Photographing children

[Electric Sceptic]

For the purposes of this thread, 'children' means children and adolescents.

There has recently been a deal of fuss here in Australia over the taking of pictures of children. I'm not talking about taking pornographic pictures or anything like that - I'm talking about taking pictures of kids running around at the beach or the local swimming pool. The fear is that 'perverts' are taking pictures of kids to enjoy later at home.

Because of this, Australia's most famous beach (Bondi) has recently banned ALL cameras (including mobile/cellular phones which have cameras). Our press has featured complaints from parents that they can't take pictures of their kids at the beach. Similarly, schools are banning cameras from school swimming events - again, parents are complaining for the same reasons.

Obviously, such a ban effectively stops the 'perverts' - but at what cost? Parents who can't take pictures of their kids, tourists who can't take pictures of Australia's beaches...is it worth it?

Personally, I think it's ridiculous. We (rightly) condemn paedophelia because it is harmful to the child; we (rightly) condemn child pornography because its production involves acts which are harmful to the child; but where is the harm in someone taking a photo of a child playing on a beach? They are in public, able to be seen by anyone who wants to look...what difference does taking a photo make?

What are your opinions?

 

[Gracchus]

There are always those advocating and willing to volunteer for the thought police. There are always those who cannot see that excessive effort to eradicate evil always results in the eradication of much good. There are always those good-hearted and spiritually enlightened souls who would burn the mote from their neighbor's eye with a red-hot poker, or gouge it out with a splintery stick.

I remember a playground built by volunteers at the local welfare office. All the equipment was smooth and low to the ground and made of soft plastic. The ground was covered with deep soft sand. There were no slides, no swings, no merry go round, no jungle gyms, no challenge, no fun. Built by volunteers with donated money, it was, shortly after opening, closed because the county government could not find the money for liability insurance.

One thing evolution does predict is that making the world safe for half-wits and couch potatoes will eventually produce a species of half-witted couch potatoes. On the other hand, they will vote Republican.

 

[Kira Faye]

I'm in aus as well (obviosuly look at my flag) I find it crazy banning cameras will not stop the perverts form doing perving, but its preventing parents the enjoyment of photos too look at when they are older or if the child dies, where are ur memories?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Currently there are complaints from children at school where I live of guys stopping in vans asking the child to get in and help look for their puppy. There is also mentioning of strangers taking pictures of the children waiting for the bus and getting out of school
I wouldn't over-react, but let's keep things in perspective. The world isn't exactly Eden.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Currently there are complaints from children at school where I live of guys stopping in vans asking the child to get in and help look for their puppy. There is also mentioning of strangers taking pictures of the children waiting for the bus and getting out of school
I wouldn't over-react, but let's keep things in perspective. The world isn't exactly Eden.

Taking pictures of kids is one thing...strangers asking them to get in their van to help look for their puppy is QUITE another...I'd be talking to the local boys in blue about that...

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Taking pictures of kids is one thing...strangers asking them to get in their van to help look for their puppy is QUITE another...I'd be talking to the local boys in blue about that...

It is on the news and the police are looking into it... the point is that the one may or may not be tied to the other. As I stated before, I agree in not over-reacting, but there is also no need to be ignorant of what is going on around us.

A soldier unaware of his surroundings is living on borrowed time.

 

[coyoteBR]

... reminds me of an African chief of state that, to prevent the spread of AIDS, made a law requiring all the citzens to stop making love for 5 years...

Such australian law is not even na overreaction, but is a reaction aimed at the wrong target: the overwhelming majority of people who want to take some recordations of their family, vacations, loved ones... sad, sad indeed.

On the other hand, fishermen will love it: “You would not believe the size of the fish I got on Bondi! It was huge! I would have photographed it, but you know the law..."

 

[ChristianCenturion]

On the other hand, fishermen will love it: “You would not believe the size of the fish I got on Bondi! It was huge! I would have photographed it, but you know the law..."

LOL
Thanks, I needed that.

 

[12volt_man]

One thing evolution does predict is that making the world safe for half-wits and couch potatoes will eventually produce a species of half-witted couch potatoes. On the other hand, they will vote Republican.

Hey, genius, don't you know that the things you're condemning come from the left, not Republicans?

 

[tocis]

What are your opinions?

Typical witch-hunt phenomenon. Someone wants to be seen as "one who actually does something against evil", so someone really does something. Whether this "something" is actually helpful is secondary, if people talk about that someone, the goal has been reached.
Some pedophiliac who gets off on photos of children in bathing suits will find what he's looking for. The law described above does much more harm than good.

 

[Allister]

a child is playing on a beach wearing swimming clothes. unknown to that child an adult takes a perfectly innocent photograph. this adult goes home and has his kicks over the photo.
it may sound strange but so what? what actual harm is being caused? the child wasnt harmed in any way, shape or form. the adult had is fun without hurting anyone. where is the problem.
this person may be perched on the edge of a slippery slope by taking a photo and getting kicks but that person was already on a slippery slope in the first place, or was he?
an adult looking at adult photographs and getting kicks wont go out and stalk and rape women. (maybe he will in some cases).
i know it is an unpleasent subject. violation of innocent children and all that.
so what if a child is being photographed, what harm is being done?

 

[Lokisdottir]

Hey, genius, don't you know that the things you're condemning come from the left, not Republicans?

Au contraire. They come from whatever side you're not on.

 

[Gracchus]

Hey, genius, don't you know that the things you're condemning come from the left, not Republicans?

I actually hadn't realized that only the left wing brings lawsuits and makes government policies.

Wow!

Thanks for telling me.

 

[12volt_man]

I actually hadn't realized that only the left wing brings lawsuits and makes government policies.

Wow!

Thanks for telling me.

No problem. I can't believe you didn't know that the left is reponsible for the increasing "Nanny State".

 

[12volt_man]

a child is playing on a beach wearing swimming clothes. unknown to that child an adult takes a perfectly innocent photograph. this adult goes home and has his kicks over the photo.
it may sound strange but so what? what actual harm is being caused? the child wasnt harmed in any way, shape or form. the adult had is fun without hurting anyone. where is the problem.
this person may be perched on the edge of a slippery slope by taking a photo and getting kicks but that person was already on a slippery slope in the first place, or was he?
an adult looking at adult photographs and getting kicks wont go out and stalk and rape women. (maybe he will in some cases).
i know it is an unpleasent subject. violation of innocent children and all that.
so what if a child is being photographed, what harm is being done?

OK. So far, I've seen a thread asking if Hitler was really such a bad guy and another one asking if a child molestor is a good role model.

Now a post telling us that child pornography isn't really such a bad thing.

I wonder if this is what Jesus meant when He talked about the "signs of the times"?

 

[Lyric's Dad]

For the purposes of this thread, 'children' means children and adolescents.

There has recently been a deal of fuss here in Australia over the taking of pictures of children. I'm not talking about taking pornographic pictures or anything like that - I'm talking about taking pictures of kids running around at the beach or the local swimming pool. The fear is that 'perverts' are taking pictures of kids to enjoy later at home.

Because of this, Australia's most famous beach (Bondi) has recently banned ALL cameras (including mobile/cellular phones which have cameras). Our press has featured complaints from parents that they can't take pictures of their kids at the beach. Similarly, schools are banning cameras from school swimming events - again, parents are complaining for the same reasons.

Obviously, such a ban effectively stops the 'perverts' - but at what cost? Parents who can't take pictures of their kids, tourists who can't take pictures of Australia's beaches...is it worth it?

Personally, I think it's ridiculous. We (rightly) condemn paedophelia because it is harmful to the child; we (rightly) condemn child pornography because its production involves acts which are harmful to the child; but where is the harm in someone taking a photo of a child playing on a beach? They are in public, able to be seen by anyone who wants to look...what difference does taking a photo make?

What are your opinions?

As the old adage goes, "if you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be the outlawss." Just replace the word Cameras for guns. Sexual predators are going to find a way to fulfill their base desires. This is not going to address the issue but criminalize an innocent group of people and cause bitterness and hostility. Sometimes the government is the worst organization there is at governing the people.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

OK. So far, I've seen a thread asking if Hitler was really such a bad guy and another one asking if a child molestor is a good role model.

Now a post telling us that child pornography isn't really such a bad thing.

I wonder if this is what Jesus meant when He talked about the "signs of the times"?

Sorry, but this is just a blatant lie. The post referred was not talking about child pornography - that is a kneejerk, ridiculous overstatement. Please, if you're not going to actually debate the issue in the OP, rather than go on some tirade about child pornography - which NOBODY in this thread has come out in favour of in any way, shape or form - then don't contribute at all.

Oh, and as far as Michael Jackson being a child molestor...ever heard of the presumption of innocence? He hasn't been convicted.

 

[Allister]

OK. So far, I've seen a thread asking if Hitler was really such a bad guy and another one asking if a child molestor is a good role model.

Now a post telling us that child pornography isn't really such a bad thing.

I wonder if this is what Jesus meant when He talked about the "signs of the times"?

im not advocating child pornography. photographing children in sexual acts is abuse. im not talking about abuse, im not talking about child pornography. im saying that if a child is filmed in an innocent act and that this child doesnt know that it is being filmed (no child was hurt) where is the problem?