If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:47:01 +1200, retoohs
wrote: There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were dropped but how pathetic is that Alan There's got to be more to the story than just that. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:47:01 +1200, retoohs
wrote: There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were dropped but how pathetic is that Alan There's got to be more to the story than just that. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... MarkČ wrote: "retoohs" wrote in message ... There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were dropped but how pathetic is that Alan Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them? I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated. I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the equivalent of "news vaporware." Any references? Thanks. Which ones? None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated) came with any indication of verification. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... MarkČ wrote: "retoohs" wrote in message ... There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were dropped but how pathetic is that Alan Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them? I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated. I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the equivalent of "news vaporware." Any references? Thanks. Which ones? None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated) came with any indication of verification. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... MarkČ wrote: "retoohs" wrote in message ... There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were dropped but how pathetic is that Alan Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them? I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated. I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the equivalent of "news vaporware." Any references? Thanks. Which ones? None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated) came with any indication of verification. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
In article Xtu3e.65649$le4.27078@fed1read04, "Mark=B2" says...
=20 "Ron Hunter" wrote in message=20 ... Mark=B2 wrote: "retoohs" wrote in message=20 ... There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for=20 photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were=20 dropped but how pathetic is that Alan Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe the= m? I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complai= ned=20 about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. ar= e=20 sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated. I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the= =20 equivalent of "news vaporware." Any references? Thanks. Which ones? =20 None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as state= d)=20 came with any indication of verification. =20 =20 =20 There was a case in the last few years here in the States that recieved LOT= S=20 or "air time" on the TV news. Some woman (a pro photographer IIRC) had, over the years, taken quite a few= =20 photos of her own kids when they were todlers, in various stages of undress= .. Some were of a little girl sitting naked in a backyard plastic wading pool,= =20 some were of her little boy the same way, and on, and on, and on.(there wer= e=20 LOTS of pictures) She had, at some point decided to make a "work of art" out of these photos.= =20 I cant remember whether it was just a collage, or a colection of collage in= a=20 book. IIRC it was in either Texas or Florida where some religious group decided= =20 that it was "kiddie porn" and complained to the authorities about it. The court case recieved a lot of television coverage, and I remember the=20 local News-casters having a lot of "Fun" with it, and showing some of the a= rt=20 over the air. In some of the collage that I remember seeing over the air, there "seemed" = to=20 be inter-action between the toddlers and some adults. This case dragged on for at LEAST as long as the OJ trial, but the crux of= =20 the matter seemed to be the apparent interaction between the children and t= he=20 adults. As testimony revealed (slowly) the adults in the photos were the same peopl= e=20 as the children, and the judge seemed to think the whole thing was=20 ridiculous. (the few times the cameras were in the courtroom the judge was= =20 doing a LOT of eye-rolling and sighing loudly). The sad part of all of this is that a totally innocent gesture on the part = of=20 someone trying to present a small work of "art" was labeled a "kiddie porn"= =20 producer, and ended up not being able to get work because of the bad=20 publicity. (free publicity is usually a good thing, but getting labeled a= =20 Kiddie-diddler and then getting no publicity after your exhonoration isnt= =20 going to help you). Later (by a few years) when it became much easier than it used to be to alt= er=20 photos and put things in them that werent there, it was decided that any=20 depiction of any child that could be considered "erotic" in nature, whether= =20 photographed, drawn, or created out of "whole cloth" could be considered=20 "Child porn" in the eye of the law in several states. Since I dont follow= =20 this stuff very closely, I dont know if any Federal (US) laws are the same. Most of the stuff you hear about people "getting in trouble" with photos of= =20 their own kids in various states of "undress" is usually "urban legend" mad= e=20 up from snippets of this story with new MADE UP details to make it more=20 lurid. There have been several cases where the people working in Wal-Mart,=20 Walgreens, CVS et al, have called the police because of naked children in t= he=20 photos someone dropped off for printing, but I can remember hearing of any= =20 case in which the PARENTS were prosecuted and found guilty of any crime. As has been stated by others, its hard to say what is urban legend and what= =20 isnt (including this story I have just told) --=20 Larry Lynch Mystic, Ct. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
MarkČ wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... MarkČ wrote: "retoohs" wrote in message . .. There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were dropped but how pathetic is that Alan Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them? I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated. I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the equivalent of "news vaporware." Any references? Thanks. Which ones? None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated) came with any indication of verification. You can get verification on those I stated by checking into the Texas Statutes online. I am sure there are still some articles online about the snafu on the previous laws that prohibited even parents from bathing children, or changing diapers, or breast-feeding. Of course rational people just ignored those idiot laws, just as they do speed limits... -- Ron Hunter |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Larry wrote:
In article Xtu3e.65649$le4.27078@fed1read04, "MarkČ" says... "Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... MarkČ wrote: "retoohs" wrote in message .. . There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were dropped but how pathetic is that Alan Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them? I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated. I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the equivalent of "news vaporware." Any references? Thanks. Which ones? None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated) came with any indication of verification. There was a case in the last few years here in the States that recieved LOTS or "air time" on the TV news. Some woman (a pro photographer IIRC) had, over the years, taken quite a few photos of her own kids when they were todlers, in various stages of undress. Some were of a little girl sitting naked in a backyard plastic wading pool, some were of her little boy the same way, and on, and on, and on.(there were LOTS of pictures) She had, at some point decided to make a "work of art" out of these photos. I cant remember whether it was just a collage, or a colection of collage in a book. IIRC it was in either Texas or Florida where some religious group decided that it was "kiddie porn" and complained to the authorities about it. The court case recieved a lot of television coverage, and I remember the local News-casters having a lot of "Fun" with it, and showing some of the art over the air. In some of the collage that I remember seeing over the air, there "seemed" to be inter-action between the toddlers and some adults. This case dragged on for at LEAST as long as the OJ trial, but the crux of the matter seemed to be the apparent interaction between the children and the adults. As testimony revealed (slowly) the adults in the photos were the same people as the children, and the judge seemed to think the whole thing was ridiculous. (the few times the cameras were in the courtroom the judge was doing a LOT of eye-rolling and sighing loudly). The sad part of all of this is that a totally innocent gesture on the part of someone trying to present a small work of "art" was labeled a "kiddie porn" producer, and ended up not being able to get work because of the bad publicity. (free publicity is usually a good thing, but getting labeled a Kiddie-diddler and then getting no publicity after your exhonoration isnt going to help you). Later (by a few years) when it became much easier than it used to be to alter photos and put things in them that werent there, it was decided that any depiction of any child that could be considered "erotic" in nature, whether photographed, drawn, or created out of "whole cloth" could be considered "Child porn" in the eye of the law in several states. Since I dont follow this stuff very closely, I dont know if any Federal (US) laws are the same. Most of the stuff you hear about people "getting in trouble" with photos of their own kids in various states of "undress" is usually "urban legend" made up from snippets of this story with new MADE UP details to make it more lurid. There have been several cases where the people working in Wal-Mart, Walgreens, CVS et al, have called the police because of naked children in the photos someone dropped off for printing, but I can remember hearing of any case in which the PARENTS were prosecuted and found guilty of any crime. As has been stated by others, its hard to say what is urban legend and what isnt (including this story I have just told) Unfortunately, even if the parents aren't charged, or convicted, just the report of the incident will involve the state's child welfare people who always work under the guilty until canonized a saint theory. People often lose their children for months over such stupidity. IN one case I recall that a clerk in a chain store reported a woman for pictures of her son playing in the sprinkler in the back yard nude. The clerk said 'she took too many pictures (more than one roll) of the boy.' Amazing. It is a shame that so many people feel that any exposure of the human body constitutes a sexual display. Is the pedophile who gets a sexual thrill from these pictures worse than the person who sees them as sexual but considers them evil? They seem the same to me. As for the digital image issue. This one will never stand the test of the first amendment protections since it doesn't fit the test of causing harm to anyone to offset any loss of freedom to others, an old test for such issues. The real problem is defining what is (in Texas law 'provocative') as what may be such to one is not to another. I have an old picture of one of my nieces in a VERY modest swimsuit that is, nevertheless, quite 'provocative' because that is what she was trying to BE (and succeeded). But there is nothing 'sexual' about the picture, and nothing immodest in it. Frankly, I have never seen a picture of her from age 8 on that WASN'T provocative. She is just that way. -- Ron Hunter |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Ken Tough" wrote in message ... Mxsmanic wrote: Ron Hunter writes: I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8 seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much about it. In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone speaking to him. That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed. I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness. It's hard to say since most people who are guillotined are complete basket cases. At least their heads are. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best cat breed with young children at home | -L. | Digital Photography | 2 | February 11th 05 12:49 AM |
Best cat breed with young children at home | -L. | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 7th 05 07:30 AM |
Best large bird with young children at home | Ron Hudson | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | February 4th 05 08:10 PM |
Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"? | William J. Slater | General Photography Techniques | 9 | April 7th 04 04:22 PM |
Photographing children | Steven Church | Photographing People | 13 | October 21st 03 10:55 AM |