Taking pictures of kids

Taking pictures (or videos) or people (including children) in public without their permission is not illegal everywhere. I know that in my state (in the US) it is not illegal to take a picture of anyone in public (with or without permission). Having said that, it isn't a good idea unless you have a good reason (other than spank bank): if the child sees you may make them feel very uncomfortable, if the parents or other adults catch you doing it they may create some kind of consequence (violence or just public shaming). Just because it is legal doesn't mean you should do it.

Jimjustjim wrote:Just because it is legal doesn't mean you should do it.

Good point there.

ctithe wrote:That strikes me as ridiculously excessive, given that even some rapists only get 4-5 years.

A good point. Sentences incentive or disincentive certain behavior. One of the arguments for not giving rapists the death penalty is because that would mean they're better off killing their victims. So, it always struck me that by setting the penalties for child pornography as high as we do is effectively saying, "You might as well actually rape a kid yourself rather than look at a picture, since you'll get off lighter."

Admittedly, this incentivization makes perfect sense if you operate under the common cultural meme that the subject of a picture is "revictimized" each time someone looks at it. But since I don't buy into that model, that seems like a perverse incentive to me.

I remember a few years ago Perverted Justice did something in Virginia and one guy ended up with 20 years in prison. Twenty years for talking about sex with an adult. The same month there was a guy who actually met a 15 year old girl from the internet and raped her (forcible rape) and got 5 years. WTF!??!?

YouthRightsRadical wrote:So, it always struck me that by setting the penalties for child pornography as high as we do is effectively saying, "You might as well actually rape a kid yourself rather than look at a picture, since you'll get off lighter."

I have a similar feeling about so-called level 1 images in the UK. For the purposes of classification, an image can be deemed level 1 irrespective of whether the subject of the image is clothed or nude. It does not matter whether you have images of 12-year-olds in swimsuits or 12-year-olds nude, as long as they're not engaging in any sexual conduct then those images are ripe for consideration as level 1 images. That will lead some to say to themselves 'well, if I'm going to be treated the same, what's the point in distinguishing?'. Not all will draw such a conclusion; there are plenty of decent human beings out there who will draw the line well before nudity. But the law doesn't help when it says 'you like kids? well f**k you, any image short of sexual activity can be level 1'.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:Admittedly, this incentivization makes perfect sense if you operate under the common cultural meme that the subject of a picture is "revictimized" each time someone looks at it. But since I don't buy into that model, that seems like a perverse incentive to me.

If the rumour is true that the FBI are prominent disseminators of existing CP to lure CP-users, then surely they are significant perpetrators in the 'revictimisation' industry?

Former (Canadian) professional photographer here. In Canada, this is a grey legal area, the legality of which hinges on the way the photographs are used. There are no laws in Canada which prohibit photography in public places. Since people appear in public places, it stands to reason that they might appear in photographs taken in public places. The rub is that the photographer is at risk if he or she sells those photographs without the permission of the person or people who appear in them, or uses them in a way which would bring disrepute to those people. There is a well-known case where a photographer in Montreal sold a photograph of a man crossing a street to a company that wanted to use it in advertising. The man, who had not given his permission for use of the photograph, sued, and the photographer lost big time with a huge court-mandated cash settlement.

In practical terms, law or no law, it is extremely risky to take photographs of children without their parent's permission. And most parents, thank God, are unwilling to let strangers take photographs of their children unless benign intent is abundantly clear.

To show you just how risky this can be, let me tell you what happened to me. I was hired to photographs of each class in a rural elementary school for use in a calendar that the parent-teacher association wanted to sell to raise money. I took the photographs, had them processed, and delivered the finished portraits to the school with the understanding that I would be paid for the photography and for the finished prints for the calendar. In addition, parents would buy additional portraits directly from me.
A week or so after I delivered the portraits to the school, I got a call telling me that the deal was off: the mother of a kindergarten student had complained that in the picture of her daughter's class, her daughter's panties were clearly visible. It was news to me. I checked my negatives, and sure enough, there was the little girl with her panties showing, slightly. Her mother had told my contact at the school that I was a pervert, and that was that. I did get paid for the photos I had delivered, but nothing more. And I gather that in the eyes of that mother, at least, I was a pervert. Her allegation was worthy of a lawsuit for slander, but I had better things to do with my life. And, really, I have little belief that alleged "perverts" ever receive a fair shake from the court system.

I won't claim to be free of sexual "issues" — why else would I be here? However, I am not a pedophile, nor do parents, or anyone else for that matter, have the slightest thing to fear from me.

We live in a society which is so totally warped about sexuality that it is literally dangerous to admit to anything more than "normal" sexual interests, even though we know that practically nobody is truly "normal" when it comes to sex.

Other

In the UK, there was a news item a few years ago on a roofer who had been working on a roof at a primary school. Being self-employed and almost always working on location, he always had his mobile phone on him. Whilst on the school roof, it rang, he answered it, and this was spotted by the headteacher, who instructed him that he could not have his mobile with him whilst working on the school premises because it had a camera on it and he could potentially take photos of children. Ludicrous, utterly ludicrous. Presumably he also had a penis, which could have been revealed to or used on one or more of the children - should he have left that in his van too? Idea for a new play about this: Kiddy Fiddler On The Roof.

Perhaps they could have provided him with a locker in which he could have put both his phone and his penis!

The rules and laws in the US are getting out of hand, but the more I hear about the UK the more I think that I am lucky to be in the US.

If im brutally honest here with myself I found myself doing that a few years back, I used to love going out with my dad in the car just for rides and I found myself taking photo's as I was moving by. I stopped doing it shortly after, the shame that i felt then when i realized was too much.

Id say break the habit, as people have said the less interaction for the time being the better. Feel free to chat me if you ever need someone.

Tulula.