind.
 
1. Poor people, who cannot afford adequate legal defense are the easiest prey for the pedophilia profiteers parasitizing on people's emotions and public funds.
The case brought by you confirms that rotten pattern.

2. Why in the world the data on the cell phones and camera is still unprotected?

Horrible neglect by manufacturers maturing to become the biggest class action suits ever!
(-)
 
I also wonder if there is a law that prohibits viewing child pornography, if so, did they arrest everyone in the general area that could see the children in partial undress?

If the article is accurate, it is pretty brief, the taxpayers might end up with a pretty foolish expense as this winds through the legal system.
Bill Randall said:
Doug J said:
I wonder if the parents were arrested as well, the article doesn't
mention this.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it.

From the article: "That's the evidence, taking pictures of children
in partial undress."

Should the photographer be found guilty of taking porno pictures,
then the parents should be found guilty of providing the model.

In my opinion child pornography is never acceptable. This is not a
case of child pornography.

--
FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me
wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind.
Click to expand...
--
Best regards,
Doug
http://pbase.com/dougj
 
LB_55 said:
A man allegedly taking mobile phone photographs of young children
paddling at Sydney's Darling Harbour faces child pornography charges.
Police say they were called to the tourist spot when onlookers saw
the man pointing his mobile phone at a group of 15 young children,
aged two to 12 years old about 3.15pm yesterday.
Click to expand...
Gee. Should I surrender myself to the Fukuoka police right now? All of a sudden I am feeling terribly guilty.



Thankfully, people here don't get offended by the photography of such displays of childhood joy and innocence. Which is probably why I have permanently moved here.

Ray Kinnane
Japan
 
Cases like this resemble witch-hunt stories from medieval times.

Wonder if they are going to also apply the medieval practice of throwing witches ...eeerh... photographers tied up into rivers or ponds. If the photographers stays on the surface, he/she is proven guilty and shall be burned. Iif he/she sinks (and probably drowns) then they are found (post mortem) innocent.
 
The guy was
1. A man
2. Homeless (meaning probably smelly and ugly)
3. A photographer
and
4. Near children.

With such a laundry list of crimes, it's no wonder he got into trouble. He should have been a harmless-looking woman, because then 3 and 4 would have been OK.

Sigh.
--
http://flickr.com/photos/iskender
 
Why are you bringing this to our attention. In my opinion this news has no relevence to this site which is about cameras and the search for better photography. There are all sorts of weird and horrible people in this wprld and as fas as i can see this article is so far hearsay. But I repeat that I see no relevence of it to be discussed here. In fact i find people's interest and constant reprinting of such stories on DPReview as odd to say the least.
Jules
LB_55 said:
The item below just appeared on the Sydney Morning Herald web site:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/paddling-toddler-photos-porn/2008/12/01/1227979877673.html

Paddling toddler photos 'porn'
Peter Hawkins
December 1, 2008 - 12:33PM

A man allegedly taking mobile phone photographs of young children
paddling at Sydney's Darling Harbour faces child pornography charges.
Police say they were called to the tourist spot when onlookers saw
the man pointing his mobile phone at a group of 15 young children,
aged two to 12 years old about 3.15pm yesterday.
The homeless 40-year-old man was arrested by police, who later found
a number of photographs and videos of young children on his phone.
He has been charged with possessing child pornography, and was
refused bail to appear in Central Local Court today.
Police said there were no previous photos and video on the man's
mobile that were incriminating and all images were of the children
yesterday afternoon.
"That's the evidence, taking pictures of children in partial undress.
Inspector Brenton Lee from City Central Local Area Command said: "It
was a matter where it was totally inappropriate for the time and
place and I think that's what the court will look at."
  • with AAP
Darling Harbour is a large popular public park adjacent to Sydney's
CBD, where families go to let the children play in the water
fountains, and office workers and tourists go for a stroll or to
lunch in the restaurants and cafes scattered around.
I was surprised that the person was arrested on such serious charges
given the stated evidence. It will be interesting to see what further
information comes out in court, and if the court accepts that the
evidence supports the charge. In this case the media report implies
the person was behaving in a way that seemed very suspicious to
parents and onlookers. There is no explanation of what is meant by
"partial undress".
If you are a street shooter this case could set an important
precendent, as it seems to be based on public and police perceptions
of intent. Your professional reputation could be ruined even if you
believe you have acted lawfully with your camera.

--
Lynn
Click to expand...
--

A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know. Arbus.
 
It was sitting up there the whole time...

"Images of children - We absolutely do not allow any nude / semi-nude / voyeuristic pictures of children or links to such galleries. Anyone posting such images or links to galleries with such images will be immediately banned and may be reported to the authorities."

Still I wonder, with all the porn I was apparently witness to in my childhood, why did I feel such shock the first time I saw an 'X-rated' video?

--
-CW
 
Emil Varadi said:
Cases like this resemble witch-hunt stories from medieval times.
Click to expand...
And on the beginning of the story is always cynical economics and politics.

Only first couple of weeks of "children protection" commanded by the Texas Judge Walther cost near $25 Million. And the cash register for that luminous project is still ringing.

The children have been pushed into madness by brutal interrogations without presence of their parents. It is not the child abuse.

States try to refuse to participate in high cost of low credibility and efficiency central registry of the sex offenders, but the project is pushed anyway.

(-)
 
JulesJ said:
Why are you bringing this to our attention. In my opinion this news
has no relevence to this site which is about cameras and the search
for better photography.
Click to expand...
Personally, I find it very relevant. Anyone who has done any street photography will find it relevant. It's good to see articles like this so that those of us who do take the odd shot or two on the street can know what to avoid, or what trouble we may face...

I once took some pictures of some young boys skateboarding...in hindsight, when one of the lads took off his shirt and skated that way, was I guilty of producing child pornography? In some lands it would appear so...
JulesJ said:
There are all sorts of weird and horrible
people in this wprld and as fas as i can see this article is so far
hearsay.
Click to expand...
Are you insinuating that the man who was arrested was "weird and horrible"? If so, you are jumping to unfounded conclusions, just as the police have in this case. It's reactions like that (he took a picture of a child so he must be weird and horrible...let's arrest him!) that cause more problems than protect children.

And hearsay? What part of it? The article states the man did something and was arrested. Where's the hearsay? The sad part is that he was arrested for something anyone of us on this forum may have done at some point in our lives...in fact many of us have done worse! Ever taken or looked at the classic baby picture of the little one in the tub, or lying butt naked on the change table before diapering? Or a picture of a baby girl with no top, just in a diaper? I bet nearly every family album on the planet has at least one of those...by strict definition the way the police in this case applied it, that's possession and viewing of child pornography, much worse than what this guy did - he took pictures of children playing in a fountain out of doors. If pictures of those children resulted in child porn charges, the parents were guilty of providing the opportunity - let's see, child endangerment and pandering to say the least?
JulesJ said:
But I repeat that I see no relevence of it to be discussed
here. In fact i find people's interest and constant reprinting of
such stories on DPReview as odd to say the least.
Jules
Click to expand...
That's what makes the world such an interesting place...we're all entitled to our opinions...at least in some countries!

I agree with others here...child porn needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but cooler heads need to prevail in determining what is or isn't truly child porn.

--
*******************************
Neil MacDonald
Moncton, NB
Bodies: Olympus E-510, E-330
Lenses: 14-42, 40-150, 50-200, EC-14
Flash: Metz Mecablitz AF48
http://nrmdisk.smugmug.com
*******************************

 
All i'm saying that newspaper articles like this are usually rubbish. Have you ever read a report in a newspaper about something that you were personally involved in. If you have you will know that they invariable get half the facts wrong, miss the point or generally make errors.

I'm not supporting or condemming either the photographer or the police. I'm just saying that I find second hand reports about the articles, that keep turning up on this forum, pretty meaningless and boring.

Just as you read incorrect stuff into what I wrote, think about what you read in this so called report, which everyone is now adding their uneducated halfpennies to!
Jules
Cyclopzzz said:
JulesJ said:
Why are you bringing this to our attention. In my opinion this news
has no relevence to this site which is about cameras and the search
for better photography.
Click to expand...
Personally, I find it very relevant. Anyone who has done any street
photography will find it relevant. It's good to see articles like
this so that those of us who do take the odd shot or two on the
street can know what to avoid, or what trouble we may face...

I once took some pictures of some young boys skateboarding...in
hindsight, when one of the lads took off his shirt and skated that
way, was I guilty of producing child pornography? In some lands it
would appear so...
Cyclopzzz said:
There are all sorts of weird and horrible
people in this wprld and as fas as i can see this article is so far
hearsay.
Click to expand...
Are you insinuating that the man who was arrested was "weird and
horrible"? If so, you are jumping to unfounded conclusions, just as
the police have in this case. It's reactions like that (he took a
picture of a child so he must be weird and horrible...let's arrest
him!) that cause more problems than protect children.

And hearsay? What part of it? The article states the man did
something and was arrested. Where's the hearsay? The sad part is that
he was arrested for something anyone of us on this forum may have
done at some point in our lives...in fact many of us have done worse!
Ever taken or looked at the classic baby picture of the little one in
the tub, or lying butt naked on the change table before diapering?
Or a picture of a baby girl with no top, just in a diaper? I bet
nearly every family album on the planet has at least one of
those...by strict definition the way the police in this case applied
it, that's possession and viewing of child pornography, much worse
than what this guy did - he took pictures of children playing in a
fountain out of doors. If pictures of those children resulted in
child porn charges, the parents were guilty of providing the
opportunity - let's see, child endangerment and pandering to say the
least?
Cyclopzzz said:
But I repeat that I see no relevence of it to be discussed
here. In fact i find people's interest and constant reprinting of
such stories on DPReview as odd to say the least.
Jules
Click to expand...
That's what makes the world such an interesting place...we're all
entitled to our opinions...at least in some countries!

I agree with others here...child porn needs to be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law, but cooler heads need to prevail in
determining what is or isn't truly child porn.

--
*******************************
Neil MacDonald
Moncton, NB
Bodies: Olympus E-510, E-330
Lenses: 14-42, 40-150, 50-200, EC-14
Flash: Metz Mecablitz AF48
http://nrmdisk.smugmug.com
*******************************

Click to expand...
--

A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know. Arbus.
 
Chez Wimpy said:
It was sitting up there the whole time...

"Images of children - We absolutely do not allow any nude / semi-nude
/ voyeuristic pictures of children or links to such galleries. Anyone
posting such images or links to galleries with such images will be
immediately banned and may be reported to the authorities."
Click to expand...
These children reported on here were in a public place where nudity is not allowed.

If the children were nude, the parents would have been charged.

--
Mike . Sydney, Australia
http://www.pbase.com/mikeaus/galleries
http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/MikeAus/?
 
I thought it was a story about someone beating the cr@p out of a kid...

Forgive an old farts ignorance, but what the heck is "Paddling Children?"

Dave
 
Chato said:
I thought it was a story about someone beating the cr@p out of a kid...

Forgive an old farts ignorance, but what the heck is "Paddling
Children?"
Click to expand...
Like you I thought the same thing. Paddling may be their word for swimming, or maybe they had paddle boats. Then too, maybe we are getting too old. Naw!

--

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind.
 
Bill Randall said:
Chato said:
I thought it was a story about someone beating the cr@p out of a kid...

Forgive an old farts ignorance, but what the heck is "Paddling
Children?"
Click to expand...
Like you I thought the same thing. Paddling may be their word for
swimming, or maybe they had paddle boats. Then too, maybe we are
getting too old. Naw!

--
FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me
wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind.
Click to expand...
Dictionary's no help, maybe the OP will be kind enough to explain?

pad⋅dle

1    ˈpædl Show Spelled Pronunciation [pad-l] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -dled, -dling.
–noun

1. a short, flat bladed oar for propelling and steering a canoe or small boat, usually held by both hands and moved more or less through a vertical arc.
2. any of various similar implements used for mixing, stirring, or beating.

3. any of various similar but smaller implements with a short handle for holding in one hand and a wide or rounded blade, used for a racket in table tennis, paddle tennis, etc.

4. such an implement or a similarly shaped makeshift one, used to spank or beat someone.

5. an implement used for beating garments while washing them in running water, as in a stream.
6. Also called float, floatboard. a blade of a paddle wheel.
7. paddle wheel.
8. any of the blades by which a water wheel is turned.
9. a flipper or limb of a penguin, turtle, whale, etc.
10. an act of paddling.

11. Also, pattle. British Dialect. a small spade with a long handle, used to dig up thistles.

12. (in a gate of a lock or sluice) a panel that slides to permit the passage of water.
–verb (used without object)
13. to propel or travel in a canoe or the like by using a paddle.
14. to row lightly or gently with oars.
15. to move by means of paddle wheels, as a steamer.
–verb (used with object)
16. to propel with a paddle: to paddle a canoe.
17. to spank or beat with or as with a paddle.
18. to stir, mix, or beat with or as with a paddle
19. to convey by paddling, as a canoe.
20. to hit (a table-tennis ball or the like) with a paddle.
—Idiom
21. paddle one's own canoe. canoe (def. 6).
Origin:
1375–1425; late ME padell (n.)

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top