Taking pictures of kids

rainbowstar wrote:

airwolffan wrote:

skeleton-countess wrote:I think it's wrong to get pictures of anyone without their consent, regardless of age. If you have the kid's (or parent's) permission, then go ahead.

Besides, if you get caught secretly taking pictures of kids in public, there will probably be consequences.

This exactly no one should take pictures intentionally with someone in them without their consent regardless of age.

"A person who appears in public cannot reasonably expect privacy".

By appearing in public a person therefore consents to be photographed.

cop this wrote:It doesn't surprise me that many - ctithe, rainbowstar, and probably YRR amongst others - will express such views. They all seem to have an attraction to children but fail to express that in any sort of care, that is, in taking into account the feelings of any child subjected to such voyeurism - for that is what it is. These people are hardly helping break down attitudes to paedophilia - which perhaps is a good thing - but they are possibly not concerned with that, probably just interested in their own little worlds.

It's wrong because young children are generally not in any position to defend their interests, or to know where such images might end up, or to be used for what purpose. That is why parents will protect their children from the intrusive behaviour of others, especially if they appear to be paedophiles. Legal or not, there is a moral question, and it doesn't surprise me that many paedophiles fail to see this. Expecting children to have just the same rights, and to behave just as adults is the typical nonsensical stuff that many paedophiles will promote.

Most likely there will be some adults around to smash your camera and/or you if you do think it is appropriate, especially those thinking of taking covert pictures. Those people who do take such pictures of children are the ones contributing to the hatred often felt towards paedophiles, not making things any better.

Carry On Regardless!

cop this wrote:It doesn't surprise me that many - ctithe, rainbowstar, and probably YRR amongst others - will express such views.

ctithe wrote:

cop this wrote:It doesn't surprise me that many - ctithe, rainbowstar, and probably YRR amongst others - will express such views.

Quite surprised I qualify for inclusion here, given that I haven't expressed a view but merely questioned a term.

cop this wrote:Do you suggest I trawl through your past posts for some evidence?

PS. I'm not going to bother.

ctithe wrote:

cop this wrote:Do you suggest I trawl through your past posts for some evidence?

PS. I'm not going to bother.

No, I'd rather you took my post at face value and didn't make assumptions about it. If someone asks 'is x y?' and someone's response is 'define y', that isn't indicative of a specific agenda.

cop this wrote:I am so sorry you seem to feel offended.

cop this wrote:I am sure all of us will be more than pleased to hear your reasons for NOT taking such pictures - that is NOT taking them. Otherwise we can assume, as I mistakenly perhaps did, but based on your previous posts, that you are indeed of the mind that there are no reasons not to take such pictures, apart from avoiding a good thrashing perhaps.

I'm sure a person of your ability can come up with plenty of good reasons NOT to take pictures of children, so let us have them.

cop this wrote:PS. It is illegal to take pictures of children in public in the UK if they could be deemed to be indecent, but I am sure you know this.

ElKahn wrote:when you take a picture of someone without their consent, you're inevitably violating their privacy, which should be a basic human right. An example would be taking a picture of someone in an intimate situation and threatening to make such picture public, thus putting the victim in a position of submission.

ElKahn wrote:ctithe, by not clearly stating that you're in favor of taking pictures of children, you can't be subjected to the kind of criticism cop this is directing towards you.

ElKahn wrote:However, by admitting that you reported the man who took a candid of your daughter you're automatically admitting that you were hostile to such action, therefore my conclusion would be that you're not in favor of taking nonconsensual pictures of children. Or is it that you only consider it wrong when it's done to your daughter, but it's ok for other children not related to you?

Looking forward to an honest opinon.

cop this wrote:It doesn't surprise me that many - ctithe, rainbowstar, and probably YRR amongst others - will express such views.

cop this wrote:They all seem to have an attraction to children but fail to express that in any sort of care, that is, in taking into account the feelings of any child subjected to such voyeurism - for that is what it is.

cop this wrote:These people are hardly helping break down attitudes to paedophilia - which perhaps is a good thing - but they are possibly not concerned with that, probably just interested in their own little worlds.

cop this wrote:It's wrong because young children are generally not in any position to defend their interests, or to know where such images might end up, or to be used for what purpose. That is why parents will protect their children from the intrusive behaviour of others, especially if they appear to be paedophiles. Legal or not, there is a moral question, and it doesn't surprise me that many paedophiles fail to see this. Expecting children to have just the same rights, and to behave just as adults is the typical nonsensical stuff that many paedophiles will promote.

cop this wrote:Most likely there will be some adults around to smash your camera and/or you if you do think it is appropriate, especially those thinking of taking covert pictures.

cop this wrote:Those people who do take such pictures of children are the ones contributing to the hatred often felt towards paedophiles, not making things any better.

Carry On Regardless!