Photographing Children Could be a Criminal Act in NJ

mandm · May 7, 2011

The Minneapolis City Council after getting complaints from women that male city employees looked at them for too long while they were walking outside posted a new work rule against leering. My guess is it was the women who noticed the guys looking at other women that complained. Penalties ranged from a warning to suspended without pay. They passed this work rule 10+ years ago and the union required that after a complaint was made the city must have someone follow that employee around and tape that employee leering before any action could be brought against the employee. Our tax dollars at work. I have always lived in a suburb of Minneapolis, OK place to visit, but I would never want to live there.

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

CFynn · May 7, 2011

brianj said:
Habemus_Canon said:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/nj_assembly_panel_considers_bi.html

Click to expand...

brianj said:
brianj said:

N.J. Assembly panel considers bill outlawing photographing children without parental consent

Click to expand...

brianj said:
brianj said:

A state Assembly panel this morning considered a bill that would make it a third degree crime to photograph or videotape a child without his or her parent’s consent.

Click to expand...

brianj said:
I'm not game to photograph anywhere where there is children in case I am called a pedophile. So this law won't affect me.

You never take pictures of crowds - or where there are young people in the background?

from the article:

'Lauren James Weir, an attorney for the New Jersey Press Association, said that would have a “chilling effect” on free speech.

“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. '

C

mandm · May 7, 2011

Watch any pro sport on TV and there are always fans in the background, some even have kids with them. During breaks in the action, they like to show closeups of the fans, but, ops, sorry, never mind, not a problem as there are no pro sport teams in NJ.

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

mandm · May 7, 2011

I use to volunteer my services at my cities carnival type event every year, parade, games, bands, business expo, and more, 10,000 plus attend the event. 6 years ago someone on the planning board had the idea that after every photo I shoot, I must hand out my card to everyone, regardless of age to all who are in the picture. The card was to list my name, phone # and explain that I was taking the pictures for our city and they may be posted on the cities website and in any city publication. If they don't want their image used they were to call me so I could delete their image. This included the people in the parade, bands, and anyone watching.

I said OK, no problem, I quit, because what you are asking is impossible. Each phone call could take hours to find the image they are in, it would shut my business down. They ran an ad looking for a new photographer, they got a few calls, but everyone wanted to be paid and after being informed of the info card they need to hand out, all said no.

They dropped the info card requirement and I was back for 2 years, but a guy on a cell in a construction zone hit me doing 60-70 MHP, I was stopped like everyone else. After many surgeries, I can't hold a camera anymore.

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

CFynn · May 7, 2011

mamallama said:
Agree. But just try to get someone arrested on that for peering over the pee barrier at a kid. The topic is the need for a law against peering at kids, not the meaning of "invasion of privacy".

Quite often there are no real barriers in men's toilets. If you want to prevent others looking at your son when he's taking a pee you'd better take him into the ladies room. The trouble is if you do that sort of thing your kid will probably feel uncomfortable taking a pee in a mens room for the rest of his life.

When I was a kid my parents had no qualms about sending me to swimming lessons at a YMCA in Canada where bathing costumes were prohibited in the pool and in the open showers. There were all kinds of adult men about with who knows what was on their minds - I sure there were just as many with pedophile tenancies around then as there are today - but I came to no harm from simply being peered at or leered at.

Unless you're happy living in a police state how can you go getting people arrested because you think they may be having dirty thoughts while looking at you or your children? Don't you need to have some kind of evidence or reasonable grounds to suspect that they actually intend to do something criminal?

You can't arrest people simply because they look old, creepy or have narrow eyes and, when they look at you, you feel uncomfortable. Paradoxically the chances are it is only your own imagination, projection or thoughts that that person has some kind of lewd imaginings or nefarious thoughts going through their own minds.

In most places taking pictures of kids - or anyone else - in public toilets is already a crime, but now are you going allow surveillance cameras to be put in toilets to catch leerers? Or maybe you put plain clothes police into toilets to observe people to make sure they are not observing others?

mamallama · May 7, 2011

CFynn said:
mamallama said:

Agree. But just try to get someone arrested on that for peering over the pee barrier at a kid. The topic is the need for a law against peering at kids, not the meaning of "invasion of privacy".

Click to expand...

Quite often there are no real barriers in men's toilets. If you want to prevent others looking at your son when he's taking a pee you'd better take him into the ladies room. The trouble is if you do that sort of thing your kid will probably feel uncomfortable taking a pee in a mens room for the rest of his life.

When I was a kid my parents had no qualms about sending me to swimming lessons at a YMCA in Canada where bathing costumes were prohibited in the pool and in the open showers. There were all kinds of adult men about with who knows what was on their minds - I sure there were just as many with pedophile tenancies around then as there are today - but I came to no harm from simply being peered at or leered at.

Unless you're happy living in a police state how can you go getting people arrested because you think they may be having dirty thoughts while looking at you or your children? Don't you need to have some kind of evidence or reasonable grounds to suspect that they actually intend to do something criminal?

You can't arrest people simply because they look old, creepy or have narrow eyes and, when they look at you, you feel uncomfortable. Paradoxically the chances are it is only your own imagination, projection or thoughts that that person has some kind of lewd imaginings or nefarious thoughts going through their own minds.

In most places taking pictures of kids - or anyone else - in public toilets is already a crime, but now are you going allow surveillance cameras to be put in toilets to catch leerers? Or maybe you put plain clothes police into toilets to observe people to make sure they are not observing others?

You are getting carried away with imagination that has nothing to do with the law being discussed. I does not affect normal activities of normal people.

--mamallama

CFynn · May 7, 2011

denniswms said:
People snaking shots of anyone- let alone kids- for prurient purposes, should be taken out and shot,

How do you prove the "for prurient purposes" bit?

but I seem to be in the minority when it comes to not finding anything compelling about taking pictures -any pictures- of any strangers, it's just never been my thing.

I usually don't find anything compelling about taking pictures of dogs or cats either ~ but some people do. Is there anything wrong with somebody being more interested in taking pictures of people than in taking pictures of animals or anything else?

CFynn · May 7, 2011

mamallama said:
You are getting carried away with imagination that has nothing to do with the law being discussed. I does not affect normal activities of normal people.

And just who defines what is "normal"?

CFynn · May 7, 2011

GMack wrote:
...

GMack said:
No photos of planes, trains, kids, farms, airports, Disneyland, public and private buildings, museums. Animals next? Good grief. Police State is becoming a Police World.

Of course they'll have to put surveillance cameras everywhere to make sure we are never taking improper pictures with our own cameras

DUSTY LENS · May 7, 2011

mamallama said:
CFynn said:

mamallama said:

Agree. But just try to get someone arrested on that for peering over the pee barrier at a kid. The topic is the need for a law against peering at kids, not the meaning of "invasion of privacy".

Click to expand...

Quite often there are no real barriers in men's toilets. If you want to prevent others looking at your son when he's taking a pee you'd better take him into the ladies room. The trouble is if you do that sort of thing your kid will probably feel uncomfortable taking a pee in a mens room for the rest of his life.

When I was a kid my parents had no qualms about sending me to swimming lessons at a YMCA in Canada where bathing costumes were prohibited in the pool and in the open showers. There were all kinds of adult men about with who knows what was on their minds - I sure there were just as many with pedophile tenancies around then as there are today - but I came to no harm from simply being peered at or leered at.

Unless you're happy living in a police state how can you go getting people arrested because you think they may be having dirty thoughts while looking at you or your children? Don't you need to have some kind of evidence or reasonable grounds to suspect that they actually intend to do something criminal?

You can't arrest people simply because they look old, creepy or have narrow eyes and, when they look at you, you feel uncomfortable. Paradoxically the chances are it is only your own imagination, projection or thoughts that that person has some kind of lewd imaginings or nefarious thoughts going through their own minds.

In most places taking pictures of kids - or anyone else - in public toilets is already a crime, but now are you going allow surveillance cameras to be put in toilets to catch leerers? Or maybe you put plain clothes police into toilets to observe people to make sure they are not observing others?

Click to expand...

You are getting carried away with imagination that has nothing to do with the law being discussed. I does not affect normal activities of normal people.

--mamallama

Hello mamallama ,

I think this law will effect everyone as it allows the arrest of any person who is accused of looking at some one while he has some evil or dirty thought running through his head . This means it will effect every person with some degree of vision and who has some ability to think or to just have some degree of thought process .

The only thing keeping any of us out of the jails and then the prisons under this law is the absence of an accuser , which most would agree is not the kind of a situation any sane person would welcome .

This is another state taxpayer funded bounty placed on the heads of every normal citizen . This is the State standing there and offering state powers for the destruction of innocent and harmless people . Right or wrong some will grab that power and use it .

I suppose it could come down to a situation where every person who discovers he has been compromised by being at the urinal when another under 18 person came to use the urinal next to him , so the only safe thing to do would be to escape out the door even if he is still not finished and not even zipped .

You seem to believe , what this society needs is another hatred and another process for destroying the truly innocent if only because they were there . .

mamallama · May 7, 2011

CFynn said:
mamallama said:

You are getting carried away with imagination that has nothing to do with the law being discussed. I does not affect normal activities of normal people.

Click to expand...

And just who defines what is "normal"?

I will here for my statement. For this case, normal defines people who are not attracted sexually to little kids, also known as pedophiles.

--mamallama

mamallama · May 8, 2011

DUSTY LENS said:
mamallama said:

CFynn said:

mamallama said:

Agree. But just try to get someone arrested on that for peering over the pee barrier at a kid. The topic is the need for a law against peering at kids, not the meaning of "invasion of privacy".

Click to expand...

Quite often there are no real barriers in men's toilets. If you want to prevent others looking at your son when he's taking a pee you'd better take him into the ladies room. The trouble is if you do that sort of thing your kid will probably feel uncomfortable taking a pee in a mens room for the rest of his life.

When I was a kid my parents had no qualms about sending me to swimming lessons at a YMCA in Canada where bathing costumes were prohibited in the pool and in the open showers. There were all kinds of adult men about with who knows what was on their minds - I sure there were just as many with pedophile tenancies around then as there are today - but I came to no harm from simply being peered at or leered at.

Unless you're happy living in a police state how can you go getting people arrested because you think they may be having dirty thoughts while looking at you or your children? Don't you need to have some kind of evidence or reasonable grounds to suspect that they actually intend to do something criminal?

You can't arrest people simply because they look old, creepy or have narrow eyes and, when they look at you, you feel uncomfortable. Paradoxically the chances are it is only your own imagination, projection or thoughts that that person has some kind of lewd imaginings or nefarious thoughts going through their own minds.

In most places taking pictures of kids - or anyone else - in public toilets is already a crime, but now are you going allow surveillance cameras to be put in toilets to catch leerers? Or maybe you put plain clothes police into toilets to observe people to make sure they are not observing others?

Click to expand...

You are getting carried away with imagination that has nothing to do with the law being discussed. I does not affect normal activities of normal people.

--mamallama

Click to expand...

Hello mamallama ,

I think this law will effect everyone as it allows the arrest of any person who is accused of looking at some one while he has some evil or dirty thought running through his head . This means it will effect every person with some degree of vision and who has some ability to think or to just have some degree of thought process .

No such thing. You are making stuff up. There are anti-stalking laws, but no one can have someone arrested just because they claim stalking. Get real, it's a law like the anti-stalking law, to allow asking a court for an order to stop someone if they can make the case before a judge.

--mamallama

mamallama · May 8, 2011

Diopter said:
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.

So what? If you follow an anonymous complaint, that's your problem.

--mamallama

Laurentiu Todie · May 8, 2011

CFynn said:
mamallama said:

You are getting carried away with imagination that has nothing to do with the law being discussed. I does not affect normal activities of normal people.

Click to expand...

And just who defines what is "normal"?

I'll give it a try if you don't mind : )
Normal is the result of what's left after defining the abnormal.
Dictionary makers have to define what a perv's definition is,
what a paparazzi,
what a stalker,
what a public masturbator…

In some cases the definition is obvious, in many it isn't clear at all, but we have to try if we want to improve perception in the first place and definitions in the second one.

DUSTY LENS · May 8, 2011

brianj said:
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

I was thinking this is the real solution , Then , it hit me ... What if the kids have those phones with the cameras built in ?

What is to stop them from becoming just another creepy photographer , or even a kiddy porn photographer ?

You see when evil wants to take over and ruin your world , there is just no refuge . No place to hide .

Life Sucks , and then you die .

Dusty

mamallama · May 8, 2011

Chato said:
mamallama said:

Chato said:

brent collins said:

Easy, I've been a member here long enough to read far too many comments that are unprofessional and downright sleazy. Stereotypes exist for a reason and carry bits of truth. Most are afraid to admit that fact.

Click to expand...

There are those who seek to pass laws eliminating the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. And all of them use one variety of your argument, and all of them answer those who object in the same manner.

But the Constitution still is the law of the land.

The Founders, in their wisdom, allow all of us to advocate changing the Constitution itself. I am not the one complaining here - You are the one complaining. You don't like the Law of the land? Good. Fine. Change it!

Until then, I'll take pictures in accordance with the laws of the United States, and if someone doesn't like it, too damn bad.

Click to expand...

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say you can tak a picture of anything and everything you want. I don't even think the Constitution mentions anything about taking pictures.

I guess when all else fails, just mention the Constitution like Michele Bachmann does.

Click to expand...

The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. In the 1930's the Court ruled that Photography is Speech, and is covered by the First Amendment.

So you think just because you used a camera, it's speech? Wasn't it you who mentioned up-skirt photography is illegal? So child pornography is constitutionally protected free speech, too.

I'd like more details on that court ruling. Please cite a reference. Otherwise, I consider you are only blowing smoke, hiding behind the Constitution, like Michele Bachmann and

DUSTY LENS · May 8, 2011

mamallama said:
Chato said:

brent collins said:

Easy, I've been a member here long enough to read far too many comments that are unprofessional and downright sleazy. Stereotypes exist for a reason and carry bits of truth. Most are afraid to admit that fact.

Click to expand...

There are those who seek to pass laws eliminating the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. And all of them use one variety of your argument, and all of them answer those who object in the same manner.

But the Constitution still is the law of the land.

The Founders, in their wisdom, allow all of us to advocate changing the Constitution itself. I am not the one complaining here - You are the one complaining. You don't like the Law of the land? Good. Fine. Change it!

Until then, I'll take pictures in accordance with the laws of the United States, and if someone doesn't like it, too damn bad.

Click to expand...

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say you can tak a picture of anything and everything you want. I don't even think the Constitution mentions anything about taking pictures.

I guess when all else fails, just mention the Constitution like Michele Bachmann does.

--mamallama

Hello mamallama

You really have nothing to fear from the Constitution . The Constitution does not say you must be photographed , or you must be photographed in a bikini , or you must be photographed nude in the shower .

If you don't want to be photographed then don't . It is still OK to refuse it .

You should be forewarned though , when one of your pet laws goes into effect you will be photographed by the police when they arrest you .

Be careful what you wish for , you may get your wish .

Dusty

CFynn · May 8, 2011

mamallama said:
CFynn said:

mamallama said:

You are getting carried away with imagination that has nothing to do with the law being discussed. I does not affect normal activities of normal people.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

mamallama said:
mamallama said:

And just who defines what is "normal"?

Click to expand...

mamallama said:
I will here for my statement. For this case, normal defines people who are not attracted sexually to little kids, also known as pedophiles.

OK - but, unless you can read their mind, how do you know whether someone is sexually attracted to kids unless they have been convicted of pedophilia, treated for the same, or they get caught in the act?

And is a sexual desire of any kind in an of itself illegal? Has a person who has such a thought but controls it broken any law?

A law which prevents convicted or certified pedophiles from taking pictures of children seems reasonable - but this one goes much further than that.

mamallama · May 8, 2011

DUSTY LENS said:
mamallama said:

Chato said:

brent collins said:

Easy, I've been a member here long enough to read far too many comments that are unprofessional and downright sleazy. Stereotypes exist for a reason and carry bits of truth. Most are afraid to admit that fact.

Click to expand...

There are those who seek to pass laws eliminating the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. And all of them use one variety of your argument, and all of them answer those who object in the same manner.

But the Constitution still is the law of the land.

The Founders, in their wisdom, allow all of us to advocate changing the Constitution itself. I am not the one complaining here - You are the one complaining. You don't like the Law of the land? Good. Fine. Change it!

Until then, I'll take pictures in accordance with the laws of the United States, and if someone doesn't like it, too damn bad.

Click to expand...

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say you can tak a picture of anything and everything you want. I don't even think the Constitution mentions anything about taking pictures.

I guess when all else fails, just mention the Constitution like Michele Bachmann does.

--mamallama

Click to expand...

Hello mamallama

You really have nothing to fear from the Constitution . The Constitution does not say you must be photographed , or you must be photographed in a bikini , or you must be photographed nude in the shower .

If you don't want to be photographed then don't . It is still OK to refuse it .

You should be forewarned though , when one of your pet laws goes into effect you will be photographed by the police when they arrest you .

Be careful what you wish for , you may get your wish .

WTF are you talking about?

--mamallama

Adrian Harris · May 8, 2011

I have follwed this debate with great interest and the comments help me learn about people and their thoughts - all good stuff (well most of it).

Here in the UK we are all now terrified of taking photos if kids are anywhere near.

Only last week I was photographing steam trains, when onto the station came 2 young girsl dressed as Easter bunnies with a wheelbarrow full of straw and easter eggs to be given as free gifts to passengers. I asked them if I could take their photo and they posed and smiled.

Now I was going to email a copy of the photo to the railway for their News section, but a late teenage lad (or maybe early 20's) walked past and muttered disdainfully under his breath 'shouldn't be doing that, taking photos of kids'.

Quite frankly I could have cried, what sort of society are we turning into. So now the photo is deleted.

In the near future, there will be no historic photos of our kids on the street, I find that so sad.

I think these attitudes say more about us than the problem...

In Austria (and no doubt many other european countries) the cahnging rooms for the public baths are not only mixed, but wide open. Even the public saunas are mixed and you are expected to be naked in there!

Because I am English and embarassed easily I haven't gone into the saunas, but my wife does when we are on holiday.

These are all healthy normal family places and guess what, they do not a have a massive problem like we are told we have in the UK and the USA.

Are our laws being drawn up just to keep us all in fear?
It really does make me wonder.

Yours Horrified

Adrian

--
Adrian

http://www.t1000.co.uk/photography/gallery1/
http://www.t1000.co.uk/photography.htm

Photographing Children Could be a Criminal Act in NJ

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts