Do they object when they are photographed two or three hundred times
a day by the ubiqtuious CCCD cameras?
Probably not, it is in a public place.
You make a number of points below about the difference between public and private. I can't recall saying that I have a right to go into your house, and take images of you, let alone your children. So consider this remark an answer to all of those statements of yours, which have nothing to do with this or any other thread on this board. I say that because I can't recall Anyonce claiming such a right.
These are neither rational nor logical objections, anymore than those
who believe a photograph steals the soul.
They might think they are doing the best thing for their child.
Then shouldn't they keep their children in purdah until they are 50 years old or so?
Life is difficult enough as it is, without demanding that society give in to or cater to, the irrational. No one will stop these parents from wrapping their kids in a Burkha...
You do realise this idea is new? A primitive atavism that didn't
exist in the last generation, and suddenly becomes legitimate?
The ability for most households to distribute images around the world
at a push of a button is new. Surely you recognise that.
And? You mean that that this changes things? Are these parents concerned about the number of people seeing their kids, or the fact that strangers are seeing their kids? Just because they've been
told to fear this doesn't make it any more legitimate. Hundreds of thousands see their kids in a newspaper, millions
might see thier kids on the internet. Tell me, do you actually look? Do pedophiles actually look for
these kinds of images? If so, good for them. They wont be out looking to molest our kids if they are so easily satisfied.
Meanwhile of course just WHO is monitoring all those CCCD cameras? Can these same parents guarranttee that the images so aquired "wont go around the world at a push of a button?"
MIght as well debate whether the earth is flat. A pedophile will take
a picture? Who cares? Is the photograph the modern day equivalent of
the voodoo doll, with the child being damaged by the primtive
rituals? And why would a pedophile search the net for such images,
when there really is a child porn industry which has Nothing to do
with these kinds of images.
You have gone back to a different discussion. This little sub thread
was about the possible reasons of 'privacy' and that a parent might
want to ensure their child's photo taken in a non-public place does
not go round the world. Their reason may seem irrational to you, but
are you saying they have absolutely no rights in non-public places?
Imagine for one moment that a child might have an abnormal
appearance, or a rare medical condition. Are you saying the parents
have no control over photography on non-public property - perhaps
school or hospital?
A school play IS a public place, their medical records are NOT a public place. In one case hundreds of
strangers are looking at their kids, in the other, it is the approved medical personal. Now most parents
want to make memories our of their childrens plays and sporting events, out of any
public activity. Yoiu are defending the right of people to believe that photographs are inherently evil, as opposed to defending the rights of most people.
No one forced their children to take part in
public activities, yet in the pretend world of evil photographs, they are forcing everyone else to grant the validity of voodoo.
Dave
