# Misuse of photography; when the law SHOULD win



## RMThompson (Aug 14, 2007)

You all know how I feel when it comes to someone not being able to post photos they took, regardless of subject.

Well I've recently changed my mind. While this is supposedly "legal" there should be some way to fix it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262700,00.html

Sick sick sick


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 14, 2007)

You know, as disturbing and sick as this wack job is, he has a right to free speach. It is a tough pill to swallow sometimes, but that is one of the most important groundstones this country was founded on.

And that right applies to _all _of us, not just a few.

Still, what a weirdo.....


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 14, 2007)

Yep, you need those types to speak up so that you'll know where they live.  Or better yet, where they used to live.


----------



## gmarquez (Aug 15, 2007)

Ewwwwwwwwww!  Makes my flesh crawl.


----------



## craig (Aug 15, 2007)

I personally would not visit his website. Certainly treading on what we perceive to be abnormal behavior. Fact is if we start labeling peoples views as sick or weird we are all in trouble. Above all we are free to do what we want in this country within the limits of basic laws. Of course the web is a lot harder to control. We have yet to see how that plays out. 

If you feel strongly about it investigate further. 

Love & Playa


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 15, 2007)

Sorry I disagree.  If we as a society cannot protect the weakest of our numbers from predation, then we do not deserve to *survive* as a society.

mike


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 15, 2007)

Unfortunately, this fool's behaviour has an impact on all photographers.  It has been increasingly difficult to photograph in the public since 9/11 and you have states coming up with all types of inane laws trying to prohibit photography in public places.

I do a _lot _of street shooting, and in the last 6 years, I can't begin to tell you how many times I have been stopped and questioned as to what I am doing.

This nut only re-enforces the sterotype of a pedophile hiding in a bush with a camera.  That is bad for _all _of us.


----------



## usayit (Aug 15, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> Sorry I disagree.  If we as a society cannot protect the weakest of our numbers from predation, then we do not deserve to *survive* as a society.
> 
> mike



And I have to disagree with you.... 

It is a slippery slope if our society isn't too careful on how we go about preventing behavior we don't see as appropriate.  Broad laws that result can and will just impact the rights of all people with innocent intentions.  No matter how sick that site makes me, protecting the freedom to speech is CORE to our country's (US) well being and future.

Even laws that are suppose to protect minors under the age of consentual sex has impacted (practically destroyed) the life of another...
http://www.wilsonappeal.com/index.php

Defining laws to protect the innocent without stepping on the rights of others is an extremely difficult task.


----------



## danalec99 (Aug 15, 2007)

I hope this guy is 'undercover' and that this is a hook to bring 'em all out in the open. 
Even if that's not the case, I'd say let him go ahead without any hassles and take this opportunity to meet his friends who are coming 'out of the closet'. This is a blessing in disguise for the law enforcement. 

As for the negative side, this is directly affecting the street shooters.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 15, 2007)

Here is an example of when well intentioned laws are misused by authorities. In 2003, I believe, Texas passed a law prohibiting unauthorized photography inside locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc. The law was so vaguely written however, that soon, prosecutors began extending the scope of the original law to "catch" perverts in public taking "questionable" photos.

In 2005, in Southlake, Texas, a very affluent suburb of Dallas, Lewis Vogel was arrested for shooting _innapropriate_ photos at an Octoberfest celebration in the town square. Several ladies at the event noticed him shooting photos of, what they said were young girls. The ladies approached a couple of police officers and told them about it. They asked Vogel if they could see the pictures. He showed the photos to them and they promptly arrested him and confiscated the camera. 

The Southlake police department held a press conference a few hours later detailing the arrest of Vogel to the media. That evening, Vogel's name and photo was played on every evening TV newscast. Vogel had no prior criminal record. Not even a ticket. Nothing. He explained to the authorities that he was testing out his new camera and he had shot several photos of pretty girls in the crowd, as well as other things happening at the event.

Vogel was released on bail. A few days later, another press conference was held in which a city attorney announced that all charges against Vogel had been dropped and an official apology was made to Vogel. The attorney said, that after reviewing the photos, there was absolutely nothing illegal about his activity.

Of course, the damage to Vogel's reputation had been done. I believe that Vogel later filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the City of Southlake.

This is what happens when you have vaguely written laws and then ask the police to enforce these laws. A lot of times, publicity seeking politicians pass band-aid type laws instead of dealing responsibly with the real problem.

These are the kind of laws that worry me, and they are popping up all over the country.


----------



## Seefutlung (Aug 15, 2007)

BTW- Jack McClellan, the sick owner of the above mentioned site, is in jail. He has become a media whore in SoCal boasting of his site and sickness. During his interviews he has informed the public of a few places he likes to frequent. An attorney/father from one of those places (Santa Clarita) filed a suit against his ass and the court upheld the suit and the Californian branch of the ACLU stayed away. A couple of days ago he was caught at some type of child center at UCLA with a camera and they (the authorities) nailed his ass (less than 30' away is against the court order/injunction.) Bail was set yesterday at $150,000 (remember that his guy lives out of his car). 

Many in the US make fun of my democratic (blue), liberal, wine drinking, no smoking, yoga, fusion eating, environmentally conscience state ... but we did something about this McCallen bastard. Surf's up ...

Gary

PS- As to society protecting those that most need protection ... that is what good parenting is all about (especially in this particular case.)
G


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 15, 2007)

Gary, that is great news.


----------



## Seefutlung (Aug 15, 2007)

Yep ...  but the damage is that anybody walking around with a "big" camera will be instantly suspect as a sicko.  

Just occured to me why SLR users are singled out for abuse by security and stupid parents ... because we are different.  Can't single out P&S/camera phone users because that would be self-incriminating as a P&S/Camera phone is what most people use.

P&S = the norm

SLR = deviant from the norm

What I don't understand is why security personal don't get that when one is performing an illegal act (or a prelude to an illegal act) ... I would think  that one would not desire to draw attention to oneself.  Walking around with a "big" camera is a real attention getter.

Gary


----------



## subimatt (Aug 15, 2007)

Glad to hear he is in jail. Stuff like that just pisses me off.


----------



## glaston (Aug 15, 2007)

This is freakin disturbing!!!

I hate pedophiles!

When I was 15 in 1991, my 6 year old sister Kahla was abducted, raped, and murdered by a previously convicted pedophile.
He was convicted in Texas, and was released early after spending less than a year in prison.
If he was made to do his entire sentence, my sister would still be alive right now.
What's worse, after he killed Kahla, he got the death penalty.
But George friggin Ryan passed a blanket moratorium that commuted all death row inmates to life in prison.

Unless you've been through it, you can't fully comprehend what something like that does to a family!

Now this piece of sh1t is telling other pedophiles how to casually observe and record images of little girls so they can whack off to them!?

The 1st amendment protects these scumbags too.
I'm a big supporter of the constitution and am angered when it's trespassed on.
So I can't in good conscience say that the 1st amm. should be disregarded even for scum like this!
Which angers me further.

Never would I have thought that something like this would come about.
WOW!!!


----------



## Seefutlung (Aug 15, 2007)

Glaston-

I am truly and sincerely sorry to hear about your sister. That has got to leave just a giant hole in your life and your family. And you are absolute right on people can be sympathetic but not empathetic with your horrific ordeal. 

There isn't any bright side to this picture .. but, with communications being what it is today ... at least our awareness of these bastards is much higher than years ago. And when our awareness is higher ... then we individually and collectively can do something. (i.e. the attorney that requested the restraining order that lead to the arrest of McCellan was the act of a single person ... kudos to the attorney ... and the judge that issued the restraining order and a passive stance by the ACLU is a collective action by our institutions and society taking a stance and saying enough is enough. 

Gary


----------



## rmh159 (Aug 15, 2007)

I think it's important to realize that people like this exist everywhere, always have and sadly always will.  As others posted it's extremely difficult to write a law that limits the rights of one group while preseving them of another.

To bring this back to the issue of photography... generalizing and saying all people with cameras in public are pedophiles makes as much sense as saying all people that use computers are terrorists.  Sure there will be the exceptions but I don't think it's quite time for us to run to the bomb shelters just yet.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 15, 2007)

usayit said:


> And I have to disagree with you....
> 
> It is a slippery slope if our society isn't too careful on how we go about preventing behavior we don't see as appropriate.  Broad laws that result can and will just impact the rights of all people with innocent intentions.  No matter how sick that site makes me, protecting the freedom to speech is CORE to our country's (US) well being and future.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but Genarlow Wilson destroyed his own life in making a poor life choice.   We don't let 15 year olds vote for a reason, we don't let them drink for a reason, we don't let them drive for a reason, we don't let them own handguns for a reason and we don't let them legally choose to have sex for a reason.  That is because they have not reached the age of reason.  Every State in the Union has set a minimum age of at least 16 years of age to have consensual sex or to operate an automobile.  18 years of age to vote, to own an handgun or to drink.  There is nothing broad about these limitations. They are quite defined.  Yes, there may be that one 14 or 15 year old that might be considered the exception to the rule, but the law is for the protection of all of society. There are times that individual rights are [FONT=&quot]superseded[/FONT] by the right of the whole.  Long ago the Supreme Court ruled that you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded building.  

Genarlow Wilson stepped outside this fixed boundry on his own accord.  That 15 year old might have agreed, but the law does not recognize her as having the capacity to do so.


----------



## usayit (Aug 15, 2007)

I won't argue the case of Wilson here... Yes... he broke the law.  There is  no question about that.   The issue here is that the sentence he received was harsh for someone who has always walked a straight line;  Good student, good person, stayed out of trouble, future in sports.  It simply destroyed his future for a mistake that many "horny" teenagers make everyday.

The laws were put in place to protect monsters from sexually abusing our children.  They were not put into place to send another child (he is still one) to a long jail sentence.

So the next time your kid takes a candy bar from a store, I expect you to push for the maximum sentence for theft.

Oh yeh... apparently the system disagrees with you:
http://people.monstersandcritics.com/features/article_1316180.php/Genarlow_Wilson_freed_in_Georgia

In reality, life isn't black and white.  There is a reason why we have trail by jury and a judge.  There has to be some sort of "humanity" in the court room.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 15, 2007)

usayit said:


> I won't argue the case of Wilson here... Yes... he broke the law.  There is  no question about that.   The issue here is that the sentence he received was harsh for someone who has always walked a straight line;  Good student, good person, stayed out of trouble, future in sports.  It simply destroyed his future for a mistake that many "horny" teenagers make everyday.
> 
> The laws were put in place to protect monsters from sexually abusing our children.  They were not put into place to send another child (he is still one) to a long jail sentence.
> 
> ...




There is no disagreement from me on the most recent decision of the system.  That is the system working as it should.  We both agree, that he broke the law.  Real life is not like a golf game, there are no mulligans, no _"olie olie all in free"_.  There is only one chance, and because of that I would rather choose to error on the side of the victim rather than on the side of the offender.  

It's a lot like OJ.  If he came out today and admitted that he had committed the murders of which he was acquitted, the only thing he would loose is face. There is no murder charge hanging over him for those crimes and he could not be tried again.    

Would you say the sentence handed down to _"A former Boy Scout and church leader"_ is too harsh if I tell you his name is Dennis Rader?  He was 60 year old before we finally caught him. He had never been in trouble before he identified as BTK and arrested. 

 Can you sit there and tell me that Wilson is not a sexual predator, just because this is the first time he was arrested?  I'm not saying that he is, I do not know him nor I do know enough about him, but I do agree that the sentence that he received for the crime he was convicted of was proper.  The system has re-evaluated the incident and decided that the crime he committed and the crime he was convicted of were two different crimes.  I can accept that.


----------



## craig (Aug 15, 2007)

We may be heading way off course here people. 

Love & Puppies


----------



## usayit (Aug 15, 2007)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Can you sit there and tell me that Wilson is not a sexual predator, just because this is the first time he was arrested?



dude you are paranoid... or just plain nuts.  There is no comparison of this case with the others you mentioned.

Yes I can honestly say that Wilson does not fall into the category of a sexual predator... just a horny teenager...

When I was Wilson's age, I had a girlfriend that lasted 3 years and I was 1 year older.  I guess that makes me a sexual preditor??

If what you say is true.. then why do states have some sort of leeway in how they define "Age of Consent"?  See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

In most states, Wilson would not have been classified as a sexual preditor. The issue is that Georgia is one of the few states that do not (perhaps they are just behind in making such provisions) have a leeway built into their statute. 

The issue is to protect children from sexual preditors... not to put other children away for long terms in jail.  The whole idea of our jail system is a form of rehab is a complete joke.

BTW... gryphonslair.. The thread is about photography and this person walking the fine line between preying on children and free speach.  You have absolutely nothing to add except to attack my stance on the Wilson issue.  Why don't you crawl under the soapbox/flame rock you came from?


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 16, 2007)

usayit said:


> BTW... gryphonslair.. _The thread is about photography and this person walking the fine line between preying on children and free speach._  You have absolutely nothing to add except to attack my stance on the Wilson issue.  Why don't you crawl under the soapbox/flame rock you came from?



And here I'll have to disagree.  Pedifilia is in some ways worse than murder!
When a child is raped that 'Evil' not only stays with them but is passed down for generations through them in the attitudes and phobias that their children receive from them.  The OP declared that he felt that a tightening on the laws governing photography was acceptable if it would help solve the problem.

"     You all know how I feel when it comes to someone not being able to post photos they took, regardless of subject.

Well I've recently changed my mind. While this is supposedly "legal" there should be some way to fix it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262700,00.html

Sick sick sick   - R M Thompson"

I am in agreement with the OP on this one.  After all in the US the whole of the Federal Government (and thereby our society) is based upon our Declaration of Independence and in that declaration it is stated that we, each of us, owe our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to the defense of every other citizen from all enemies foreign or *Domestic*!

On my sig line a while back I had- Know the difference between a freedom and a right.

The difference is that freedom describes what you are physically able to do.  A Right describes what is proper to do.


----------



## usayit (Aug 16, 2007)

So i'll pose the prototypical question that is asked whenever there is a call for a clamp down on the freedom of speech.


"Who decides what is appropriate and not appropriate forms of speech?"

A Rabbi? Priest? Bush? Government? Prolifers? ProChoicers? Liberals? Conservatives? Amish? Who? etc...  You only have to open a history book to know that this is a slippery slope leading to the destruction of other civil liberties. 

It wasn't too long ago that book burnings were common in certain countries because education in general was deamed a threat to the stability of the current regime.  

China limits any form of speach that speaks against the government.

Bush wanted to limit protester's rights to "designated areas".

I'm sure there were ultra conservatives that saw women burning bras as pornographic.

Even Elvis was deemed pornographic shaking his hips.... now a days that just seems so dumb.  

How about Mr. Vogel's story as mentioned by Rick above?

How about the artist who put a cross in a glass container filled with Urine?  If Christians had free reign, art depicting their religious symbol would be outlawed.  Which means I'd be in jail for taking photos of crosses in my graveyard photos.

I'm sure others could also name other events where free speech was threatened because some group didn't agree.  I definitely can see myself someday being arrested because photography in general was deemed as inappropriate behavior.  

Don't forget, it was free speech that also spread the news of this scumbag which put people on the alert to look out for him.  

Please step away from the emotional aspect of this issue and see the bigger issue involved with the clamping down on a precious freedom.  The one thing you have to realize is that laws set precedence for the future.


I'm actually surprised given this reaction is coming from photographers who generally defend the right to speech.


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 16, 2007)

Sorry, that's over the top and out to lunch.  The laws are already on the books regarding the exploitation of minors.  What is needed here is that we tighten up the range of laws and make them more even and evenly administered.  IMO   What we are discussing here is just that- exploitation of a group that is unable to protect themselves either through inexperience or any of a myriad of other reasons due to their age.

But in answer to your questions:
1:  We the people do through our elected officials (if you don't vote, that's your problem).  The glitch is when we as individuals don't speak up for what we believe to be right- our cumulative voice is generally on the mark.

2:  That's not the US and a lot of our fellow citizens died and are dying to bring freedom and peace to the world.  Some may not like that but it's what we do.  We don't always get it right but at least we try.

3:  It wasn't too long ago that we had Nuks pointed at the Chinese. They are coming around but are a work in progress.

4:  President Bush is not the government although some would like to think so.  (He might be one of them )

5:  I never met any of them and I was around at the time.  Most of the people who were against it just thought it was dumb.  And the vast majority of the people who were against it were women.

6:  Yes he was and yes it does but the jury is still out on whether or not it would be best if it really were.

7:  Our legal system is not perfect but the case seems to have gotten straightened out.

8:  As to Robert Mapplethorpe, he did do other work that wasn't soup cans or juvenile shock-the-old-folks.  And I don't know what you have against Christians but anyone who is really following Christ doesn't have the time or inclination to Judge anyone else.  (there is a specific caution against that)

9:  There will always be someone who thinks that they can run your life better than you can which is why we have a constitution to guard against  it.  And a responsibility to keep ourselves from being a pest.  I would also suggest you drop the martyr complex before you manage to self fulfill it.

10:  I haven't and am not likely to- see my first post on this thread (3rd from the top)

11:  Step away from the emotional aspect?  You're kidding right?  I don't recall anyone demanding that pedifiles be buried alive.  As to clamping down, again- the laws are already on the books.  The thing you have to realize is that if we as a society loose our focus on what we are -and have been- about and embrace any and all behavior then there will not be a future for us.  At least none that most would call a future.  We will descend into chaos and drown in our own 'funk' just like the Romans.

And last, we photographers do enjoy our freedoms and our rights but most of us are mature enough to know that there is really no free lunch.

mike


----------



## usayit (Aug 16, 2007)

In all that mess you still haven't answered the question.

"Who decides what is appropriate and not appropriate forms of speech?"

The correct answer.. is no one can possibly make that decision fairly for all people in this country... period.

As seefutlung pointed out, California has done something about it... they did it in a way that doesn't step on peoples' rights.  They didn't pass broad reforms in reaction to an emotionally heated topic that can be easily abused.  

For me, this topic falls under the same reasons why civil liberties have been recently threatened because of the emotionally response to terrorism.  Look at the bigger picture.  I personally am not to quick to write off my rights (privacy for example) because of some terrible, emotional event.



> "That's not the US and a lot of our fellow citizens died and are dying to bring freedom and peace to the world. Some may not like that but it's what we do. We don't always get it right but at least we try."
> 
> "And I don't know what you have against Christians but anyone who is really following Christ doesn't have the time or inclination to Judge anyone else."



That is about the most naive statements I've seen in a long time.  How about a history lesson out of books not specifically written by Americans for Americans?  Here's a topic to get you started.. acquisition of Hawaii.    BTW.. I am raised Roman Catholic and for someone who doesn't have time to judge you sure are starting to pass one on me.  (I never said anything against Christians.)


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 17, 2007)

Here is something that may give you guys some food for thought when it comes to free speech.  As  I mentioned in one of my previous posts, I am a street shooter and since 9/11 I have been stopped and questioned numerous times by the police about what I am shooting.  I have taken it in stride knowing the situation the country is in and so forth.  I don't like being questioned, but I understand the reasons and for the most part, the police officers have been very nice and were just doing their job.  However, this particular incident, I think, shows how things can go wrong and how the abuse of power is never far from the surface.

After being stopped several times, my wife bought me a goofy T-shirt off the internet.  On the front was printed, "Street Photographer - Not a Terrorist."  So I wore it a couple of times while I was out doing some street shooting.  Once in downtown Fort Worth, a cop saw me and came over and was laughing about my shirt.  Turned out he was a photographer and we chatted a while about camera gear. 

The next week, I am in downtown Dallas shooting and I am wearing the same shirt.  I'm standing on a busy corner at lunch time shooting away when a squad car pulls up with two officers inside.  The driver motions me over and I thought, well, here we go again.  So I started reaching for one of my business cards as I was walking over.  When I got to the window, the cop looked point blank at me and said, "Do you think that shirt is funny?"  At first, I wasn't sure I heard him right and I just looked at him.  So once again, he said, "Do you find that shirt amusing?"  His tone was one of absolute hostility and I thought, you know, this is BS.  I replied, "Yes I do.   Do you?"  Which was the wrong thing to do.  Immediately, he and his partner are out of the car.  To make a long story short, by the time everything was done, a total of 6 officers were involved.  I was detained on the street corner for about 20-30 minutes while they checked me out.  Not one time, until the very end, was photography ever mentioned.  Finally, when it was decided that I was not a threat, the cop turned to me and said, "Well, you can be on your way now,  and oh yeah, watch what you take pictures of around here."

Basically what it came down to was that I was stopped not because of what I was shooting but because the officer did not like my t-shirt.  That's it.  This is what is cause for concern.  You know the old saying, if you give someone an inch, they'll take a mile.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 17, 2007)

Here is another one. I believe this was in North Richland Hills, another one of the small communities that comprises the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. This took place at a local park that is home to a huge array of softball and soccer fields where kids play. Some parents noticed a guy hanging out with a big DSLR and a big zoom, snapping photos of the kids playing ball. He was there one weekend, and then they noticed him there the next weekend, doing the same thing. On both occasions, he never had any kids of his own with him. One of the parents got his license plate number when he got in his car and drove off. They called the police.

The cops paid him a visit. He lived just a few minutes away from the park. He explained that his grandson played ball in another city and he had just got this new camera outfit and was practicing learning how to shoot sports. The officers told the guy that he was making some of the parents nervous and that if he did not have kids playing sports in that park then maybe he _should not visit that park._ The man had done absolutely nothing wrong. 

Now, some of the parents are trying to get the city to issue _ID cards _to folks who come to the park during organized sports activities for children. Where in hell does this rampant paranoia come from?

I don't know about you guys, but I don't want to have to carry around an ID card to walk into a public park that I help pay for with my taxes.

There is already a movement in this country for a National ID card.  This is how it starts.  Eventually the trickle becomes a full blown floodgate being opened.  Fortunately, in this case, the ACLU has warned the city council that if they pursue this ID card nonsense, they will take them to court.


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 17, 2007)

I did answer who, See answer #1. Whether it's fair or not is up to us and if anyone is concerned about a law being fair then they need to be active in their community and pick a party.  If a person is not a part of the system then they surely will have no say.  In any government something will surely be said so it behooves us all to speak up.

Yes California did a nice job, you seem to be the only one  talking about  broad laws being passed (you talk about being raised Catholic, I Am a Federalist Libertarian ) but if you will slow down and reread my post, all I said was that we need to be more consistent with the laws we have.

As to the last, go ask a dead soldier.  On the Hawaii, I don't need to.  I'm part Osage and part Choctaw and fully aware of some of our shortcomings.  As to the last, I was reacting to your statement-- "If Christians had free reign, art depicting their religious symbol would be outlawed."--  Christians do rule here as the the largest percentage of Americans of the identifiable groups claim to be Christians.

Any way, if any of this seems to be personally aimed at you I apologize, it was not meant to be so.

mike


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 17, 2007)

This isn't a clearly solvable issue because in a complex society there is always tension between sets of laws and the actions of the population. It is virtually impossible to write a law that forsees every future action and the way that action should be interpreted according to the law. 

Since I have a lot of free time - and am older, white and live in a upper-middle class community in suburban Maryland, if a police officer told me not to come back to a park without cause, I probably would come back several times and see how the local culture worked out the intricacies of the law. 

Of course, if I was a black man living in rural Mississippi, I'd make certain that the stakes were quite high before I tested the local culture.


----------



## usayit (Aug 17, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> I did answer who, See answer #1.



You didn't answer who... you basically just said "Some elected officials".

The reason why I brought up Hawaii was in response to this:

"That's not the US and a lot of our fellow citizens died and are dying to bring freedom and peace to the world. Some may not like that but it's what we do. We don't always get it right but at least we try."

There isn't a major conflct (war or police action) that the United States entered with pure intentions of bringing freedom and peace to the world.  If you truely believe that statement, that is a very naive stance.  Hawaii being one of the earliest examples... an acquisition based on money and pride, spearheaded by American businessment to protect interests, and enforced by the US military.  (History is one of my all time favorite topics.. I found the books I read in the US school system quite good at painting US history in good light.  I'm extremely anxious to read the Iraqi war chapter in US's version of history). 


I think I've made a good stance on the topic... specified a few examples.. and expressed my logic.  The traveler also expressed his stance with some personal experiences.  The response is a simple yet emotionally charged "get those pedifiles!!!"  

Our Fathers of the Constitution and the rights they gave us where absolutely brilliant!  Yes.. in some ways it is flawed but it is no way a reason to trample over them.


----------



## Seefutlung (Aug 17, 2007)

craig said:


> I personally would not visit his website. Certainly treading on what we perceive to be abnormal behavior. Fact is if we start labeling peoples views as sick or weird we are all in trouble. Above all we are free to do what we want in this country within the limits of basic laws. Of course the web is a lot harder to control. We have yet to see how that plays out.
> 
> If you feel strongly about it investigate further.
> 
> Love & Playa


 
I haven't a problem calling a pedophile "a sick bastard ... " to their face or or labeling a pedophile as a sick bastard to anyone that would listen and should be concerned. 

Unfortunately, it seems that the vast majority of people in this society and this world require an unpleasant alternative in order for them to do the honorable and right thing.

Based upon that assumption, there is nothing wrong with labeling people ... it is when we stop labeling people ... when people start feeling that they are teflon coated and can "get away" with doing dishonorable acts and that nobody will know or care about their action(s) ... is much more harmful for society than labeling.

Some cultures even tatoo a history of the person on that person's body ... not a bad idea if you ask me ... everything we do and speak reflects upon the person we are ... and a labeling system (although not perfect) is still a good way to identify and distinguish those who act with honor from those who do not.

Peace & Chicken Fat,
Gary


----------



## usayit (Aug 17, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> there is nothing wrong with labeling people ... it is when we stop labeling people



Ok... wow... now thats off the deep end...   Every bone in my body is against labeling people.. thats what you do i a military state.  Thats what you do to single people out.  That is the start of a degraded society.

Tell that the thousands of Japanese that were imprisoned "for their own protection" after being labeled a threat.

Tell that to the millions of Jews forced to wear a yellow star.

Tell that to the thousands of people who do not have the same rights as we do because they are gay.

oh jeeze... there is so much wrong with that statement that an entire forum could be dedicated.


----------



## Seefutlung (Aug 17, 2007)

usayit said:


> Ok... wow... now thats off the deep end... Every bone in my body is against labeling people.. thats what you do i a military state. Thats what you do to single people out. That is the start of a degraded society.
> 
> Tell that the thousands of Japanese that were imprisoned "for their own protection" after being labeled a threat.
> 
> ...


 
Oh please ... there is nothing wrong with calling a Democrat a Democrat, a Jew a Jew, a Muslin a Muslin, a short person a short person, a hero a hero, a photographer a photographer, et cetera.

There is something wrong when you infringe upon an entire group and wrongly accuse and carry out a sentance upon them.

These are two completely separate actions ... don't get them confused. Saying that labeling is the first step which will ultimately lead to wronglfuly accusing and sentancing people is poppycock ... that is like saying the frabrication of cars creates traffic fatalities ...

Gary


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 17, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> I haven't a problem calling a pedophile "a sick bastard ... " to their face or or labeling a pedophile as a sick bastard to anyone that would listen and should be concerned.



If you saw a pretty girl and thought she was incredibly hot and that wouldn't mind having sex with her - but she was, in reality, actually under the age of consent - does the thought make you a criminal?  Pedophiles are indeed sick because this kind of deviation from the norm is considered by most advanced cultures to a dangerous mental disease but being sick or having 'sick' thoughts doesn't make anyone a criminal until he/she actually acts out in some way. To punish someone because of how they think , making thought criminals, is a dangerous trend.  It is difficult in a free society to protect all the vulnerable without trampling on others' rights is the challenge that faces all advanced societies.



Seefutlung said:


> Unfortunately, it seems that the vast majority of people in this society and this world require an unpleasant alternative in order for them to do the honorable and right thing.
> Gary



This is a high-faluting generalization that sounds like it should mean something but I honestly don't understand what you mean.



Seefutlung said:


> Based upon that assumption, there is nothing wrong with labeling people ... it is when we stop labeling people ... when people start feeling that they are teflon coated and can "get away" with doing dishonorable acts and that nobody will know or care about their action(s) ... is much more harmful for society than labeling.


 
These are bad arguments; complete generalizations and have nothing to do with free speech issues which is the only thing that we are competent to talk about.



Seefutlung said:


> Some cultures even tatoo a history of the person on that person's body ... not a bad idea if you ask me ... everything we do and speak reflects upon the person we are ... and a labeling system (although not perfect) is still a good way to identify and distinguish those who act with honor from those who do not.



Who decides whether anyone gets tattooed, and what measure of crime deserves it? Does one bad act, even if the actor is subsequently remorseful and behaves well means that the actor is labeled for life? Double parking,?shoplifting? 

I understand your passion about this particular subject but large negative generalizations lead society in the wrong direction.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 17, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> These are two completely separate actions ... don't get them confused. Saying that labeling is the first step which will ultimately lead to wronglfuly accusing and sentancing people is poppycock ...
> Gary



History proves you wrong. Labeling groups is virtually always a precursor of repression by society when the groups are in the minority.


----------



## Jeffm73 (Aug 17, 2007)

I don't know. The fact that pedophillia is so common is disturbing in and of itself. 

I don't think that we need new laws to have protection from them though. I think we need to actually enforce the laws we already have.


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 17, 2007)

Jeffm73 said:


> I don't know. The fact that pedophillia is so common is disturbing in and of itself.
> 
> I don't think that we need new laws to have protection from them though. I think we need to actually enforce the laws we already have.



Another voice of reason.


----------



## usayit (Aug 17, 2007)

Jeffm73 said:


> I don't know. The fact that pedophillia is so common is disturbing in and of itself.
> 
> I don't think that we need new laws to have protection from them though. I think we need to actually enforce the laws we already have.



Thumbs Up!  

Broad laws are almost always destructive in the long term.  Solving today's issues with laws already on the books is always the first logical step.  Legally limiting this pedofile's behavior is the only logical choice at this time.  ( example: Californian judge imposed a 10 yard required distance from children)  The final step would to make sure this fellow gets the fullest extent of the law if he does cross the line into criminal activity (Arresting of this pedofile once he broke that 10 yard limit for example).


All the lessons we need are in the pages of history.....






My wife's victoria secret catalogs has some underaged model's wearing less than the photos on that pedofile's web page.


----------



## Seefutlung (Aug 17, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> History proves you wrong. Labeling groups is virtually always a precursor of repression by society when the groups are in the minority.


*sigh* Nope two distinct actions.
Just because society creates/mandates labels does not mean that those labels must be used in pogroms.  Back to the car... just because cars are manufactured does not mean that each car will cause a fatal accident or that the cars themselves are 100% contributory to the fatality. And again like cars, if we didn't have any then there would be any fatal car accidents ... and sure if there wasn't any labeling then there couldn'yt be any broad brush actions against any profiled groups.  Just because fatal car accidents are back does not make cars bad ... just because pogroms are horrific does not make labeling horrific.   

We are all labled ... like it or not ... an infant is labeled a "baby" at birth.
We are labeled by others, pretty or handsome or ugly, tall, short ...
Labeled by ourselves ... Republican, Democrat, Christen, Muslin ... 
Labeled by society, black/Afro-American, white, Hispanic, Native American, Asia/Pacific Islander, poor, rich, liberal, conservative ...
Labeled by our actions ...  swinger, hard worker, honest, wise, stupid, ... even pedophile...

What we do with those labels individually and as a collective society is a different action from creating the labels.

Personally, once again, I'd like to see labels which are created by our actions be like medals or merit badges ... the good and the bad, displayed in the open everywhere we go.  Of course this isn't practical, it will never happen and in some cases may be more harmful than beneficial ... but it would make for an interesting society and culture where all you have done ... both good and bad is on your shirt sleeve for all to see (in many respects similar to the military.)

Gary


----------



## usayit (Aug 17, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> *sigh* Nope two distinct actions.



Nope not two distinct actions.  Officially labeling a person isn't completely different from stating that I am tall, short, female, and male if they are precursors for discrimination.  Thats like saying a slave owner didn't murder a man.. he just terminated a slave's contract.

Nothing you have said can be backed historically.  We could name hundreds of ways officially labeling a group of people leads to problems.  Remember how much "Seperate but equal" laws were a complete failure in protecting citizens of color?



> Just because society creates/mandates labels does not mean that those labels must be used in pogroms.  Back to the car...



#1 cars have no rights
#2 pogroms are obvious but equally as bad as discrimination of a group of labeled people.  
#3 we don't need official labels to discriminate... it just makes it easier.



> Personally, once again, I'd like to see labels which are created by our actions be like medals or merit badges ... the good and the bad, displayed in the open everywhere we go.  Of course this isn't practical,
> 
> .... (in many respects similar to the military.)



Ah.. like the jewish yellow stars?  how about the branding of slaves?  all merit badges eh...  How about the reverse swastika that was held so highly not too long ago?  How about the scalps and ears?  There was even a small movement to register or "label" HIV patients back in the height of AIDS fear.  Some people believe we should register the illiterate to prevent the uneducated from voting.

You seriously would want a military society?  I can name a dozen military regimes I would rather die than see materialize on this soil.

Not one thing you have said can be backed up historically as a good thing for our society.


----------



## 1JP (Aug 17, 2007)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Can you sit there and tell me that Wilson is not a sexual predator, just because this is the first time he was arrested?


No, I can tell  you he is a sexual predator and I think I see where you're going with this.

His first arrest only means the first time he was caught. How many times do people here travel at speeds over the posted limit? Now, how many times have  you been caught. How many times have you drank and drove? Now, how many times have you been caught? How many people do you know that were arrested for doing something for the first time? How many do you know that haven't been caught doing something they should be?

Kids, innocence . If there is anything in  this world that needs to be protected from predators, is kids. ACLU thinks differently. Look at the ones that prey on young boys, MBLA. The ACLU has been protecting them for years. This is just not right.


----------



## usayit (Aug 17, 2007)

So we should prosecute and jail anyone who *might* break the law?

If someone is has been caught first offence speeding, we should take their license away because they *most likely* broke the law previously?

If someone is jailed for public intoxication, we should also arrest them for drinking and driving since they *most likely* did that too?

There is no way to prosecute "what if's" without impacting the rights of others.

As I said.. Wilson would not have been classified as a sexual preditor in most states.  Most states understand that a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old makes the 17 year old no more a sexual preditor than a 15 year old having sex with a 13 year old.  I've got news for you... teenagers do have sex.

This McClellan fellow.. now thats a monster.. preditor.. pedophile that will be dealt according to the laws we have in place.. no more .. no less.



Seperation of church and state
Seperation of moralities and legalities


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 17, 2007)

1JP said:


> No, I can tell you he is a sexual predator and I think I see where you're going with this.
> 
> His first arrest only means the first time he was caught. How many times do people here travel at speeds over the posted limit? Now, how many times have you been caught. How many times have you drank and drove? Now, how many times have you been caught? How many people do you know that were arrested for doing something for the first time? How many do you know that haven't been caught doing something they should be?
> 
> Kids, innocence . If there is anything in this world that needs to be protected from predators, is kids. ACLU thinks differently. Look at the ones that prey on young boys, MBLA. The ACLU has been protecting them for years. This is just not right.


 
There is a huge mis-conception about the ACLU and the NAMBLA case. This is off the top of my head, so I may not be exact on all of the details. The NAMBLA case stemmed from two guys who kidnapped and raped a young boy. They told the police they got the idea from the NAMBLA website.

The parents then decided to sue NAMBLA. The ACLU stepped in because at that point, it became a freedom of speech case. In other words, as despicible and whacked out as NAMBLA's views are, well, guess what? They still have a right to freedom of speech. They can _think_ whatever they want. In a well known case years before this one, the parents of a teenager who killed himself sued the heavy metal band Judas Priest because the parents believed that the band's music drove their son to do it. Fortunately, the band won the case. 

People have to take responsibility for their actions. The ACLU has stated many times that they never agreed in any way, shape, or form with the belief's of NAMBLA. But when it came to their right to freedom of speech, that is when the ACLU agreed to take the case. 

The ACLU has defended many, many unpopular organizations and individuals. The have represented the KKK and Nazi organizations in their right to assemble and march. Our rights that we have are _for everyone, _not just a few of us. The ACLU even offerred their services to Rush Limbaugh during his legal battles concerning his medical records. 

The ACLU is not perfect and their zest in pursuing certain matters can border on excessive behaviour, but it is an organization that we are lucky to have.


----------



## usayit (Aug 17, 2007)

What do you know.... the headline on the ACLU webpage concerns congress handing over vast new powers to the Bush administration to invade the right to privacy.  

Civil rights given away by leveraging the fear of terrorism.

Kinda like...

 giving away the right to free speech by leveraging the fear of pedophiles.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 17, 2007)

Usayit and Rick Waldroup - good thinking


----------



## THORHAMMER (Aug 17, 2007)

as a father of a 2 year old,  I dont care what the politically correct thing to say is, this guy is sick and disturbed, and yes what he is doing is WRONG. There is a right and wrong. Even if we dont want to see it. 

Get this trash off the streets please


----------



## usayit (Aug 17, 2007)

double post.. my son was playin with the mouse.. hehehe lol


----------



## usayit (Aug 17, 2007)

THORHAMMER said:


> as a father of a 2 year old,  I dont care what the politically correct thing to say is, this guy is sick and disturbed, and yes what he is doing is WRONG. There is a right and wrong. Even if we dont want to see it.
> 
> Get this trash off the streets please



I'd also like to get KKK, Neo-Nazi's, pedophiles, gangs of the streets too...

What if I said smoking is a violation of the sacred human body and should be completely banned in the United States?  Wouldn't you want the right to voice your disagreement?

As a father of an 8 month old, I want my son to have the same civil liberties that we enjoy today.  

I can protect him from pedophiles.  I can't protect him from an oppressive society or government.


RIGHT and WRONG has nothing to do with it just as morality has nothing to do with legality.


----------



## 1JP (Aug 17, 2007)

usayit said:


> So we should prosecute and jail anyone who *might* break the law?


My point was and still is, just because he was arrested once does not mean he only did it once. How many times has he gotten away with it prior to his arrest? That's the question.  We all speed, we all break laws in some fashion just about everyday.  How many times do we actually get caught?

For all that defend these predators, how would you like one living next door to you? Do you have a right to know? And I really find humor in the ones that state they can defend their own children. I'm sure everyone feels that way until it happens to them and then they wonder how something like this could have happened. It's easy, the predators are protected by the same laws that we are and they seem to work a lot better for them than your child.  That's the injustice.

And again, this is about pedophiles, not the ban on smoking or the views that some have against other races. You mentioned the KKK, did you realize the federal government violated their civil rights in  the 60's and 70's to get them off the streets? Yes they did.  Was it worth it? Ask someone who was on the receiving end of their hate if it was worth it back then.

Political Correctness changes with time. At one point "A" is accepted and "B" is not.  As time passes "A" is no longer accepted, but "B" now is.  Political Correctness, one thing that is never politically correct is pedophilia.


----------



## usayit (Aug 17, 2007)

1JP said:


> My point was and still is, just because he was arrested once does not mean he only did it once. How many times has he gotten away with it prior to his arrest? That's the question.  We all speed, we all break laws in some fashion just about everyday.  How many times do we actually get caught?




And my point still is the same...  you can't prosecute something you have no evidence.  Wilson in this case is a 17 year old kid only guilty of one thing.. being a horny teenager.  I repeat, a kid at 15 having sex with a 13 year old (who has not broken any Georgian laws) is no more a predator than a 17 year old sleeping with a 15 year old.  Other states make leeway in their definition of "age of consent".  Are we so black and white that we can't see that the punishment should fit the crime?

Don't confuse Wilson with McClellan.  Two absolutely different people. Two different cases.  I would absolutely pursue for legally limiting McClellan's activities and prosecuting to the fullest allowed by law.  Wilson on the other hand is a 17 year old who had a future and Georgian law destroyed it because of a mistake.

Have you ever heard of the term "innocent until proven guilty?.  A speeder who pleads guilty is only guilty of ONE count of speeding.  Not ONE count of speeding PLUS the possibilities of previous occurance of speeding PLUS the future occurances of speeding.  Thats just plain stupid no matter how you spin it.... 



> For all that defend these predators, how would you like one living next door to you?



I DO NOT DEFEND SEXUAL PREDATORS NO MORE THAN ACLU DEFENDS THE KKK values and beliefs.  Where do you get that logic?  I defend citizens' rights.



> That's the injustice.



You know what is injustice?  Prosecuting people on the pretense that they did the crime before and will do it again without any evidence.  Thats what you call Injustice.  Defintion of injustice " the quality of being fair".  Not a single thing you stated is fair.



> And again, this is about pedophiles, not the ban on smoking or the views that some have against other races. You mentioned the KKK, did you realize the federal government violated their civil rights in  the 60's and 70's to get them off the streets? Yes they did.  Was it worth it? Ask someone who was on the receiving end of their hate if it was worth it back then.



BTW.. I have been on the receiving end of the KKK's aggression... and I will leave it at that (I dare not say what is on my mind at this point.. ANGRY)  That group graces my campus (Texas A&M) on occasion.  I'm one of those people who show up to protest.  On the other token, I'd be one of the first to defend their right to free speech if necessary.

This as everything about smoking.. other groups.. races .etc..  Because each of those things involves people's right to speech.  It is the right to speak against or for it.  It is easy for you to say that the ends justify the means, if you have never been on the other side of the equation.

Say that to my gay friend who has no rights to be at his dying partner's side on the last days of life.  A loving relationship of more than 10 years.  Its all ok by many people's book, because THEIR definition of marriage (Seperation of church and State? anyone?) is protected... end justify the means eh.  B.S.!!!!



> Political Correctness changes with time. At one point "A" is accepted and "B" is not.  As time passes "A" is no longer accepted, but "B" now is.





> Political Correctness, one thing that is never politically correct is pedophilia.



WOW.. this is EXACTLY one of the points I was try to say up there (somewhere).  Laws set the stage for the future and all cases afterwards.  They have to be TIMELESS and FAIR.  You said A is accepted B is not.. as time passes A is no longer accepted B now is.  This is the exact reason why laws shouldn't be hastily written to prevent "B" in the first place.

This is just not about pedophilia... This is about the right of Freedom of Speech and the laws that set PRECEDENCE.  Far greater than just pedophilia.  We already have laws against pedophilia.  Use them.   We don't need laws preventing freedom speech.

There are a lot of things that are not politically correct.  Calling a black man the N word for example... its still not breaking the law.


----------



## 1JP (Aug 17, 2007)

usayit said:


> And my point still is the same...  you can't prosecute something you have no evidence.
> 
> Don't confuse Wilson with McClellan.  I would absolutely pursue for legally limiting McClellan's activities and prosecuting to the fullest allowed by law.
> 
> ...


* I never stated anything about prosecuting without evidence. I was simply pointing out that just because an individual is caught for the first time does not mean it was his first time committing said offense. He most likely has been committing those same offenses for some time. Some people feel that the first time a person is caught is the first time they ever committed that crime and that's just BS. I guess those that believe that would be considered naive. 
*Thanks for that clarification.
*Innocent until proven guilty, I have heard that term more times than I can count. Again, my point had to do with the naive.
*You defend citizen rights. The same citizens that commit heinous crimes against  our youth.  I understand  where you stand and why you do, I just cannot for the life of me  give two  $#*%! about an individual that preys on our youth. I can distinguish a predator versus a speeder, a stop sign violator, a smoker and the list goes on. Sexual predators should be eradicated from the face of this earth, there is no reason for these people to breathe. Can we teach them to think differently? Are you willing to bet your child against that? I'm not.
* This was a topic on pedophiles, that's where I'm trying to keep it. Not turning this into a moral and political debate.
* You can call a black, a "N" in New Jersey? (I think not) Not all speech is free.  Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct  are some laws that actually limit speech and are found throughout the USA.


----------



## Seefutlung (Aug 17, 2007)

Rick Waldroup said:


> ... People have to take responsibility for their actions. ...
> 
> The ACLU is not perfect and their zest in pursuing certain matters can border on excessive behaviour, but it is an organization that we are lucky to have.




^5 Rick ... I agree.

Our freedoms are not measured by what society accepts but rather by what is tolerated.

Gary


----------



## usayit (Aug 17, 2007)

1JP said:


> * I never stated anything about prosecuting without evidence. I was simply pointing out that just because an individual is caught for the first time does not mean it was his first time committing said offense. He most likely has been committing those same offenses for some time. Some people feel that the first time a person is caught is the first time they ever committed that crime and that's just BS. I guess those that believe that would be considered naive.



Fine.. understod. you simply pointing something out as naive.  If the law must be naive then we are all lucky or else there would be countless of innocent civilians in jail at this time.


> *You defend citizen rights. The same citizens that commit heinous crimes against  our youth.  I understand  where you stand and why you do, I just cannot for the life of me  give two  $#*%! about an individual that preys on our youth. ...
> Can we teach them to think differently? Are you willing to bet your child against that? I'm not.


Funny.. Prosecution of in the Salem Witch Trials had a similar notion. You remember that famous case... young children (you say "youths").. accused several adults (citizens).... of witchcraft (pedophilia)... Neither are rehabilitatable ("unteachable").. with little or no evidence (you said they "most likely did it several times").. which resulted in a stiff punishment (death or long imprisonment).

I should look up a sexual abuse case that went too far on a child's deception.  Wanna bet I can find at least one?

See what I'm driving at?  Trampling over the civil liberties we all have been given to chase after a particular group of people (terrorists, murders, pedophiles) threatens the very thing that makes us a civilized nation. PERIOD.  No if's and or but's.

BTW.. you did say "citizens" who commit crimes.  They are that.. CITIZENS until proven guilty.  With that notion you are suggesting that that CITIZEN has rights until proven in a court of law to be pedophile who has broken some laws.  Simply thinking about sex with a child or taking pictures (clothed) of child does not mean a law has been broken.  

They say the typical male thinks about sex hundred times a day.. boy are we in trouble.  Or perhaps you are one that goes and asks for ID/driver's license before allowing your thoughts to proceed.

seriously... 

Look at the bigger picture.. Laws set precedence now and forever.  Laws must not be driven by an emotional response to trample over civil liberties.  If we allow that to happen, we all suffer.. WE ALL LOOSE.



> * You can call a black, a "N" in New Jersey? (I think not) Not all speech is free.  Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct  are some laws that actually limit speech and are found throughout the USA.



As far as I know, using the N word in NJ or NY is not a crime in of itself.  Used in the course of disorderly conduct or fighting is but the act of causing disorderly conduct or disruption of peace precedes the use of the N word.  NYC council has attempted to bann the N-word.  It has hit a road block from both sides of the fence.. all fearing that a breach in FREE SPEECH. It is now consider a "resolution" which means it is completely unenforceable.

If it did passed... I want to gather a group and push for a ban on ORIENTAL.  Dman it!  I'm not oriental.. items are oriental.. I'm asian.. more specifically a Pacific Islander.  See how completely stupid this can degrade into?


----------



## usayit (Aug 17, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> ^5 Rick ... I agree.
> 
> Our freedoms are not measured by what society accepts but rather by what is tolerated.
> 
> Gary



Exactly... I'm willing to tolerate that sick website for our freedom of speech.

Once his activities go beyond that website.. arrest him.. jail him.. for as long as the law permits.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Aug 18, 2007)

I dont think I would want to be defending this guy, wow.... 
Its just common sense, this guy is sick. 
nobodys perfect, but this guy is trying to rationalize it.... 

I guess theres no room anymore in todays PC culture to speak the truth. 
this guy is wack...


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 18, 2007)

Recently, I had an interesting conversation with a gentleman at my little grandson's birthday party. It was at an amusement park that specializes in birthday parties. I was outside taking photos of all the kids on the carnival rides when he approached me and asked if I was with the birthday party. I told him I was the boy's grandad and he pointed out his daughter and asked that I please make sure not to take any photos of her. At first I wasn't quite sure what he was getting at. 

I told him, that well, she might be in some of the photos alongside my grandson and that also, later on, I had planned to gather all the kids and take a group photo. He said to let him know when I was going to do that and he would make sure to pull his daughter out of the group. So finally, I just asked him what the problem was with having photos of his daughter. He told me that he just did not want any _unauthorized _photos of his daughter out there floating around on the net or whatever. He was very serious about this. He told me that one just never knows what people will _do_ with the photos, etc....

This is outdoors at an amusement park with kids doing what kids do best- they were playing and having a good time. When did so many of us become this paranoid about our kids? When did the simple act of pointing a camera at a kid become a menacing threat? How does the simple act of taking a photo of a kid become a _bad _thing and something to be feared.

When it came time for the group photo, none of the other parents minded, but he did exactly what he told me he would do- he pulled his little girl aside. 

Who in hell wants to live their life in fear like this? Not me.

Of course, every parent needs to exercise caution when it comes to their children. That, and a good, healthy dose of common sense would also seem to be in order. Not blind, irrational fear.


----------



## Seefutlung (Aug 18, 2007)

Rick-

I think he's more of a control freak ... here is something he can control and claim he's doing so under good parenting.  

I was shooting a h/s school play and a teacher who had a principal role in the play asked me not to shoot her ... I didn't respond and just kept on shooting the play.  Just because she's fat she wanted me to shoot every other scene ... how rational is that? I guess as rational as the fear of having a stranger with unauthorized photos of your daughter ...

Gary


----------



## usayit (Aug 18, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> Rick-
> 
> I think he's more of a control freak ... here is something he can control and claim he's doing so under good parenting.






> "He told me that he just did not want any unauthorized photos of his daughter out there floating around on the net or whatever."



I wouldn't say control freak...  simply paranoid.

Control freaks don't give reasons for their actions. In their mind they control the situation and don't need to justify their actions/decisions.  Usually their responses to inquiries are simply "because I don't want to".


----------



## 1JP (Aug 18, 2007)

usayit said:


> As far as I know, using the N word in NJ or NY is not a crime in of itself.  Used in the course of disorderly conduct or fighting is but the act of causing disorderly conduct or disruption of peace precedes the use of the N word.


If one person is in hearing shot of that "N" word and is offended by it, causes alarm to them, it now is not free speech, that's how simple it is. It just became a crime.


----------



## usayit (Aug 18, 2007)

1JP said:


> If one person is in hearing shot of that "N" word and is offended by it, causes alarm to them, it now is not free speech, that's how simple it is. It just became a crime.



Please specify specific events, cases, or point me to the law stating so.  Point me to something???  If it were already illegal then why was the NYC council blocked from making it a law in NYC??  

Name calling is not considered illegal!  If so, we've got a whole middle school of kids that should be in jail.

The only limitations to free speech that comes to mind immediately is when someone threatens to kill someone or cause harm.


----------



## Jeffm73 (Aug 18, 2007)

> When did so many of us become this paranoid about our kids? When did the simple act of pointing a camera at a kid become a menacing threat? How does the simple act of taking a photo of a kid become a _bad _thing and something to be feared.


You can thank the media for that. It seems that ethics went right out the window with the birth of 24 hour news networks trying to one up each other.
Stories are now so sensationalized, that they almost become half truths.


----------



## usayit (Aug 18, 2007)

definitely ethics are out the window... not just media.    There was a time that we looked up to CEOs as an important honest, hardworking individual that was intrusted with the well being of a corporation.  Now?  eh? many are no different from petty crooks.  

Also the world itself is a lot smaller with the internet and news channels.  

A single terrible event.. like a bridge falling for example..  suddenly the entire nation is scared that ALL our bridges are going to fall. ( I think the news here locally suddenly named 3 major bridged throughways that were supposedly now unsafe. )

 If a mass murder occurs in a quiet neighborhood in Dallas Texas, suddenly everyone from Maine to Washington are suspicious of their neighbors. 

I think the media and news has gone through an explosion of technology recently.  News.. terrible news travels fast.  It will take a while until the general public is used to that fact.


----------



## glaston (Aug 18, 2007)

"Thought Crime" is a pre-cursor to a totalitarian state.

I don't agree with the thoughts these people have, but I don't support thought police ideology either.

Next thing you know, people are being charged for speaking out against political policies since that 'could' lead to civil disobedience or political agitation.

Then nobody is safe except those who keep quiet and just accept whatever comes at them.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 18, 2007)

usayit said:


> Please specify specific events, cases, or point me to the law stating so.  Point me to something???  If it were already illegal then why was the NYC council blocked from making it a law in NYC??
> 
> Name calling is not considered illegal!  If so, we've got a whole middle school of kids that should be in jail.
> 
> The only limitations to free speech that comes to mind immediately is when someone threatens to kill someone or cause harm.


_Lawful Regulation on Speech_ *

Obscenity. *Speech defined as obscenity is outside the       boundaries of First Amendment protection. As defined by       *Miller       v. California*, obscenity is speech that (1) the average       person, applying contemporary community standards, would find,       taken as a whole, to appeal to the prurient interest; (2)       depicts or describes in a patently offensive manner       specifically defined sexual conduct; and (3) lacks as a whole       serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The       definition of obscenity, developed in 1973, focuses on a local       "community standard," and has proven to be the crux of       litigation surrounding internet censorship cases, which by       their nature cannot depend upon local community standards.       Further information is available at EPIC's COPA       Litigation Page.

*Fighting Words. *Speech likely to provoke an average       listener to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of peace,       falls outside the protection of the First Amendment because the       words have no important role in the marketplace of ideas the       freedom of speech is designed to promote. *Chaplinsky       v. New Hampshire*.

*Commercial Speech. *Commercial speech, which was       warranted no protection by the Court until 1980 in*Central       Hudson Gas & Electric*, is now protected under an       intermediate level of scrutiny because the motivation to market       goods and services is believed sufficient to overcome any chill       caused by government regulation. The government can ban       deceptive or illegal commercial speech; any other regulation       must be supported by a substantial interest to be achieved by       restrictions, regulations in proportion to that interest, and a       limitation on expression designed carefully to achieve the       state's goal.

*Incitement ("clear and present danger"). *The       government can regulate speech that is intended and likely to       incite "imminent lawless action," or where the speech presents       a "clear and present danger" to the security of the nation.       *Brandenburg       v. Ohio*._Relevant case law: _​
*Schenck          v. United States*. Upholding defendants' convictions          under the Espionage Act for distribution of anti-war          materials during World War I because even "the most          stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man          in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a          panic."
*Time Place and Manner. *Content-neutral regulation of       the time, place, or manner of speech that does not interfere       with the message being delivered and leaves open adequate       alternative channels of communication is permissible.

*Libel/Slander. *In *New       York Times Co. v. Sullivan*, the Supreme Court       recognized that expansive libel protection chills speech       because speakers will be less likely to publish if they can be       punished merely for being wrong. Therefore, the First Amendment       requires public officials and public figures prove "actual       malice" (knowing or reckless disregard for the truth of the       statement). Public figures include those with fame, notoriety,       and those who have injected themselves into the public debate       on an issue. However, in *Gertz       v. Welch*, the Court limited this expansive protection       to public figure, _not _public causes: a publisher of       defamatory statements about an individual who is neither a       public official nor a public figure may not claim protection       against liability for defamation on the ground that the       statements concern an issue of public or general interest.       Private figures must prove that a statement is false, and that       the speaker engaged in some degree of negligence (mere falsity       of the statement is insufficient). Laws vary state to       state._Relevant case law: _​
*Hustler          Magazine v. Falwell*. Public figures and public          officials may not recover for the tort of outrage          (intentional infliction of emotional distress) without          proving actual malice.
Here is a good start: 
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/​


----------



## usayit (Aug 19, 2007)

Sheesh.. drop it already.  How many people you know got thrown in jail for calling someone else a name...

---
Miller vs California:
---------
He was found guilty by a California state court of having violated California Penal Code 311.2 (a), a misdemeanor, by knowingly distributing obscene material.

Limits distributing of obscene material.   Not really applicable to name calling.  

------
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.
----------------

This is the closest to being applicable... BUT... never actually sustained in recent time.

"Since Chaplinsky was handed down, the Court has never sustained a conviction for "fighting words" in expression directed at a public official."  http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Chaplinsky_v_NH

So good luck pulling this one in this day and time.


The name calling itself is not considered illegal unless you can prove the "fighting" portion of the "fighting words". 

-----
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
---------------------------
Limits deceptive commercial advertising.  Not applicable

-------
Brandenburg v. Ohio
---------------------
"It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action."

This means that you have to first demonstrate that intent to incite imminent lawless action.  

----------
Schenck v. United States
----------------------
Limits speach with the intent to intice insubordination in the US Military.  Not applicable

----------
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
-----------------------
"The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity."

You have to prove that the intent was to spread false information that implies truth to harm the reputation of individual.


-------------
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
----------
"actual malice" standard for press reporting about public figure to be libel

Again not applicable.


The pure action of calling someone a name isn't illegal.  It is the intention precedes the action.  


You can do better than just simply googling...


*Back to the topic in the OP*.  The link you provided actually has some information that are important to the topic being discussed. (in case you forgot... Mr. Mclellan)

"Supreme Court Considers Internet Censorship Law" which relates to COPA.  Do a wikipedia search on COPA for some easier reading.  You will find that the courts have struck down this law numerous times:

* .. ruling that it was too broad in using "community standards" as part of the definition of harmful materials.
*..this time finding that it would hinder protected speech among adults

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

* On March 22, 2007, U.S. District Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr. once again struck down the Child Online Protection Act,[7] finding the law facially violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Reed issued an order permanently enjoining the government from enforcing COPA, commenting that "perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.

The Judged said it better than I have by stating that we will do the minors of this country harm by limiting their First Amendment "protections" even in the name of protecting them.  

As I said, I want my son to enjoy the Freedom of Speech.


----------



## 1JP (Aug 21, 2007)

usayit said:


> Sheesh.. drop it already.  How many people you know got thrown in jail for calling someone else a name...


Thanks Gry...I figured he was well versed with the use of the Internet and he could have found it himself.

Drop it already? Stop asking for it. I know of lots of occasions where people were arrested for Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct.  Too many to list.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 21, 2007)

1JP said:


> I know of lots of occasions where people were arrested for Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct.  Too many to list.



you need to hang out with a better crowd.


----------



## usayit (Aug 21, 2007)

and google harder.

none of the cut and pasting he did actually showed cases that fall under breach of peace or disorderly conduct.

Both are considered weak "catch-all'' used by police... neither include strict name-calling without proof of intent to incite other "unacceptable" conduct.

Simply saying "comon.. take off your bra and shirt" to a drunk girl in public can result in a disorderly conduct charge.  

I'd take The_traveler's advice and find a better crowd...


Wasn't this thread about McClellan?


----------



## danalec99 (Aug 21, 2007)

usayit said:


> Wasn't this thread about McClellan?


Yup and they dropped the charges against him!


----------



## usayit (Aug 21, 2007)

danalec99 said:


> Yup and they dropped the charges against him!



.." judge who issued the order failed to set a hearing to argue its merits and had not given the 45-year-old transient proper notice."

Grrr.... That judge really screwed up.


----------

