1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

Discussion in 'Ethics and Morals' started by Skwim, Sep 19, 2014.

  1. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    26,661
    Ratings:
    +9,157
    If you don't think we craft laws based on the emotional impact of behaviors and impacts on individuals and societies, then I fear you've got a lot to learn about societies, and how and why laws, customs, and mores develop.
     
  2. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    26,028
    Ratings:
    +2,885
    To elaborate on how privacy laws work, you can take pictures of public spaces with people in them, provided you are not zooming in on an identifiable individual. If any information captured in the photo would allow a viewer to single out who the subject is, consent is required in most cases. Particularly when the subject is a member of a vulnerable population. Ie children. While that doesn't necessarily apply to pictures of an individual where no other information is available, organizations that collect images of children take great pains to obtain parental consent to avoid complaints to the privacy commissioner in any given country where these laws apply.

    Skwim, perhaps you could explain why you believe pedophiles should be exempt from these laws, given that they are specifically designed to protect children from the exact type of exploitation you describe.
     
    #22 Alceste, Sep 19, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2014
  3. Buttercup

    Buttercup Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    20,959
    Ratings:
    +3,693
    I understand the desire for a conversation regarding this hot top and I can appreciate the time you took to compose your OP.

    However, when you say things like this:


    I am puzzled why you'd think you would get less than emotional responses? Do you sincerely think that a man (or woman) should be able to take pictures of innocent children or women for their own sexual gratification? Please explain why and why the law should be on their side.
     
  4. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,026
    Ratings:
    +11,918
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Ha! Ha!, Nice little twist you put on this one. In any case, It's the constitutional principle of English law that everything which is not forbidden is allowed. Look it up.
     
  5. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    26,028
    Ratings:
    +2,885
    I don't need to look it up. Enforcing privacy law in England was my job for two years. I could practically recite the Data Protection Act from memory, and have written dozens of policies and training programs to ensure compliance with it.

    Perhaps you need to look it up yourself.
     
  6. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,026
    Ratings:
    +11,918
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Never said they weren't, only that where no harm has been shown they shouldn't be. Which is why at the very outset I asked where the harm laid in taking such pictures.
    " I seriously want to hear how people regard this behavior in light of our laws, and consider where the harm lies."
    So far I've heard of no specific harm, only unsupported claims of attendant creepiness, characterizations of perversion and molestation, and future rapes.
     
  7. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    26,661
    Ratings:
    +9,157
    If someone placed a video camera in your house without you knowing it, and sexually gratified themselves while watching you, would you feel a violation was occurring?
     
  8. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    26,028
    Ratings:
    +2,885
    Stealing is harmless if nobody notices. Does that mean it's permissible?

    You have yet to explain why you believe perverts and pedophiles should be exempt from privacy laws prohibiting the non-consensual collection of personal information. Come on, give it a go. It's a slow morning and I could use a good chuckle.
     
  9. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    26,028
    Ratings:
    +2,885
    Surely it's totally OK as long as you don't notice. Lol.
     
  10. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,026
    Ratings:
    +11,918
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Please cite this law.

    Not until you tell me why you need to take this discussion off track. Short of that I decline to engage you in the issue.

    That's very nice; If England does have laws prohibiting photographing children in public place, and because you're so familiar with English privacy law---it must be at your finger tips---how about sharing this law with us. In the mean time, in as much as the three incidents I cited in my OP happened in the USA I'm going to pretty much ignore English law and focus on US law. Sorry if this disappoints, but I don't intend to start addressing the laws of various other countries---I don't have the time..




    Oh I was counting on them, but I was also hoping for more reasoned responses. So far it's been a matter of take what I can get.

    So far I've see no rational reason to prohibit it.

    No one has shown me where the harm lies, only emotion based claims and unsupported assertions. Do that and I'll change my mind. So far I see no reason to change the law as it stands. Give me a good reason to make a law prohibiting people from photographing children in public and I'll get behind it.
     
  11. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,026
    Ratings:
    +11,918
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I suppose so, primarily because I expect a degree of privacy I don't expect in public.

    No, because there are laws against theft. :facepalm:

    Take someone else's thread off track.
     
  12. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    26,661
    Ratings:
    +9,157
    So, if you had a young child, you wouldn't expect to not have strangers taking pictures of them in public for sexual gratification?
     
  13. Buttercup

    Buttercup Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    20,959
    Ratings:
    +3,693
    Ummm, let's start with the fact that my under aged child is not living on this planet for the sexual gratification of anyone? How is that not rational or reasoned?
     
  14. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    26,028
    Ratings:
    +2,885
    Skwim, 1) YOU insisted we focus on the law. It's not relevant to my argument, but to yours. 2) Two different laws have been cited. One from Canada and the other from the UK. If you missed them, you need to review this thread and read more carefully. 3) You SPECIFICALLY cited English law as the precedent that allows pedophiles with cameras to creep on unsuspecting children. "Anything that is not prohibited is allowed", is how you summed it up. However, taking photos of unsuspecting children to wank over is indeed prohibited in most western countries, including England, so by your own criteria, this behaviour is illegal.
     
  15. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    26,661
    Ratings:
    +9,157
    Stop being so emotional. After all, if the law can't protect a pedophile's right to jerk off to pictures of your kids, then all of our civil liberties are at risk of being taken away.
     
  16. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,026
    Ratings:
    +11,918
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Nice double negative you've got going here. ;) In any case, in as much as this is such an extremely rare thing I would be very surprised if it happened.
     
  17. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    26,028
    Ratings:
    +2,885
    There are also laws against taking photos of children without parental consent. So whichever way you want to play it, you've lost this one.
     
  18. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    26,661
    Ratings:
    +9,157
    Nice avoidance of the question there. Would you mind answering it?
     
  19. Buttercup

    Buttercup Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    20,959
    Ratings:
    +3,693
    I'm thinking Skwimmy isn't a parent or he would have never dared to tread these waters. I know you aren't a parent either, but you're smarter than him. :D

    Sorry, Skwimmy.
     
  20. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    22,218
    Ratings:
    +8,112
    Religion:
    deist


    Has anybody pointed out to you that all three of these men either admitted to downloading child porn or were found to have child-porn images on their 'phones?

    It looks as if the adults who detained or reported these three men got it right, doesn't it? Here.... read these three paras, each relating to one of the three men, in the same order as you placed them:-

    Did you read those reports yourself? :shrug:
     
Loading...