CFynn
Veteran Member
These attitudes are also why men now don't become primary school teachers and don't want to be scout masters etc. - then we complain because kids don't have proper male role models.
exactly.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Photographing Children Could be a Criminal Act in NJ
- Thread starter Habemus_Canon
- Start date
Malcolm Turner
Senior Member
Adrian, I agree with your pessimistic views of the UK. However, I think you should have ignored the stupid comments of the lad and used the photos as you planned. After all, contrary to the beliefs of some parents and PCSOs, it is totally legal to take pictures of children in a public place and no permissions are needed. But then of course our politically correct authorities follow with "We've received a complaint and have to investigate it" (Pity they don't investigate burglaries so throughly). After all, we now have the situation where an event may be classed as "racially aggravated" if any person (not just the victim) believes it to be so.
I look at the pictures of kids playing in the street from years gone by, and wonder how future generations will ever get a picture of what life is like in 2011.
I look at the pictures of kids playing in the street from years gone by, and wonder how future generations will ever get a picture of what life is like in 2011.
CFynn
Veteran Member
Concerned parents (outside of France or Belgium) could always dress their kids like this:
Kids today generally seem more concerned about parents or relatives taking "embarrassing" photographs and showing them to others than they are about being photographed by strangers.
tex
Veteran Member
--
tex_andrews
tex_andrews
timo
Veteran Member
Where are these 'droves' of people? I don't think I've seen any today, or this year, even. I'm not saying there aren't any, but you really do seem to be getting very excited about all this, and your imagination is getting a bit over-heated. You may feel there are people 'in droves' spying and shooting all around you, but I think you are probably mistaken, and might even need some kind of counseling. Do you spend a lot of time peering around, looking for possible perverts? It must lead to all kinds of frustrations.
--
tim
I am referring to increasing cases of searches without warrant based on "cooperation" of the victim of such action.
Based on Brian's enthusiastic attitude, he should say: " O.K. take my computer for deep search and interrogate me as mach as you pleased."
Of course needless to say that on the larger scale we are hitting famous "Rosita Swinton Call".
(-)
Those who recognise that moleting children is wrong, and never act out on their desires, are not people I worry about. I don't give a damn as long as that person doesn't harm a child.
This law makes no distinction between being attracted to children because they're so cute, and those who are pedophiles. In fact, it implies that being attracted to children is in and of itself a crime. It makes a crime out of liking children.
I can't think of a greater condemnation of a soceity which penalises liking children. In fact, it rivals pedophila as a disease.
Dave
mamallama
Forum Pro
I gave you a definition of "not normal" in my statement as a pedophile and it has nothing to do whether they have been caught or convicted.
You just asked for who defines what is normal, and I did for purposes of my statement.
--mamallama
The question of child pornography has been debated before the Supreme Court, and the Court ruled that children cannot make informed consent, for this and many other purposes. In the question of shooting "upskirt" video's the Courts have also ruled on this question. Their ruling is based on the "expectation of privacy." Women have the expectation that their undergarments are not publicly avaiblable for viewing.
I don't need to site a reference. There is a cumulative body of rulings on this and every other aspect of photography. It's the reason that you or I can read erotic writings or watch erotic films.
Now I'm going to point out that is is YOU or are a supporter of Ms. Bachman. It is HER position, and apparenbtly YOUR position, that if it's not in the Constitution, then it's not protected. It is YOU and not I who is claiming that neither of us have a right to private telephone conversations. It is YOU who are claiming that the authorities have a right to video us anytime they please. It is YOU who are now ludicrously in bed with every Fascist who makes the claim that it it's not in the Constitution then it's fair game.
I have argued with you on many subjects, but never before have you stooped this low, and I personally am actually ashamed of having in the past had respect for your views. In this thread you have demonstrated that there is nothing no matter how ludicrous, that you wont say to score stupid points.
Dave
mamallama
Forum Pro
My father died quite a while ago. He was a semi-pro photographer and left behind literally thousands of negatives and photographs. There are hundreds of shots of naked kids. Who knew my father shot kiddie porn? Certainly not the parents of these kids, who are obviously culpable of aiding and abetting his kidie porn fetish. Certainly not even the authorities since there are a dozen shots in which a Cop is clearly visible.
It becomes clear to me that that society muct have been a rampant pedophile society based on these photographs of the Twenties and Thirties of the last century.
And if my aprtment is raided, do you think I'll be arrested as a kiddie porn distributor? Do you think I should, err, "burn the evidence?"
We really are pretty sick in todays world, where we rob children of their childhood, in the name of protecting them.
Dave
Not too long ago, parents in California were accused of taking inappropriate pictures of their children, and some state agency took their children away. Can you imagine that? Think of the nightmare of when some government agency confiscates your children for this, without a trial or explanation. The government allows you to kill your unborn children (abortion), but watch out if someone takes photos of them and they don't think it's appropriate. They could take them away.
The parents didn't think they did anything wrong, and it turns out at least one photo was taken of the sister by the brother. After a while, I think the case was resolved. I don't think the parents were accused of any wrongdoing, but I'm not sure. Since I don't remember the exact details, it's best if someone searches the internet for them.
The parents didn't think they did anything wrong, and it turns out at least one photo was taken of the sister by the brother. After a while, I think the case was resolved. I don't think the parents were accused of any wrongdoing, but I'm not sure. Since I don't remember the exact details, it's best if someone searches the internet for them.
Laurentiu Todie
Senior Member
“ One must allow other people to be right, it consoles them for not being anything else."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.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.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.
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
André Gide
Malcolm Turner
Senior Member
Dave,
I hope you're joking about burning the evidence. I'm not that old, but when my kids were young - early 80s - it would have been quite normal for kids to be undressed. It was just seen as "cute" and certainly not sexual - and anyone suggesting it was "disgusting" would have been laughed at. I have photos of my kids in the bath - everyone did. And on holiday, I remember them visiting a paddling pool where kids either stripped or went in in their underwear. I presume that there were pedophiles around then - probably no more and no less than today - but there wasn't any paranoia and people with cameras weren't "a threat". In fact, kids wanted their picture taken even though there was no chance of them ever seeing the results - a lot of the time, you took their picture just to keep them happy.
In a lot of ways, a much happier time.
I am joking. But I can easily see a scenario where I am arrested, and the news reports state,
"Hundreds of kiddie porn shots were seized by the authorities."
"The alledged perpetrator claimed that 'they were old shots taken by his father,' but the district attourney points out that Mr. Barkin kept them in bound books, and actually showed them to neighbors."
Then we can have a thread on DP Review about whether the arrest is really justified, and some can point out that "If you have hundreds of pictures of naked children, what possible reason could there be for keeping them?"
Dave
tex
Veteran Member
i think right away you need to get a lawyer and/or a notary public----perhaps even someone from an historical museum or an art museum with a solid photography collection--- and get it firmly established that you inherited these images from your father. i'm serious. i think you need to do this to protect yourself and your family. that's the first reason.
the second reason is that there may be some historic merit to the images (i don't know---i haven't seen them. it may or may not be very obvious to you), and in the current climate it would be incredibly easy for these images to be confiscated and destroyed before cooler heads prevail.
if it actually is porn , no ifs ands or buts, then i do think you should destroy them. and if this is the case, i'm sorry you had to find this out about your dad. at least maybe take some solace that you didn't have to look him in the face over the images.
--
tex_andrews
the second reason is that there may be some historic merit to the images (i don't know---i haven't seen them. it may or may not be very obvious to you), and in the current climate it would be incredibly easy for these images to be confiscated and destroyed before cooler heads prevail.
if it actually is porn , no ifs ands or buts, then i do think you should destroy them. and if this is the case, i'm sorry you had to find this out about your dad. at least maybe take some solace that you didn't have to look him in the face over the images.
--
tex_andrews
Malcolm Turner
Senior Member
Yeah - that's probably why "possession" is criminal - and if you fax or email a picture to someone it counts as "making" an illegal image. Makes it sound as if you've taken it. Still, as always, it's much easier to criminalise the people you can catch than to try and catch the criminals. And they both count equally in the crime statistics. That's why catching motorists is so popular. Catching someone speeding etc. counts as a crime with 100% detection. Happy days! Look at all this crime in our county and look how good we are at clearing it up! Some yob mugged you? Sorry sir, we're very busy. Here's your crime number.
brent collins
Senior Member
Just because you're blind to the truth doesn't make it untrue. I really don't care what you think. Like so many others you simply turn a blind eye to the reality that photographers have a bad reputation because they deserve it. I'm not the least bit overheated and I'm not the one freaking out over a law that in no way would change one thing in my life.
Kids playing, who may or may not be wearing clothes. None of it is even vaguely pornographic. Of course those are my standards. To some the human body is pronographic and a naked child is defacto "kiddie porn."
None of these specific images are worth anything historically, although many of my fathers other images are historically interesting. He documented quite a bit. The roaring twenties, scenes of the Great depression, WW II, and quite a bit more.
There is one sense that these shots of naked children are historically valuble. They show the utter unconcern of every adult in these shots with naked children. No one seems to care...
Whereas today, you could have shots of horrified adults using their cell phones to report the parents to the authorities...
Dave
mamallama
Forum Pro
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum