Photographing children

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jer writes:


This is the type of criminal case my attorney begs for - she actually
dreams of a constitutional case.


She can always try photographing kids in a park ... although women are
never assumed to be pedophiles, no matter how odd their activity.

True, in spite of evidence to the contrary.


--
Ron Hunter

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jer writes:


This is the type of criminal case my attorney begs for - she actually
dreams of a constitutional case.


She can always try photographing kids in a park ... although women are
never assumed to be pedophiles, no matter how odd their activity.

True, in spite of evidence to the contrary.


--
Ron Hunter

Ron Hunter writes:

Quite true, and WAY off base, in my opinion. I suspect that many girls
are killed in order to cover up any sexual activity as the murder charge
will result in less severe punishment, especially if the girl is under
12. It seems that the younger a child is, the less severe the penalty
for killing him/her.

That might be true, although murder victims are routinely autopsied, and
any female killed by any male is assumed to be a victim of sexual
molestation as well, even if there is no evidence of it (and certainly
if there is!).

However, a bad guy who rapes a young girl does have an "economic
incentive" to simply kill her and dispose of the body afterwards, for
the reasons you state.

The legislation covering so-called sex offenses is too broad and lumps
together too great a range of different acts, from patting a child on
the bottom to the most heinous and violent sexually oriented acts. The
penalties always seem to be based on the latter, and they are more
severe for men than for women. Indeed, men may be charged with a crime
where women are not.

There's a saying that if a man walks past a window and sees a woman
undressing, the man is arrested as a peeping tom. If a woman walks past
a window and sees a man undressing, the man is arrested as an
exhibitionist.

By extension, if a man takes a picture of a woman pulling up the pants
of her young daughter in a public park, the man is arrested as a
pedophile, with his photos as evidence of his evil; if a woman takes a
picture of a man pulling up the pants of his young daughter in a public
park, the man is arrested as a pedophile, with her photos as evidence of
his evil.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:36:08 -0500, Jer wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 06:50:38 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Mike Kohary writes:


What right are you protecting with this line of argumentation?

The right to take photographs freely in public.


Who said anything about apologizing to anyone for anything?

If you ask permission, that's what you are doing (only you are
apologizing in _advance_, which is even worse).


Hogwash.
Asking permission is far from making an apology.
An apology is something you offer *after* you've done something.

... I could go around farting in public if I wanted to -
that's my right. But I don't do it out of consideration to others. Do you
think we should never give common consideration to others, in the interest
of "protecting our rights"? Do you think every little "right" is worth
defending, and posturing about?

You seem very determined that photographers should sacrifice their
rights for the convenience of others, but you don't seem to realize that
people who move about in public places have an equal obligation to
sacrifice rights, namely, the right to privacy.


A right is not a mandate. With rights go responsibilities, especially
with regards to others.
Using a "right" as a reason to needlessly offend or put off others is,
if not actually wrong, at least a social faux pas. Consideration is
the grease that keeps us from the results of friction in social
settings. Those who do not understand this are seen as, generally,
assholes. Assholes who ask favors are often turned down.

Ask? what makes you think I'm asking?

I was responding to Mxsmanic.

This has nothing to do with eroded rights, but everything to do with
social civility.

Social civility is for people that aren't paid a grand to get "The
Shot". When you start getting paid to do something legal, I'll sit and
listen to you being socially civil.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.


Photographers do not have the right to photograph you in your bedroom;
but you do not have the right to object to them photographing you if you
are in a public place. So you can stay in your bedroom if you don't
want to be photographed, and photographers can stay in public places if
they want to take pictures.


You most certainly do have the right to so object. What you don't have
a right to is to expect that that right will be held up in a legal
setting.

'skuse me? Dude, that dog don't hunt.

Sorry, but why?
You most certainly DO have the right to object. What makes you say
differently?
The objection, just because it's made, is not a guarantee it would be
upheld in a court. Why would you say differently?


Demanding your rights when it's stupid to do so is dumb. It doesn't
erode your rights to defer to a person's feeling of privacy, just so
you can get a shot that you can so easily get another time.

bzzzt! wrong answer. When I'm on a shoot, I got one chance in a
million, maybe a zillion - no way my lens is leaving.

Instead,
it turns you into the perceived likes of those who insist that
everyone must defer to them and their rights, no matter what.

I knew you'd figure it out sooner or later.

Assholes
is what such people are usually called.


A well paid asshole - and I still sleep good.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:36:08 -0500, Jer wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 06:50:38 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Mike Kohary writes:


What right are you protecting with this line of argumentation?

The right to take photographs freely in public.


Who said anything about apologizing to anyone for anything?

If you ask permission, that's what you are doing (only you are
apologizing in _advance_, which is even worse).


Hogwash.
Asking permission is far from making an apology.
An apology is something you offer *after* you've done something.

... I could go around farting in public if I wanted to -
that's my right. But I don't do it out of consideration to others. Do you
think we should never give common consideration to others, in the interest
of "protecting our rights"? Do you think every little "right" is worth
defending, and posturing about?

You seem very determined that photographers should sacrifice their
rights for the convenience of others, but you don't seem to realize that
people who move about in public places have an equal obligation to
sacrifice rights, namely, the right to privacy.


A right is not a mandate. With rights go responsibilities, especially
with regards to others.
Using a "right" as a reason to needlessly offend or put off others is,
if not actually wrong, at least a social faux pas. Consideration is
the grease that keeps us from the results of friction in social
settings. Those who do not understand this are seen as, generally,
assholes. Assholes who ask favors are often turned down.

Ask? what makes you think I'm asking?

I was responding to Mxsmanic.

This has nothing to do with eroded rights, but everything to do with
social civility.

Social civility is for people that aren't paid a grand to get "The
Shot". When you start getting paid to do something legal, I'll sit and
listen to you being socially civil.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.


Photographers do not have the right to photograph you in your bedroom;
but you do not have the right to object to them photographing you if you
are in a public place. So you can stay in your bedroom if you don't
want to be photographed, and photographers can stay in public places if
they want to take pictures.


You most certainly do have the right to so object. What you don't have
a right to is to expect that that right will be held up in a legal
setting.

'skuse me? Dude, that dog don't hunt.

Sorry, but why?
You most certainly DO have the right to object. What makes you say
differently?
The objection, just because it's made, is not a guarantee it would be
upheld in a court. Why would you say differently?


Demanding your rights when it's stupid to do so is dumb. It doesn't
erode your rights to defer to a person's feeling of privacy, just so
you can get a shot that you can so easily get another time.

bzzzt! wrong answer. When I'm on a shoot, I got one chance in a
million, maybe a zillion - no way my lens is leaving.

Instead,
it turns you into the perceived likes of those who insist that
everyone must defer to them and their rights, no matter what.

I knew you'd figure it out sooner or later.

Assholes
is what such people are usually called.


A well paid asshole - and I still sleep good.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:53:47 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Big Bill writes:

Using a "right" as a reason to needlessly offend or put off others is,
if not actually wrong, at least a social faux pas.

Social faux pas are not illegal,

Who said they were illegal?
and harassing a photographer out of
uncontrolled indulgence of one's own irrational paranoia is at least as
much as a social faux pas as taking pictures of someone in a public
place against that person's wishes.

Who said differently?
I'm talking about the photographer's rights and responsibilities.

Consideration is the grease that keeps us from the results of friction in social
settings.

Then perhaps more of it should be shown to photographers.

That's not my point at all.

Those who do not understand this are seen as, generally,
assholes.

I try not to see paranoid people that way. They are mostly likely that
way out of stupidity, not out of deliberate malevolence.

I'm clearly talking about those people who *insist* on their "rights",
when it's not necessary, and only being done to make a point thjat
doesn't need to be made.

You most certainly do have the right to so object. What you don't have
a right to is to expect that that right will be held up in a legal
setting.

If it's a right, it will be upheld in a legal setting.

The right to *object*, yes. The *objection* itself, no.

Demanding your rights when it's stupid to do so is dumb.

Demanding your rights when it's stupid to do so is sometimes the only
way to keep them. A "right" that you may exercise only when nobody else
objects is not a right at all.

Sometimes isn't what I'm talking about.
You're doing your best to make this about something it isn't.

It doesn't erode your rights to defer to a person's feeling of
privacy ...

Yes, it does, when that person is in a situation that provides no
privacy. If he wants privacy, he can avoid public places.

No, a right isn't a mandate. You don't *have* to excersize a right.
Doing so when you don't have to, especially when it would annoy
others, only markes one as an asshole.

... just so you can get a shot that you can so easily get
another time.

No, you can't easily get it another time. There will always be
_someone_ who objects.

Hogwash. You know that's just not true, or you're not the photographer
you think you are.

Instead, it turns you into the perceived likes of those who insist
that everyone must defer to them and their rights, no matter what.

Like people who insist on "privacy" even though they are standing on a
public street?

Not at all. I never said that.
Why turn this into something it isn't?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:53:47 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Big Bill writes:

Using a "right" as a reason to needlessly offend or put off others is,
if not actually wrong, at least a social faux pas.

Social faux pas are not illegal,

Who said they were illegal?
and harassing a photographer out of
uncontrolled indulgence of one's own irrational paranoia is at least as
much as a social faux pas as taking pictures of someone in a public
place against that person's wishes.

Who said differently?
I'm talking about the photographer's rights and responsibilities.

Consideration is the grease that keeps us from the results of friction in social
settings.

Then perhaps more of it should be shown to photographers.

That's not my point at all.

Those who do not understand this are seen as, generally,
assholes.

I try not to see paranoid people that way. They are mostly likely that
way out of stupidity, not out of deliberate malevolence.

I'm clearly talking about those people who *insist* on their "rights",
when it's not necessary, and only being done to make a point thjat
doesn't need to be made.

You most certainly do have the right to so object. What you don't have
a right to is to expect that that right will be held up in a legal
setting.

If it's a right, it will be upheld in a legal setting.

The right to *object*, yes. The *objection* itself, no.

Demanding your rights when it's stupid to do so is dumb.

Demanding your rights when it's stupid to do so is sometimes the only
way to keep them. A "right" that you may exercise only when nobody else
objects is not a right at all.

Sometimes isn't what I'm talking about.
You're doing your best to make this about something it isn't.

It doesn't erode your rights to defer to a person's feeling of
privacy ...

Yes, it does, when that person is in a situation that provides no
privacy. If he wants privacy, he can avoid public places.

No, a right isn't a mandate. You don't *have* to excersize a right.
Doing so when you don't have to, especially when it would annoy
others, only markes one as an asshole.

... just so you can get a shot that you can so easily get
another time.

No, you can't easily get it another time. There will always be
_someone_ who objects.

Hogwash. You know that's just not true, or you're not the photographer
you think you are.

Instead, it turns you into the perceived likes of those who insist
that everyone must defer to them and their rights, no matter what.

Like people who insist on "privacy" even though they are standing on a
public street?

Not at all. I never said that.
Why turn this into something it isn't?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:54:21 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Big Bill writes:

Read a little history.

I have. That's why I'm worried.

This same thought has been expressed for centuries.

I know. And nobody ever paid attention in the past, either.

Hardly no one. You did.
And what happened? Did the fears come true? They can't have, if the
same fears are still being expressed, can they?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:54:21 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Big Bill writes:

Read a little history.

I have. That's why I'm worried.

This same thought has been expressed for centuries.

I know. And nobody ever paid attention in the past, either.

Hardly no one. You did.
And what happened? Did the fears come true? They can't have, if the
same fears are still being expressed, can they?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Jer" wrote:

Well, what I need to do is to being mollified,
go ahead and start a fight, force it into the
courts, get a news hound interested so I can get my name in the lights,
thereby providing
but one more example of my constitutional
rights under attack by someone that desperately
needs to know about them All of them.



Well, since I wasn't able to find any great number of cases (at least not
described on the internet), it appears photographers being unfairly stopped
or arrested by police is relatively rare. It does happen, as the links show.
And, if one believes the anecdotal stories, it may be happening more often
today.

Interestingly, this appears to be a greater problem in the UK. While I
didn't actually count while I was searching, it seems there were ten cases
in the UK for every one I could find here in the USA.

Stewart




One of the big (and significant) differences between the U.K. and the
U.S. is the U.S. has a constitution which explicitly defines what a
citizen's "rights" are. To be completely correct, the word is
"inalienable", which according to my pedant, means these rights are not
transferrable to another, which means they cannot by usurped by law.
Now, history has shown that the U.S. courts will refuse to uphold one's
access to a "right" if one doesn't care enough to complain when a
"right" has been violated. I complain because people have been put in
the ground trying to protect these rights, and I, for one, will NOT
allow the memory and respect of those before me to be dashed upon the
uncaring rocks of todays' society.

Now, this is not to say I don't think other people's issues aren't
important - they certainly are - but they also need to realize there are
constitutional issues that sway over their personal sensibilities as to
whether someone is snapping a shutter at someone elses visible panty
line. I'll also go on record right here and now by saying that I think
anyone that abuses a child deserves a properly tied noose around their
scrawny neck in the town square at sundown. The courts decide what is
and isn't abuse - not me, not them, nobody but a judge and jury. I'm
intimately familiar with what my rights are, I wish everyone was. I'll
defend my rights from any assult regardless of who assaults them in
three ways - hard, fast, and repeatedly - no exceptions. Anybody who
wants to be buried in legalese and related paperwork for the next ten
years is welcome to bring it on cuz I'm your guy, and I've got a ton of
money. IOW, don't fxck with me cuz I'll fxck back in ways one cannot
imagine. If one is concerned about political incorrectness when they
meet me, then hang on to your visible panty line when you meet my
attorney, cupcake, cuz the ride gets a bit rough tomorrow. Myself and
my attorney get along rather well - we both firmly believe in a
scortched earth policy where the defense of my rights are concerned.
Yes, I'm the guy your attorney warned you about, and for all the right
reasons.

One other thing... I work best in the background, and I suspect a lot of
photographers faced with these issues don't want a lot of publicity
surrounding them when they're trying to work. I don't argue with that,
that's their call. As a consequence, I suspect a lot of these issues
don't get a lot of ink on them, but that doesn't mean they don't happen,
it only means we're not aware of the event.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'