Photographing Children Could be a Criminal Act in NJ

And there are those who wish to hide behind the laws to defend their scum bag behavior

So where is the problem? We attack the law instead of the creeps who give us all a bad rep? How about giving up the blind stance to defend all people with cameras? Oh god no we can't attack our peers. We are always right just as the cops are always wrong. Reality check here, many of our peers are scum, perverts and creepy

mamallama said:

Chato wrote:
You totally ignored this part of my response:

"It's a pattern of behavior rather than a single incident that is key. If you did that and followed the kid to the playground and kept taking pictures of him wherever he went, you're a pervert."

Click to expand...

I thought I did answer it. Watching a kid pee for 30 seconds is neither criminal, nor perverted. Could be. And this law makes such an act a crime according to the opinion of one person, who may or may not be objective. Are you saying that if that person looks for five seconds, he's normal, ten is borderline, twenty is a primae facie case?

mamallama said:

It's the same as you cannot nail someone for stalking on a single incident. It's a pattern of behavior. Take a picture of a kid and move on - no problem. But follow that kid all over the playground taking his picture after watching him pee - that could signal a problem.

Click to expand...

Overall we are not talking about stalking. You are defending the idea that a Cop who doesn't like your ideas, or your opinions, can have you arrested because his bias about you makes him see everything you do in terms of his bias.

Moreover this suggested law encompasses far more than bathrooms. Play grounds, beaches, in fact any place at all...

You are defending a new concept in law. A crime is what one person decides is a crime, with or without any reference to reality. You are defending a law which makes no reasonable distinction between "looking" and "peering."

You are defending a scenario in which you are guilty and have to prove your innoscense. And how will someone prove their innocense? "Your honor I was merely looking at those kids on the playground, I wasn't peering at those kids on the playground.

There are perverts in the world and you are defining a pervert according to one persons judgement of what is a perverted act. A child molester groups their victim. Do we need someone to make a judgement call on this question? Guy grabbed my kid. That is an act, and it's an objective fact. Or he didn't grab my kid, and nothing happened.

You are opening a pandoras box in which we are not protected by law, because law stands above the bias or opinions of individuals. Crimes are defined by acts, and you can have no exceptions to that floor upon which all law rests, and still expect the law to protect you, or anyone else.

In essence you are defending a scenario in which many of those incarcerated will be guilty of nothing at all. And you don't seem to have a problem with this. Or are you going to tell me that, "If a hundred inncent people have to go to jail to catch one pervert (who hasn't even hurt anyone) then it's the price we have to pay for protecting children."

Or are you seriously going to suggest that all members of the Police, ALL members of the public are sane, rational people who never, ever would falsly believe anything? That if one of these people accuse someone of Peering, then of course it's true.

Dave

mamallama said:

--mamallama

Click to expand...

brent collins said:

And there are those who wish to hide behind the laws to defend their scum bag behavior

Click to expand...

What's your point Brent? Pedophilia is illegal. A pedophile commiting an abusive act is going to jail. Doesn't matter what "rights" they claim, or what laws they site, they grope or molest a kid they've commited a criminal act. They can whine like an air raid siren, they're toast.

Are you saying that if I look at a little kid, I'm a pervert, and I'm "hiding behind the law?"

Dave

Dave, you are smarter than that. The creepy photographers are out there and you know it. So they don't "break the law". They are out there in droves spying and shooting. Then when a law might be passed they will say it's their right to shoot a voyeuristic shot. Don't act like you have no idea what I'm talking about. I want my rights as much as the next guy, but it's not always the law that is the problem. If there were no criminals we would not need laws. Where is the problem? Sure as heck isn't the laws.

brent collins said:

Dave, you are smarter than that. The creepy photographers are out there and you know it. So they don't "break the law". They are out there in droves spying and shooting. Then when a law might be passed they will say it's their right to shoot a voyeuristic shot. Don't act like you have no idea what I'm talking about. I want my rights as much as the next guy, but it's not always the law that is the problem. If there were no criminals we would not need laws. Where is the problem? Sure as heck isn't the laws.

Click to expand...

I don't like flies in my apartment. So I take out my shotgun, and one by one I track them down and kill them ALL. And it was just too bad that some of my dumber neighbors didn't have the brains to get the hell out of the way....

“The bill also imposes a duty on a newspaper to verify the age of every person who is photographed or recorded, whether that person is the focus of the image or a person in the background,” she said.

So, no more shots of any scene at all if it has kids in it.

Like my neighbors, it's the price we have to pay to get rid of some flies...

And then of course, there's the logical extension. After all, what does a camera have to do with this?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=38372290

Dave

Chato said:

mamallama said:

Chato wrote:
You totally ignored this part of my response:

"It's a pattern of behavior rather than a single incident that is key. If you did that and followed the kid to the playground and kept taking pictures of him wherever he went, you're a pervert."

Click to expand...

I thought I did answer it. Watching a kid pee for 30 seconds is neither criminal, nor perverted. Could be. And this law makes such an act a crime according to the opinion of one person, who may or may not be objective. Are you saying that if that person looks for five seconds, he's normal, ten is borderline, twenty is a primae facie case?

Chato said:

It's the same as you cannot nail someone for stalking on a single incident. It's a pattern of behavior. Take a picture of a kid and move on - no problem. But follow that kid all over the playground taking his picture after watching him pee - that could signal a problem.

Click to expand...

Overall we are not talking about stalking. You are defending the idea that a Cop who doesn't like your ideas, or your opinions, can have you arrested because his bias about you makes him see everything you do in terms of his bias.

Moreover this suggested law encompasses far more than bathrooms. Play grounds, beaches, in fact any place at all...

You are defending a new concept in law. A crime is what one person decides is a crime, with or without any reference to reality. You are defending a law which makes no reasonable distinction between "looking" and "peering."

You are defending a scenario in which you are guilty and have to prove your innoscense. And how will someone prove their innocense? "Your honor I was merely looking at those kids on the playground, I wasn't peering at those kids on the playground.

There are perverts in the world and you are defining a pervert according to one persons judgement of what is a perverted act. A child molester groups their victim. Do we need someone to make a judgement call on this question? Guy grabbed my kid. That is an act, and it's an objective fact. Or he didn't grab my kid, and nothing happened.

You are opening a pandoras box in which we are not protected by law, because law stands above the bias or opinions of individuals. Crimes are defined by acts, and you can have no exceptions to that floor upon which all law rests, and still expect the law to protect you, or anyone else.

In essence you are defending a scenario in which many of those incarcerated will be guilty of nothing at all. And you don't seem to have a problem with this. Or are you going to tell me that, "If a hundred inncent people have to go to jail to catch one pervert (who hasn't even hurt anyone) then it's the price we have to pay for protecting children."

Or are you seriously going to suggest that all members of the Police, ALL members of the public are sane, rational people who never, ever would falsly believe anything? That if one of these people accuse someone of Peering, then of course it's true.

Click to expand...

Don't get carried away in fantasy land. Like in stalking cases, the first step is a court order is for the suspected pedophile to stay away from the kid. For that they need to cite a law that is being violated. It gives the parent or guardian a tool to ask for such order. The arrest comes if the court order is not obeyed.

--mamallama

Mark Alan Thomas said:

Considering that children might be subjected to all manner of looking and peering in public places, the obvious solution is to pass a law forcing parents to keep their brats at home.

Click to expand...

Finally some sense on this issue, thank you.

Brian

Edymagno said:

Your post and Cy Cheze's moved me. They are so true and depicts exactly what is happening to our societies where absolutely no one is to be trust. If I was a religious man I would say that the devil is winning. We are all bound to be enslaved in a world ruled by a few corporations. How sad, really.
Eduardo

Click to expand...

I agree 100% with your assessment, and the corporate enslavement with the whip of financial profit is the scariest. My only hope is that I won't be around then.

Brian

lanef said:

Chato said:

Why? Is there something wrong with looking at kids?

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong, but many parents are so paranoid today that you may get an angry look or even some abuse.

lanef said:

I can sympathise with parents who don't want adults to hang out in a playground, which is why I never try to go in.

Click to expand...

Parents should worry more about what their kids are doing in their bedroom on the internet and Social network sites with webcams or even with their smart phones than anything else.

Is it not uncommon these days for teenagers posting nude photos of their ex on the net in a sort of payback retribution, or even sharing their own sexual activities on smart phones. So I sincerely think parents should pay more attention to what their darlings are doing with new technology than worring silly about some passers-by in public.

Click to expand...

That type of disgusting posting is considered normal and even condoned, something you are expected to laugh about when it comes onto a current affairs show. The whole world is turning upside down.

Brian

Chato said:

I like threads like this where we discuss the total abandonment of logic in favor of paranoid delusions.

Street type crimes are not difficult to define. You rob a bank? That's easy.

Grope a child? That's easy as well. In fact, bascially their all pretty easy. We don't expect a Cop to make a judgement call on whether a bank has been robbed. The Cop doesn't have to sit down and think this through. "Was the bank robbed?" Darn he only took a five dollar bill, should I consider that a robbery?"

Naaah, the Cop doesn't need to define the crime on the basis of five cents or five hundred thousand dollars. The Bank was robbed. Now we're "debating" (Bwahahahahah!) the difference between "peering" and "looking."

Does this mean if I sneak a peak into a ladies bathroom, I'm only looking, but if II look at a pretty girl on the beach in a bikinni for ten minutes, I'm a criminal?

You need to be a rocket scientist to know the difference?

Click to expand...

We will have to arrest everyone then, including the cops because they may have peered at you peering!

Brian

...even if it passes in the legislature, which i doubt when a handful of more thoughtful people start asking pointed questions (grandparents? aunts and uncles? cousins? school or event photographers? friends....the list goes on and on...)
--
tex_andrews

brianj said:

lanef said:

Chato said:

Why? Is there something wrong with looking at kids?

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong, but many parents are so paranoid today that you may get an angry look or even some abuse.

brianj said:

I can sympathise with parents who don't want adults to hang out in a playground, which is why I never try to go in.

Click to expand...

Parents should worry more about what their kids are doing in their bedroom on the internet and Social network sites with webcams or even with their smart phones than anything else.

Is it not uncommon these days for teenagers posting nude photos of their ex on the net in a sort of payback retribution, or even sharing their own sexual activities on smart phones. So I sincerely think parents should pay more attention to what their darlings are doing with new technology than worring silly about some passers-by in public.

Click to expand...

That type of disgusting posting is considered normal and even condoned, something you are expected to laugh about when it comes onto a current affairs show. The whole world is turning upside down.

Brian

Click to expand...

and the topic gets diluted with junk

tex said:

...even if it passes in the legislature, which i doubt when a handful of more thoughtful people start asking pointed questions (grandparents? aunts and uncles? cousins? school or event photographers? friends....the list goes on and on...)
--
tex_andrews

Click to expand...

Of course it won't pass, but even judges can't unhear what they've heard : )

brianj said:

So this law won't affect me.

Click to expand...

You are not a pedophile, Brian. But WE got an anonymous complaint and WE have to see your HD's. Cooperate.

brianj said:

That type of disgusting posting is considered normal and even condoned, something you are expected to laugh about when it comes onto a current affairs show. The whole world is turning upside down.

Brian

Click to expand...

I don't think it's disgusting, I think its stupid. But what I do find Both disgusting AND stupid is charging these kids with distributing kiddie porn...

Dave

brianj said:

lanef said:

Chato said:

Why? Is there something wrong with looking at kids?

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong, but many parents are so paranoid today that you may get an angry look or even some abuse.

brianj said:

I can sympathise with parents who don't want adults to hang out in a playground, which is why I never try to go in.

Click to expand...

Parents should worry more about what their kids are doing in their bedroom on the internet and Social network sites with webcams or even with their smart phones than anything else.

Is it not uncommon these days for teenagers posting nude photos of their ex on the net in a sort of payback retribution, or even sharing their own sexual activities on smart phones. So I sincerely think parents should pay more attention to what their darlings are doing with new technology than worring silly about some passers-by in public.

Click to expand...

That type of disgusting posting is considered normal and even condoned, something you are expected to laugh about when it comes onto a current affairs show. The whole world is turning upside down.

Click to expand...

Ostrich policy is your option.

Laurentiu Todie said:

brianj said:

lanef said:

Chato said:

Why? Is there something wrong with looking at kids?

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong, but many parents are so paranoid today that you may get an angry look or even some abuse.

Laurentiu Todie said:

I can sympathise with parents who don't want adults to hang out in a playground, which is why I never try to go in.

Click to expand...

Parents should worry more about what their kids are doing in their bedroom on the internet and Social network sites with webcams or even with their smart phones than anything else.

Is it not uncommon these days for teenagers posting nude photos of their ex on the net in a sort of payback retribution, or even sharing their own sexual activities on smart phones. So I sincerely think parents should pay more attention to what their darlings are doing with new technology than worring silly about some passers-by in public.

Click to expand...

That type of disgusting posting is considered normal and even condoned, something you are expected to laugh about when it comes onto a current affairs show. The whole world is turning upside down.

Brian

Click to expand...

and the topic gets diluted with junk

Click to expand...

The junk machine talking.

Brent, there's a problem when people illegally harass photographers that are taking legal photos. Reality check: There's bad people everywhere, whether they are carrying a camera or not.

So my 89 year old mother who likes to walk to the park 2 blocks from her home to sit and watch the kids play would be arrested. She has told me she sits and remembers when she would watch my brother and I play at that park. My dad is dead, but mom still lives in the house they had built in 1950.
So all old people better stay at home, no more walking to the parks.

--
mandmp; Pro for 39 years and still making money.
100% of my income since 1972 has been due to a camera.