# Bill Henson aftermath



## ThePup (Jun 22, 2008)

What a crock of.... You know what...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23899983-2,00.html

Unfortunatly there's no room for comments at the bottom of the story    These parents need to be told that, as long as the game is played on council land (Almost a certinty) then there's NO legal way the club can prevent them taking photos.... Snap away, tell the club to shove their rules up their neither regions.


----------



## Miaow (Jun 22, 2008)

There's been a few schools and clubs banning photo taking here (Vic) at sports events even before the Henson 'scandal' happened, so it isn't new that this is happening.


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 22, 2008)

While there may be an element of a paedophile lurking around every corner waiting to take opportunistic photographs of your child, the current hysteria is also firmly grounded in the fear of Clubs, Officials and Committee Members being sued/criticised/taken to court if an unauthorised photograph appears somewhere it shouldn't...
Take for example Mr Bianchino's 9 yr old daughter - what if "somebody else" took a photograph of the girl on the same day, the same netball court, the same game, and "that" photograph was published on the "Dodgy Lurkers" forum...
What do you think Mr Bianchino would have to say about that..?? Methinks he would promptly contact the Club and abuse the crep out of them for failing in their "duty of care to protect children"... probably would have a reasonable chance of litigation too...
And you can't just say "Oh well, Dads should be allowed to take photographs of their kids at sporting venues and where-ever..."
It's been widely publicised recently that some Dads (??how many??) are also paedophiles and their own children are victims... Well, what's to stop paedophile Dads taking photographs on the netball court that also include other girls, in the background... Well, there's nothing to stop him cos he has permission cos he's a Dad so there's nothing stopping him from taking photographs of the team-play...
So the only solution seems to be: NO PHOTOGRAPHY ALLOWED...
Jedo


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 22, 2008)

Anyways, Bill Henson's photographs of naked 13 year old girls showing their breasts and genitalia don't come into this at all...
Those photographs are *ART*... aren't they????
And that's official...
Jedo


----------



## tempra (Jun 22, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> Take for example Mr Bianchino's 9 yr old daughter - what if "somebody else" took a photograph of the girl on the same day, the same netball court, the same game, and "that" photograph was published on the "Dodgy Lurkers" forum...
> What do you think Mr Bianchino would have to say about that..??



I think he might have to explain himself to the authorities as to why he was there in the first place.

Right wing tabloid press does indeed rule the world.


----------



## Tiberius47 (Jun 22, 2008)

Most pedophiles that want to secretly take photos of children at the weekend soccer match aren't standing on the sidelines with a 5D and a 70-300 f2.8.

hard to hide that.


----------



## Emerana (Jun 22, 2008)

Wow, that is...

I am actually against people taking easily recognizable photos of young children on the street.  Just as a mom it doesnt sit right and I know I would be very angry and concerned if someone was snapping away on my kids.  I know, it isnt the popular view here.  But it is how I feel as a mother of two young children and I am a mom before a photographer.

But this is absurd!  You cant take photos of your own kids playing sports?!?!  How does it even have anything to do with that artsit guy?


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 22, 2008)

tempra said:


> I think he might have to explain himself to the authorities as to why he was there in the first place.
> 
> Right wing tabloid press does indeed rule the world.


 
This comment conveniently dodges the scenario of the paedophile dad...
He has a RIGHT to be there... taking photographs... It's his daughter... Tough if other people's daughters 'happen' to be in the frame...

Easy to denegrate Right Wing Tabloid Press, tempra - but maybe - just maybe, they have a point here...

I think it was Battou (apologies if not) who made the point that today's paedophiles achieve their perverted gratification with pictures and photographs of children fully dressed in normal attire... 
Bill Henson's "ART" photographs are apparently LESS appealing to these grubs than images of every-day children in every-day clothing...
Look at the big picture...
Jedo


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 22, 2008)

Tiberius47 said:


> Most pedophiles that want to secretly take photos of children at the weekend soccer match aren't standing on the sidelines with a 5D and a 70-300 f2.8.
> 
> hard to hide that.


 
Well - I will respond to your deflective response with a question...
From a modern, technologically advanced viewpoint...
Does a paedophile* NEED* a 5D and a 70-300 f2.8 to take a photograph of a child at a sporting venue...?
Maybe NO.. Eh..?
Modern P&S are quite capable...
Jedo


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 22, 2008)

Emerana said:


> Wow, that is...
> 
> I am actually against people taking easily recognizable photos of young children on the street. Just as a mom it doesnt sit right and I know I would be very angry and concerned if someone was snapping away on my kids. I know, it isnt the popular view here. But it is how I feel as a mother of two young children and I am a mom before a photographer.
> 
> But this is absurd! You cant take photos of your own kids playing sports?!?! How does it even have anything to do with that artsit guy?


 
True Emerana... And I totally agree that it is absurd that parents, and grandparents in my case, have to feel guilty about taking the camera along to a school sport venue or a school concert and taking pictures of their kids / grandkids... 
I don't know the answer...
Jedo


----------



## tempra (Jun 22, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> This comment conveniently dodges the scenario of the paedophile dad...
> He has a RIGHT to be there... taking photographs... It's his daughter... Tough if other people's daughters 'happen' to be in the frame...
> 
> Easy to denegrate Right Wing Tabloid Press, tempra - but maybe - just maybe, they have a point here...
> ...



I don't think that the right wing tabloids have a point, I think they are just stirring things up to sell newspapers / TV adverts, they paint a picture of people taking photos of kids as having ulterior motives - or rather not people in general, but men in general.

If they saw a woman taking a photo of kids, they would interpret that they had good intentions but not a man.

Also, not having researched any of this activity, what actually happens to the children once a paedo has a photo of them? I mean they could save themselves the cost of a camera and a computer and just go wander around town on any given saturday - kids everywhere, They could tune in to kids TV - there's hundreds of them there!

I remember when the whole paedophile thing reached fever pitch in the tabloids over here, paediatricians had windows put through, that is the mentality of the tabloid readership and thats why they [the tabloids] rule the world.

It seems that the only thing that sells to the masses is fear, thats why advertisement companies create a fear for you that you never knew you had, so you can buy their stuff that you don't need to over come the fear that they have created - governments & political parties have latched onto this as have pressure groups and their mouthpiece is the tabloid press and 24 hour news starved TV channels.

Don't believe everything that you read in the news!


----------



## Garbz (Jun 22, 2008)

They didn't need Henson as the catalyst. Last year I was nearly kicked out of a volleyball tournament (all attendants were over 18 by the way) till a very very pissed off team manager who invited me in the first place went absolutely rank at the sporting grounds owner and threatened to have all 6 teams from the university go elsewhere for the tournament.

Similar reasons were cited. Because 20 adult girls most of who are friends of the photographer need protecting...


----------



## RMThompson (Jun 22, 2008)

It doesn't make any sense. If you're worried about PEDOPHILES, make sure your kids are dressed properly, and it doesn't matter.

I never understand the idea that Pedophiles would want to take normal pictures of normal girls wearing normal outfits. If it happens, how can we possible stop it? Sure, Id rather NOT have a pedophile snapping pictures of my kids, but unless somehow her dress was above her head, or something worse - why does it really matter?

I doubt a pedophile would even take the chance on taking normal pictures somewhere, for exactly this kind of reason.

Remember the controversy started over NAKED pictures - which of course are horrible and should be banned - not over some kids playing at a park.


----------



## KD5NRH (Jun 22, 2008)

For that matter, would he even need a photo?


----------



## craig (Jun 22, 2008)

Here we go again and like I say we only have ourselves to blame. The media is producing a state of fear and we are falling for it. 

Change can happen. Let us go out there and do something about it as opposed to posting comments from the comfort of our computer.

)'(


----------



## Tiberius47 (Jun 22, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> Well - I will respond to your deflective response with a question...
> From a modern, technologically advanced viewpoint...
> Does a paedophile* NEED* a 5D and a 70-300 f2.8 to take a photograph of a child at a sporting venue...?
> Maybe NO.. Eh..?
> ...



That was my point.  if you go to a Saturday morning kids' soccer match and there's a guy with a 5D and a 70-200mm f2.8 on the sidelines shooting the game, it's safe to say he's probably not going to be taking the pics home and sharing them with his pervert friends.

The ones who do that are trying to hide the fact they are taking photos, and they aren't cheering on their kids.


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 23, 2008)

Tiberius47 said:


> That was my point. if you go to a Saturday morning kids' soccer match and there's a guy with a 5D and a 70-200mm f2.8 on the sidelines shooting the game, it's safe to say he's probably not going to be taking the pics home and sharing them with his pervert friends.
> 
> The ones who do that are trying to hide the fact they are taking photos, and they aren't cheering on their kids.


 
You think this..?
It's *SAFE TO SAY* that a he's probably not going to... share with his pervert friends..???
How in the hall do we know this..??
How niaive...
One thing we do know is that these grubs are quite capable of hiding behind the mask of authenticity... Some are teachers, youth workers, paediatricians, doctors, policemen, kindergarten workers... Aye - even photographers... They purposefully plot their work and lifestyle to be associated with opportunistic contacts with children...

try being the guy who goes to the saturday morning kid's soccer match - and take your DSLR with the biggest zoom you have hanging off the front - and take random pictures of the soccer players - and then try and control your anger when a parent or coach or official snatches your beloved camera out of your hands and stamps it into the ground and accuses you...
Better still - hire a 5D and a 70-200mm f2.8 and take random pictures - and see if your hi-end gear affords you some authenticity...
Jedo


----------



## Garbz (Jun 23, 2008)

Yep these day's it's guilty until proven innocent. In 25 words or less prove to me that you're not a terrorist, paedophile, and music pirate. All at once.

Remember this is for your own protection.


----------



## Battou (Jun 23, 2008)

And to think I was reasently hired to shoot some Lacross games, I also regularly make plans to shoot my Neices soccer games And I have been thinking about some highschool scoccer.

Any one dare come up to me and tell me I can't shoot there is getting a 80-200 to the head, I'm getting tired of this.


----------



## Rachelsne (Jun 23, 2008)

gone are the days that kids can play on the street in the road overe in the park and not be fearful that there maybe someone lurking in the bushes snapping pics or thinking dirty thoughts-unfortunalty it is a sign of the changing of the times.
I donthave children (yet) and neither do my friends, but I understad these rules are put in to protect our families. Ok so these rules need to be finetunned a little -well maybe alot, but I am in agreement with the current rules. I would rather my kid had happy memories of his/her youth than memoiries of an upset parent who found out a picture had been used in the wrong way.

Its easy for us to feel like are rights are being taken away becasue we are not allowed to take the pictures, but if this rule saves 1 child from being abused -even from a photograph, then it is helping protect our families


----------



## D-50 (Jun 23, 2008)

Considering the vast amount of pedophiles on the streets now adays I suggest we take all children under the age of 18 and imprison them, they may only learn and slightly interact with each other. There will be no windows in this prison because the pedophiles will lurke outside day and night to snap shots of children. Oh yeah we will dress them in long black robes at all times so if by chance a pedophile gains access he will see nothing. no one is allowed to physically touch anyone else and certainly no adults allowed in because all they will do is mollest and abuse these children. Everybody will win all the time yet no one will get a trophy or regonition for a job done better than anyone else. Th varsity basketball team will have as many members as there are people interested and everyone will get equal pplaying time, but no score will be kept because that may make a team feel bad for losing.

Dont forget about the terrorist either.  We must give up all our rights so we can stop these ruthless killers who want nothing more than to stop our way of life because they are so jealous of it.  In fact I heard Osama Bin Laden was a convicted child mollester and was caught with a room specifically made for taking pornographic photos of children from around the world.


----------



## tempra (Jun 23, 2008)

Rachelsne said:


> -even from a photograph, then it is helping protect our families




How exactly?


----------



## Samriel (Jun 23, 2008)

I don't get the whole pedophilia and photography thing. I do not have children yet, so it is probably hard for me to comprehend these things on an emotional level as well as the parents here do, so take what I say with some reservation. 
I wouldn't mind a pedophile/pervert taking pictures of my kid on the street and in public places nearly as much as I would mind me not being allowed to take pictures of my kid. For all I care, the pedophile can go and make a small shrine with the pictures at his home and worship my kid, as long as (a) I don't know it, and (b) he doesn't touch my kid. 
I'd much rather have 10 albums of beautiful pictures of my kid growing up, than prevent a pervert from taking 50 shots and have no memories in print.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 24, 2008)

It sounds like you Australians are starting to dissolve into the sad state of affairs America is in.  I love my country and all, but here in the US, somebody is responsible for EVERYTHING!  The whole civil lawsuit thing here is really getting out of control.  And it makes people not want to help others out or be kind.  Cause if it doesn't work correctly, they become responsible and subject to a suit.

Its a sad state of affairs, IMO.  But I hear its not like this in other places. The truth is that if a pedophile wants your child, she or he will have them, camera or not.  And there's not much you can do about it.  No child is safe 24/7/365, and never has or will.  And that scares parents enough that they start blaming others and filing suits in a panic.  If they really didn't want anything to happen to their child, they'd keep them locked up in a padded room.  There, problem solved.


----------



## KD5NRH (Jun 24, 2008)

Rachelsne said:


> Its easy for us to feel like are rights are being taken away becasue we are not allowed to take the pictures, but if this rule saves 1 child from being abused -even from a photograph, then it is helping protect our families



By that logic, you might as well just kill everybody over 10 years old.  After all, it will protect the children.


----------



## Battou (Jun 24, 2008)

The day is coming where we are all going to have to carry concealed camera permits. It's pathedic really, The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few but the few can ruin it for the many.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 24, 2008)

I've been watching America and the UK taking away civil liberties over the many years comfortable in the fact that Australians are wiser about this. We're not. Clearly we just haven't passed the relevant laws that agree with the generally fearful government. We should send a copy of V for Vendetta to every politician!

I do however not get the irrational fears of a photograph. If you're in public I may see you, I may photograph you, does that put you in any more danger than you were when I was watching? Potentially it could put you in less danger if someone only wanted a visual image then the existence of a photograph may prevent someone from actively stalking.

I can not see how preventing a photograph can protect the children. In my opinion Samriel is perfectly right. If something perverted gets done with photos of me or my family doesn't hurt us at all if we're unaware of it.


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 24, 2008)

RMThompson said:


> It doesn't make any sense. If you're worried about PEDOPHILES, make sure your kids are dressed properly, and it doesn't matter.
> 
> I never understand the idea that Pedophiles would want to take normal pictures of normal girls wearing normal outfits. If it happens, how can we possible stop it? Sure, Id rather NOT have a pedophile snapping pictures of my kids, but unless somehow her dress was above her head, or something worse - why does it really matter?
> 
> ...


 
I think you miss the point and/or are taking a narrow view...
It doesn't make any sense. If you're worried about PEDOPHILES, make sure your kids are dressed properly, and it doesn't matter:  I never understand the idea that Pedophiles would want to take normal pictures of normal girls wearing normal outfits.
"Dressed properly" is contextually bound to the activity: kids at the beach or swimming pool are dressed properly wearing swimsuits... kids doing gymnastics are dressed properly in lycra outfits... kids on stage are dressed properly in whatever they are performing... and kids on sports fields are also dressed properly for the occassion...
Remember the controversy started over NAKED pictures - which of course are horrible and should be banned - not over some kids playing at a park.
No... the controversy started long before Bill Henson... and long before the internet... and long before digital photography. Many a fool has been convicted of stalking/photographing children and then taking them into his local chemists/photography shop to be developed - only to be reported to the police, and subsequently prosecuted...
If you are not worried about grubs like these - then you should be...
Jedo


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 24, 2008)

Right at this very moment on Australian TV there is a discussion about people taking photographs of children in public...
And the guy actually speaking - in person - is Mr Bianchinno...
How's that for a coincidence??
Jedo


----------



## Miaow (Jun 24, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> "Dressed properly" is contextually bound to the activity: kids at the beach or swimming pool are dressed properly wearing swimsuits... kids doing gymnastics are dressed properly in lycra outfits... kids on stage are dressed properly in whatever they are performing... and kids on sports fields are also dressed properly for the occassion.
> 
> ..... the controversy started long before Bill Henson... and long before the internet... and long before digital photography. Many a fool has been convicted of stalking/photographing children and then taking them into his local chemists/photography shop to be developed - only to be reported to the police, and subsequently prosecuted...
> If you are not worried about grubs like these - then you should be...
> Jedo



I agree Jedo.

It's a worry when some people have a thing of that if it doesn't (or hasn't yet) affected then then it isn't a problem  

Unfortunately there are perverts out there (and have been for years) with cameras taking pics of children   As the camera technology gets better (and cheaper also), DSLR, P&S with High Zoom capabilites, they are also able to access better equipment to get what they want.  

Sure it's not good that parents are being stopped in taking pics of their children, but if it stops even one perverted person taking a pic of a child (mine, yours or anyone's), then I think the crackdown on pics is for a good cause.


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 24, 2008)

Samriel said:


> I don't get the whole pedophilia and photography thing. I do not have children yet, so it is probably hard for me to comprehend these things on an emotional level as well as the parents here do, so take what I say with some reservation.
> I wouldn't mind a pedophile/pervert taking pictures of my kid on the street and in public places nearly as much as I would mind me not being allowed to take pictures of my kid. For all I care, the pedophile can go and make a small shrine with the pictures at his home and worship my kid, as long as (a) I don't know it, and (b) he doesn't touch my kid.
> I'd much rather have 10 albums of beautiful pictures of my kid growing up, than prevent a pervert from taking 50 shots and have no memories in print.


 
I agree with you, Samriel - you do not comprehend these things...
Maybe you are not a parent - but do you have younger brothers and sisters, young cousins, young nephews, young nieces - do your friends have any children? Do you know any children at all..?? Surely...?
So you "wouldn't mind" a pedophile/pervert taking pictures of any of these children on the street and in public places..? And further - the pedophile can go and make a small shrine with the pictures at his home and worship (any of these children), as long as a) you don't know it and b) he doesn't touch (any of these children)..?
Sir - I am gobsmacked by this...
Are you saying that you would not be in the least disturbed - indeed not even care, if a pedophile had images of your favourite niece/ little sister/toddler next door displayed in a "shrine" for "worship"...???
a) No - you wouldn't KNOW...
That is the whole point of this thread - clandestine imagery of children
b) Pedophiles are not necessarily child molesters - the vast amount of child pornography (soft porn, nakedness, hard porn) on the internet (shrine) attracts pedophiles because of the imagery... one cannot molest a photograph... However, a photograph can provoke strong sexual urges as witnessed by 'adult' pornography...
And what, Sir, would you DO if you discovered that a pedophile/pervert had indeed taken photographs of your favourite niece/ little sister/toddler next door - would you still not mind... not care..? Because that may make you culpable of some criminal offence: in my country, it is mandatory to report such things under the Child Protection Act and failure to do so is an offence under stautory law...
While I agree with your desire for the freedom to photograph our children for the sake of our memories and family albums - and I *DO*... I think your solution of just allowing pedophiles to photograph/terrorists to bomb/rapists to rape/wife-beaters to wife-beat, etc is niaive...
Perhaps you may want to qualify your statements...
Jedo


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 24, 2008)

Garbz said:


> I've been watching America and the UK taking away civil liberties over the many years comfortable in the fact that Australians are wiser about this. We're not. Clearly we just haven't passed the relevant laws that agree with the generally fearful government. We should send a copy of V for Vendetta to every politician!
> 
> I do however not get the irrational fears of a photograph. If you're in public I may see you, I may photograph you, does that put you in any more danger than you were when I was watching? Potentially it could put you in less danger if someone only wanted a visual image then the existence of a photograph may prevent someone from actively stalking.
> 
> ...


----------



## Samriel (Jun 24, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> I agree with you, Samriel - you do not comprehend these things...


I'm glad we agree on something.


Jedo_03 said:


> Maybe you are not a parent - but do you have younger brothers and sisters, young cousins, young nephews, young nieces - do your friends have any children? Do you know any children at all..?? Surely...?


Quite a few. Your point?


Jedo_03 said:


> So you "wouldn't mind" a pedophile/pervert taking pictures of any of these children on the street and in public places..? And further - the pedophile can go and make a small shrine with the pictures at his home and worship (any of these children), as long as a) you don't know it and b) he doesn't touch (any of these children)..?
> Sir - I am gobsmacked by this...


I'm was expecting quite a few people would be.


Jedo_03 said:


> Are you saying that you would not be in the least disturbed - indeed not even care, if a pedophile had images of your favourite niece/ little sister/toddler next door displayed in a "shrine" for "worship"...???


I would be probably disgusted *if* I knew about it.   


Jedo_03 said:


> a) No - you wouldn't KNOW...
> That is the whole point of this thread - clandestine imagery of children


So I actually couldn't care, even if I wanted to.


Jedo_03 said:


> b) Pedophiles are not necessarily child molesters - the vast amount of child pornography (soft porn, nakedness, hard porn) on the internet (shrine) attracts pedophiles because of the imagery... one cannot molest a photograph... However, a photograph can provoke strong sexual urges as witnessed by 'adult' pornography...


As long as they don't live out those urges on my children, or any other children, I do not see the problem.



Jedo_03 said:


> And what, Sir, would you DO if you discovered that a pedophile/pervert had indeed taken photographs of your favourite niece/ little sister/toddler next door - would you still not mind... not care..? Because that may make you culpable of some criminal offence: in my country, it is mandatory to report such things under the Child Protection Act and failure to do so is an offence under stautory law...


Taking pictures of my kids next door (at his home I presume) falls under (b) touching my kids. If I discovered that a pedophile had taken pictures of my kid while it was in the park, on the field track etc, I probably would be disturbed, but not enough to prohibit taking pictures at any of those places. By the way, not having health insurance is a criminal offense in some countries, not having 4-6 weeks of paid holiday is a offense in some countries, having a gun without a license is a offense in some countries - somehow I do not see these problems (which in the big picture cause much more pain and suffering) get any attention from media and the people.



Jedo_03 said:


> While I agree with your desire for the freedom to photograph our children for the sake of our memories and family albums - and I *DO*... I think your solution of just allowing pedophiles to photograph/terrorists to bomb/rapists to rape/wife-beaters to wife-beat, etc is niaive...


 Do you really think you can compare bombing, raping and beating with photographing? Think about sado-masochism or any other "extreme" sexual practice. For some it's as sick as pedophilia, for some it's the most natural thing. Do you think the pedophile become one of his own choice? I seriously doubt that. It's probably something in his personality which just came to be like that, and present-day society classified it as a sickness. I doubt he can really help himself being a pedophile. If he doesn't bother children or anybody else with his worshiping (as long as it's his private thing, and does not include the private life of my child), I don't see a reason to bother him. What I'm arguing here is not the freedom of photography, it's relations between human beings. Sure, that might be naive, but then I'm naive by choice, not by necessity.


Jedo_03 said:


> Perhaps you may want to qualify your statements...
> Jedo


Sure. Just tell me how. I'll be glad to indulge you. 

On the other hand, I'm quite sure that if we followed your way of though completely, we would have the Fourth Reich - the universal solution to all problems would be to send people off to the camps for being different from the universally accepted norms, without asking why they became like that. Sure, it's easier and more efficient, but I still prefer my naiveté.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 24, 2008)

Garbz said:


> We should send a copy of V for Vendetta to every politician!



+1


----------



## KD5NRH (Jun 24, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> That is the whole point of this thread - clandestine imagery of children



So when will you be banning pencils?  I can still draw the first girl I dated well enough that people who knew her back then can recognise her, and that's based on a couple hours of observation 17 years ago.  I've met artists that can draw someone well enough to look like a BW photo based on a minute or two of observation, and starting the drawing hours later.  How would you stop a pedophile who happened to have those skills?


----------



## tempra (Jun 24, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> I think your solution of just allowing pedophiles to photograph/terrorists to bomb/rapists to rape/wife-beaters to wife-beat, etc is niaive...
> Perhaps you may want to qualify your statements...
> Jedo




I'm sorry Jedo, but that analogy just about removes any credence of your viewpoint for me.

I would guess that most of your knowledge on the matter is in fact gleaned from the tabloid press - and what is worse, you actually believe what they write and are actively putting their fearmongering fantasies forward as a good argument, when if fact it is nothing more than a cynical attempt to raise newspaper sales.

I think i've already mentioned that earlier in the thread.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 24, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> I follow your logic up until this point...
> You are saying that if something perverted gets done with photos of you or your family, won't hurt you if you are unaware of it...
> 1) So it WOULD hurt if you became aware of it..??
> 2) It doesn't matter to you if photos of OTHER people's kids are used in this way - as long as it's not YOUR family... Is that what you're saying?
> Jedo



Yes I would be quite disgusted, but I still wouldn't be hurt at all. I have a young sister and if the same thing happened to her I would be quite angry, but I don't think she would be hurt either. I am not a parent yet, but there are plenty of other parents who would probably feel the same way. Just look at all the wonderful posts in the Gallery of young children. If someone wanted to they wouldn't even need to go to the park. A quick flickr search or even lurking on this very forum would give them plenty of fodder. Furthermore there's the natural extension of this point which is where the world is heading mentally. That is FEAR. Just plain old fear of being seen, fear that someone is photographing, fear that something may happen and you do not know about it (this last one sounds very much like an irrational fear to me).

This is what I don't understand. If someone can not physically hurt you if he doesn't tell you about it, and you are unaware that it is happening and otherwise unaffected then why are you afraid of it? You could walk outside right now and get mugged and killed, in fact it's probably more likely that someone running up and taking a photo of your children right now for perverted purposes, does that mean you should never walk outside again? On that same topic how many times has someone come to you with a card that says certified paedophile and asked if they could take photos of your kids? Compare to the number of people you see with cameras. 

The kicker is somehow we've gone from having absolutely no facts, no numbers, and no information of any kind about this other than that there are bad people in this world to a complete irrational fear of photographers to the point where they have been legislated against, and criminalised in the minds of all.

I agree with Samriel in every way. I would rather have photos of my children growing up knowing full well that their is a miniscule chance of them being subject to something we will never know about and can't harm us than to lose the memories of their childhoods, coming first at a sporting event, playing with each other on the beach, running around the park playing with their friends, forever!


----------



## Battou (Jun 24, 2008)

KD5NRH said:


> So when will you be banning pencils?  I can still draw the first girl I dated well enough that people who knew her back then can recognise her, and that's based on a couple hours of observation 17 years ago.  I've met artists that can draw someone well enough to look like a BW photo based on a minute or two of observation, and starting the drawing hours later.  How would you stop a pedophile who happened to have those skills?



This is called Lolicon artwork and a crystal clear line as to what is legal and what is illegal has been drawn (stateside atleast). Law defines a person as a living breathing human being. That said the line as to what is and is not legal for indeasent (including but not limited to sexualy explicit) imagery is drawn at the point where an illustration takes on any markings indicitive to an actual living breathing person including (but not limmited to) birthmarks, developmental abnormalities (extra finger, abrieviated finger and what not), or even the house they live in. Wether the illustration is styled in realism or cartoon/anime form, if it bares identifyable markings to an actual person it is prohibited by law to create or possess indeasent illustrations.

These are deemd as an expressed desire for the individual depicted. Expressed desire is one of the first stages of activity that is (in all official capasity) believed to have potential to directly lead to psycal course of action IE. Abduction, molestation and/or other indeasent activity by the illustrator onto the illustrated. 

So in relation to your statement, it's alredy been done and in effect and has been such for a few years, punisable as abusive imagery.



However, Artistic freedom is maintained in this reguard by no restriction to deemed "deisent" imagery (even if recognisable as a living breathing individual) as well as indeasent (including sexually explicit) imagery of non existing human charachters. 

The US Supreme Court has concluded on two seprate occations that Charging an artist with a crime for drawing *actual lolicon (I use the term "actual lolicon" to diferanchiate from "*cover lolicon" wich is prohibited by law and defined above.) is in violation of the constitution in the US. 




*I kinda Invented terms, there is prolly real terms for them but I am unaware of what they might be so.
_*Actual lolicon*_-Original or otherwise made up ficticious charachter depicted at or below pubesent developmental stages.
_*Cover lolicon*_-Anime-esk/cartoon-esk and or realism renditions of actual people and/or idendifiable markings of actual people, commonly used to cover and/or act as child porn relating to an actual person depicted at or below pubesent developmental stages.


----------



## Battou (Jun 24, 2008)

Battou said:


> This is called Lolicon artwork and a crystal clear line as to what is legal and what is illegal has been drawn (stateside atleast). Law defines a person as a living breathing human being. That said the line as to what is and is not legal for indeasent (including but not limited to sexualy explicit) imagery is drawn at the point where an illustration takes on any markings indicitive to an actual living breathing person including (but not limmited to) birthmarks, developmental abnormalities (extra finger, abrieviated finger and what not), or even the house they live in. Wether the illustration is styled in realism or cartoon/anime form, if it bares identifyable markings to an actual person it is prohibited by law to create or possess indeasent illustrations.
> 
> These are deemd as an expressed desire for the individual depicted. Expressed desire is one of the first stages of activity that is (in all official capasity) believed to have potential to directly lead to psycal course of action IE. Abduction, molestation and/or other indeasent activity by the illustrator onto the illustrated.
> 
> ...



Herein lies the problem we are looking at. With Photogtaphy it is automadically assumed that the depicted is a living breathing human being (well Duh). Laws prohibiting indeasent application of imagery pertaining to underage (pre or post pubesent) do extend to the prohibition of photomanipulation of individuals to appear to be under age and/or age progression. 

It's common for purpitrators of criminal activity to attempt to hide their activities threw the use of what is acceptable to sciocity. That is what I ment by "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few but the few can ruin it for the many."


----------



## Miaow (Jun 25, 2008)

Found this opinion article just before on a news site in regards to this - Thought people may be interested in it.

Photo crackdown hits parents' proud moments


----------



## Battou (Jun 25, 2008)

Miaow said:


> Found this opinion article just before on a news site in regards to this - Thought people may be interested in it.
> 
> Photo crackdown hits parents' proud moments





> They also hide their practices and are, generally, very successful at this - hence the huge police operations to uncover pedophile rings and the shock when one is unearthed.



I'm glad I am not the only one to say this....

I'm still surprised at the apparent ovliviousness to this fact though


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 25, 2008)

Nobody ever really listens to me when I post in these argument forums, but I think you people need to get down to the skinny of it.  Its not about how common or uncommon child abductions are.  Its not about how to spot a sexual fiend, its not even about whether or not your child is safe.  

Its all about compromise.  And the compromise is whether or not you are willing to sacrifice the ability to take photos of young children in order to try and make their environment safer.  IMO, yes I am, but I also don't have a child, and place personal freedoms very high on my list of priorities in life.

What strikes me as strange is this paranoia that is consuming the world.  People are becoming terrified by others, and it's never been as prevalent as it is now..  And it goes a lot farther than the realm of children, it goes to locking your doors, installing security systems, not stopping for broken down cars on the side of the road, etc.  After a certain point, you have to be okay with the idea that you aren't 100% safe, and someone may harm you or your family no matter how hard you try for them not to.  This terrifies people, but its true.  I think if people could come face-to-face with their fear of being harmed, this issue would resolve itself.


----------



## Battou (Jun 25, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> Nobody ever really listens to me when I post in these argument forums, but I think you people need to get down to the skinny of it.  Its not about how common or uncommon child abductions are.  Its not about how to spot a sexual fiend, its not even about whether or not your child is safe.
> 
> Its all about compromise.  And the compromise is whether or not you are willing to sacrifice the ability to take photos of young children in order to try and make their environment safer.  IMO, yes I am, but I also don't have a child, and place personal freedoms very high on my list of priorities in life.
> 
> What strikes me as strange is this paranoia that is consuming the world.  People are becoming terrified by others, and it's never been as prevalent as it is now..  And it goes a lot farther than the realm of children, it goes to locking your doors, installing security systems, not stopping for broken down cars on the side of the road, etc.



No, it's not about comprimise, it's about having our rights ceased because a small handfull of mentally ill people take advantage of a situation. Then when they are cought the media blows it out of proportion and never does anything to counter the negitive impact. A camera wielding pedoperve gets cought taking upskirts, it gets blasted all over the news and then the guy trying to photograph the park where it happened pays the price. It's gotten to the point where that "park" is where ever and whenever there are children around.


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 25, 2008)

tempra said:


> I'm sorry Jedo, but that analogy just about removes any credence of your viewpoint for me.
> 
> I would guess that most of your knowledge on the matter is in fact gleaned from the tabloid press - and what is worse, you actually believe what they write and are actively putting their fearmongering fantasies forward as a good argument, when if fact it is nothing more than a cynical attempt to raise newspaper sales.
> 
> I think i've already mentioned that earlier in the thread.


 
Sir, regarding your Freudian Anal Fixation with Right Wing Publications.
For Your Information:
I came to live in Central Australia over 20 years ago and in that time have NEVER read a tabloid newspaper - nor a broadsheet newspaper.
For your further information, the local newspaper is "independent" - actually owned by the local Worker's Union Affiliates, so if anything, leans left. And in any case, I do not subscribe to this local newspaper.
Nor do I watch TV to any extent bar the national State news, broadcast from South Australia. My radio choice is the ABC network. I never miss Macca on a sunday mornings and enjoy Gardening Australia and Carol Whitelock and Peter Gers. I do not belong to any political parties. My music of choice is Johnny Cash, Doctor Hook, Pink Floyd.
My views are my own.
Jedo


----------



## tempra (Jun 25, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> Sir, regarding your Freudian Anal Fixation with Right Wing Publications.
> For Your Information:
> I came to live in Central Australia over 20 years ago and in that time have NEVER read a tabloid newspaper - nor a broadsheet newspaper.
> For your further information, the local newspaper is "independent" - actually owned by the local Worker's Union Affiliates, so if anything, leans left. And in any case, I do not subscribe to this local newspaper.
> ...




For someone who doesn't read much news, you seem to know a lot of detail about the subject matter - almost an anal fixation with paedophiles, is it one of your areas of interest?


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 25, 2008)

Re: Samriel and Garbz

As stated "While I agree with your desire for the freedom to photograph our children for the sake of our memories and family albums - and I *DO*..."

The point I was trying to make was does anyone CARE that pedophiles hoard pictures of little kids and "worship" them (we all know what 'worship' means - don't we..?)
I think adopting the attitude of "what we don't know isn't going to hurt us" and "if it isn't happening to us then we don't care" is plain wrong.

My alignment of pedophilia/terrorism/wife-beating was my way of trying the underline the global abhorence of pedophilia. We all damn terrorism. We all damn wife beating. Would you turn your back on terrorist acts or on domestic violence JUST because it didn't directly involve you and yours..? I hope not... I hope you would also damn pedophiles and pedophilia. Yet you are openly saying that you *don't mind* your kids being subject to pedophilic activities. The world knows that many many many children are already subject to pedophilic photographic activity. Are you saying that you DON'T CARE about these kids because they are not yours..? Shame on you both.

As for you comment, Samriel, about the Fourth Reich...
My Grandfather, Father, 3 Uncles and 2 Aunts payed the ultimate sacrifice to rid the world of the Third Reich, and its evil dogmatisms. I
On Armistice Day, I stand proudly with the free and recite Lest We Forget.
Jedo


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 25, 2008)

tempra said:


> For someone who doesn't read much news, you seem to know a lot of detail about the subject matter - almost an anal fixation with paedophiles, is it one of your areas of interest?


 
No

But at least you now know that my views and mores are not influenced by right-wing tabloid newspapers 

Jedo


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 25, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> Well - I will respond to your deflective response with a question...
> From a modern, technologically advanced viewpoint...
> Does a paedophile* NEED* a 5D and a 70-300 f2.8 to take a photograph of a child at a sporting venue...?
> Maybe NO.. Eh..?
> ...


LOL. Does Dad NEED a Hummer with a V8 to take his kids to the game?


----------



## Arch (Jun 25, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> Re: Samriel and Garbz
> 
> As stated "While I agree with your desire for the freedom to photograph our children for the sake of our memories and family albums - and I *DO*..."
> 
> ...



ok Jedo please do not bring wars/politics into this arguement or the thread will be locked.

I appreciate the stance you are trying to take and i do not judge you for it, however you seem to be judging others, saying they are nieve and they should be ashamed... to be honest if you cannot except other poeple opinions then you should no longer join in with this debate.


...and to address the highlighted comment, with this rationality we should lock up a guy if he has an arguement with his wife in public, because he _*could*_ be a wife beater.

Also not be too concearned with what peoples intentions are is the best way to be imo... the scaremongering only serves one purpose, to restrict peoples lives... if you believe everything you hear you will end up living in a padded room with no windows.


----------



## Rhubarb (Jun 25, 2008)

Don't worry everything is going to be just fine. The wonderful Government have just outlawed breeding.  This is excellent for many reasons:-

1. It was dirty & disgusting not to mention degrading. We will be much better off without it.
2. It was the spawn of ALL paedophiles, without exception.

It also has the added side affect that eventually threads like this will be no more! I can't wait, so exciting. I love the Government, so smart, I say. No longer any need to think for myself.


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jun 25, 2008)

Arch said:


> ok Jedo please do not bring wars/politics into this arguement or the thread will be locked.
> 
> I appreciate the stance you are trying to take and i do not judge you for it, however you seem to be judging others, saying they are nieve and they should be ashamed... to be honest if you cannot except other poeple opinions then you should no longer join in with this debate.
> 
> ...


 
Arch - Moderator

Thank you for your comments and advice.

La porta è chiusa

Jedo


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 25, 2008)

Battou said:


> No, it's not about comprimise, it's about having our rights ceased because a small handfull of mentally ill people take advantage of a situation. Then when they are cought the media blows it out of proportion and never does anything to counter the negitive impact. A camera wielding pedoperve gets cought taking upskirts, it gets blasted all over the news and then the guy trying to photograph the park where it happened pays the price. It's gotten to the point where that "park" is where ever and whenever there are children around.


 
The public as a whole is giving them away at this point, until enough opposition is given.  And almost every rule out there isn't for the masses.  There are thousands of laws that are designed for the unstable 1% of the population.  We are paying their price every day, not just in this instance.

But its still not about having rights taken away.  Its a compromise.  The truth is something like this probably will do some good to help deter perverts, but at some point you have to be okay with being a little unsafe in order to enjoy life.  Freedom almost always comes at the cost of safety.  We would all be safe if we were inside a padded room having food handed to us through a slot in the door.  But where do you draw the line and say, "I know this may cause problems, but its not worth sacrificing my freedoms."  Or, as I said before, a compromise.

Unfortunately your opinion doesn't matter, nor does mine or anyone else's as a single entity.  Its only the group as a whole that gets to really be heard.  Or perhaps you should try and join a lobbyist group for civil rights, then you would be contributing to the cause.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 25, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> Its all about compromise.  And the compromise is whether or not you are willing to sacrifice the ability to take photos of young children in order to try and make their environment safer.



Yes exactly. And as the existence of a photograph which someone does not not about can not possibly make the environment less safe I should be free to take my camera where I want within the bounds of the law without any fear of prejudice against me.



Jedo_03 said:


> Yet you are openly saying that you *don't mind* your kids being subject to pedophilic activities. The world knows that many many many children are already subject to pedophilic photographic activity. Are you saying that you DON'T CARE about these kids because they are not yours..? Shame on you both.



I care very much. But I am not about to accuse every person with a camera of being a paedophile, every person with a beard of being a terrorist, every person with a car of being abusive towards cyclists and a danger to all, every person who enjoys drinking in the city of wanting to get into a drunken brawl and stab taxi drivers.

That is the distinction. When someone takes a photo of me or takes a photo of girls at a sporting event, who is to say they aren't a struggling street photographer, an artist trying to make a start, someone shooting a documentary of life in the city, or even the kids' own parents? I don't deny that the sick people of the world should be guillotined in the nether regions, but until someone is actually exposed, proven guilty of something they should be free to do what they want. The public should remain public for all, and those that fear it should build a playground in their backyard.

There is an alternative. It was shown very well in the movie V for Vendetta. People disappearing without trial, curfews, and government surveillance vans travelling the streets at night monitoring your conversations with "this is for your protection" written on the side.

Ultimately the question is how much of your freedom are you willing to sacrifice for the very off chance that someone will take a photo of you, because photography and terrorism may be a hot debate here, but how long before we have as many CCTV cameras as London? (which may I add a study has shown prevent only 3% of the crimes they were designed for, and are now actively used to prevent littering and cyclists from cycling in a pedestrian zone.)


----------



## Battou (Jun 26, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> The public as a whole is giving them away at this point, until enough opposition is given.  And almost every rule out there isn't for the masses.  There are thousands of laws that are designed for the unstable 1% of the population.  We are paying their price every day, not just in this instance.
> 
> But its still not about having rights taken away.  Its a compromise.  The truth is something like this probably will do some good to help deter perverts, but at some point you have to be okay with being a little unsafe in order to enjoy life.  Freedom almost always comes at the cost of safety.  We would all be safe if we were inside a padded room having food handed to us through a slot in the door.  But where do you draw the line and say, "I know this may cause problems, but its not worth sacrificing my freedoms."  Or, as I said before, a compromise.
> 
> Unfortunately your opinion doesn't matter, nor does mine or anyone else's as a single entity.  Its only the group as a whole that gets to really be heard.  Or perhaps you should try and join a lobbyist group for civil rights, then you would be contributing to the cause.



I misinturprited your post, I thought you where trying to say we needed to compromise and give people in public arias privacy.


----------



## nynfortoo (Jun 26, 2008)

There's a big difference between paedophilia and child molestation.

A photograph isn't molestation unless the child was harmed in any way in its taking. There is nothing inherently wrong with taking photographs of children, at all.

I'm not sure I could care less how people get their sexual thrills, whether it be by men, women, horses, children, whatever. As long as the fantasies stay in their heads and not in the physical world.

I'm finding it very difficult to write these thoughts down, so I'm not coming across as concise as I'd like.

Fighting paedophilia is fighting a thought-crime. Since when did we start policing thoughts? Are we going to ban memories next, because they may contain children?

There are millions of pictures of children already in existence. Do we have to go back and gain permission for them all now? Is it only new ones that can find their way into the wrong hands?

Cameras have been around for years. They never harmed anyone.


----------



## passerby (Jun 26, 2008)

This is the description of paedophile according to Brittanica. Maybe good for indication as what are we - as general public - dealing with. They see children not as children, but as creatures that give them sexual satisfaction. 

_Pedophilia, also spelled PAEDOPHILIA, psychosexual disorder in which an adult's arousal and sexual gratification *occur primarily* through sexual contact with prepubescent children. The typical pedophile is unable to find satisfaction in an adult sexual relationship and may have low self-esteem, seeing sexual activity with a child as less threatening than that with an adult. Most pedophiles are men; the condition is extremely rare in women. _
_
Frequently the sexual encounter stops short of intercourse, the pedophile obtaining sexual gratification through fondling the child and sometimes through genital display alone. 

Reactions of the child victim can range from fright, particularly if force or violence is involved, to bewilderment or passive enjoyment. Although some children seem more upset by previous parental warnings than by an actual encounter, the sexual encounter can often be quite traumatic to them, especially if there is associated violence. There is also evidence that children who have been sexually victimized are more likely to be troubled adults._


----------



## Emerana (Jun 26, 2008)

nynfortoo said:


> Fighting paedophilia is fighting a thought-crime. Since when did we start policing thoughts? Are we going to ban memories next, because they may contain children?



a man can not be arrested for THINKING about screwing children, he can be arrested for viewing pornographic photos of children.  Down loading photos of children being abused is a crime, so if they can really keep it contained in their head, then no one would even know.  As soon as their fantasy (I puke a little in my mouth every time I think about this) escapes even in tiny ways, they are committing crimes.  

 I dont know how you are saying pedophilia is a "thought crime".  It isnt that at all.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 26, 2008)

I think the part that bothers people is that these child-lovers are going to think about your children in incorrect ways, photo or not. And there's nothing a parent can do about it. Take away the photo, and the thought is still there. Then the person will just show up at your games and oogle your child. Then what do you do?

Here's a concept: What if the viewing of photos helps supress their desire to engage in physical contact with a child? Maybe its something that builds up over time? I'm sure SOME of these people hate that they like this sort of activity, but feel like its an uncontrollable desire. People who are addicted to drugs are fine when they're getting their fix in some way or another, but when they are forced to quit, they get intrusive and violent. Perhaps this is the same, and by restricting these peoples ability to view photos, we will be encouraging violence...

Just something to think about.  I think we all need to stop, and look at things differently from time to time.


----------



## Samriel (Jun 26, 2008)

Emerana said:


> Down loading photos of children being abused is a crime, so if they can really keep it contained in their head, then no one would even know.



While I completely agree with this statement, I fail to see how a picture of my child playing in the park, in school or on the street falls in the category of photos of children being abused. Of course, he could go back home, use his Photoshop expertise to edit these pictures. Of course, I could use the pictures I take of people on the street and photoshop them to look like porn or similar photographs and they use them to blackmail these people. The chances of these two things really happening are about the same (not to say these things do not happen).


----------



## Rhys (Jun 26, 2008)

There's a simple answer. If you're not allowed to take photos of your children playing sports then your children do not play sports with that organisation ever again.


----------



## Emerana (Jun 26, 2008)

I agree that random photos of children are most likely not used for any negative or scary purpose.

But as a mom I have to ask
why do you want a photo of my kids?
what are you doing with them?
who the f*** are you any ways?

When you take photos of people's children without permission then you are tampering with their ability to protect their child.  That sends parents into overdrive, and I am right there with them.

There is a huge difference between a person acting normally taking photos of a kids base ball game and that of a lone stranger lurking around a playground snapping shots of your kids without so much as a word.


----------



## RockDawg (Jun 26, 2008)

I can't help but wonder how many people in this thread that agree with some type of restriction on photographing children also think that the controversial photos of Miley Cyrus were nothing but art.  Furthermore, how many of you have posted photos here or elsewhere of your children that anyone in the world could have access to?


----------



## Rhys (Jun 26, 2008)

RockDawg said:


> I can't help but wonder how many people in this thread that agree with some type of restriction on photographing children also think that the controversial photos of Miley Cyrus were nothing but art.  Furthermore, how many of you have posted photos here or elsewhere of your children that anyone in the world could have access to?



Quite honestly I don't know what the alleged controversial photos were all about. As long as photos aren't taken without permission and aren't taken under duress and don't involve sexual acts, I have no problem with photos of anything. I admire many of the old B/W photos of children as they depict childhood in a way modern photos cannot.

As far as postings on the internet are concerned, anything posted can be viewed forever, from everywhere. I wonder whether in the year 3035 some future cyber-archaeologist will dig up this posting and try to assimilate from it an idea of life 1017 years ago.


----------



## RockDawg (Jun 26, 2008)

Rhys said:


> As long as photos aren't taken without permission...


 
So you believe that anyone photgraphing high school or lower sporting events should have to have permission?  If so, from who?  Every parent of every child?


----------



## Battou (Jun 26, 2008)

RockDawg said:


> So you believe that anyone photgraphing high school or lower sporting events should have to have permission?  If so, from who?  Every parent of every child?



No according to what they are trying to do is negate even their right to consent to it.


----------



## nynfortoo (Jun 27, 2008)

passerby said:


> They see children not as children, but as creatures that give them sexual satisfaction.



'Creatures' is your own inference there. Do heterosexual males see women as creatures to give them sexual satisfaction? No, they don't. Paedophiles are just wired differently, akin to homosexuals; though don't take this as gay-bashing  there's a world of difference between consensual intercourse/relationships and with those of a pre-pubescent child! Nor should you take it as me approving of paedophilia, if I'm giving you that impression; I'm just against removing liberties, mass hysteria, and damning people without understand them; portraying them as monsters.



			
				Emerana said:
			
		

> a man can not be arrested for THINKING about screwing children, he can be arrested for viewing pornographic photos of children. Down loading photos of children being abused is a crime, so if they can really keep it contained in their head, then no one would even know. As soon as their fantasy (I puke a little in my mouth every time I think about this) escapes even in tiny ways, they are committing crimes.



But then we're not talking about photos of children being abused here; we're talking about photos of children playing, children doing sports, and children outside. I just don't agree with taking our liberties away, our freedom to take photos, just because there's a small threat of these photos finding their way into the hands of someone who wants sexual gratification from them.



			
				Senor Hound said:
			
		

> Here's a concept: What if the viewing of photos helps supress their desire to engage in physical contact with a child?



A good point. Would you rather a paedophile have photos to jack off over, or not have any and be more likely to abuse and molest a child for real?



			
				Emerana said:
			
		

> I agree that random photos of children are most likely not used for any negative or scary purpose.
> 
> But as a mom I have to ask
> why do you want a photo of my kids?
> ...



If photos/videos of your child in an outside environment existing indicates a failure as a parent, then you'd better hold onto your socks, because you're _going_ to fail.

Do you shield your child from CCTV? These are videos of your child being viewed and recorded by someone vicariously, sitting in a small room, possibly by themselves. Does the perceived notion of added security justify this?

Fact is, pictures are going to be taken of your child. If you want to protect them, prevent someone from kidnapping them; educate them about not talking to strangers etc. Removing our freedom to take pictures of _our_ child just because it could, in a long-shot, potentially be used in a malicious way, is not the way to go.

I see this paedophilia scare akin to terrorism. The threat is so much smaller than people make it out to be; you're more likely to be killed by _bees_ than by terrorists. There have been _fewer_ acts of terrorism in recent years than when I was growing up, where the IRA were bombing my country weekly; yet where was the hysteria and mass removal of freedom and liberties then?


----------



## Emerana (Jun 27, 2008)

Well considering 90% of girls I knew from childhood were molested before age 13, I dont think it is very small.

I have to say that I dont think it is entirely rational.  Because it is so unlikely to be harmful.  But I am doing my best to explain it to people who dont spend 24/7 caring for young children.

Let us just say that when a parent is playing at a park with a child, that is a save place.  When you take a photo of a child and post it on the internet w/o permission, you are taking that decision away from their parents.  Does it hurt photography so much to ask for a little respect in this area?

That comment, maybe pedophiles are not offending because of child porn (or anything else) is absolutely absurd.


----------



## Battou (Jun 27, 2008)

Emerana said:


> Well considering 90% of girls I knew from childhood were molested before age 13, I dont think it is very small.
> 
> I have to say that I dont think it is entirely rational.  Because it is so unlikely to be harmful.  But I am doing my best to explain it to people who dont spend 24/7 caring for young children.
> 
> ...



A fact that is heavily overlooked during the publication of these inccodents is the percentage of pre-pubesent children abducted, molested and/or worse that are purpitrated by parent, relitive or individual with close ties to the family. The percentage of these attacks being carried out by a complete stranger is in the single didgets.

Twenty years ago things where different but todays lawenforcement is effective to the point that these people are very unwilling to leave their comfort zone.


----------



## nynfortoo (Jun 27, 2008)

Emerana said:


> Well considering 90% of girls I knew from childhood were molested before age 13, I dont think it is very small.



90% of the girls you knew from childhood were molested?




Emerana said:


> Let us just say that when a parent is playing at a park with a child, that is a save place.  When you take a photo of a child and post it on the internet w/o permission, you are taking that decision away from their parents.  Does it hurt photography so much to ask for a little respect in this area?



There isn't really such a thing as a 'safe' place when you're in public. You're being watched all the time. Okay, it might be rude to take pictures of other people or their children without permission, but if your own kid is there, shoot away and let parents who don't want their children being photographed pull their children out of the shot.

At a sporting event, you have every reason to _expect_ to have your picture taken.




Emerana said:


> That comment, maybe pedophiles are not offending because of child porn (or anything else) is absolutely absurd.



How so?


----------



## Tazia Doll (Jun 27, 2008)

Battou said:


> No, it's not about comprimise, it's about having our rights ceased because a small handfull of mentally ill people take advantage of a situation. Then when they are cought the media blows it out of proportion and never does anything to counter the negitive impact. A camera wielding pedoperve gets cought taking upskirts, it gets blasted all over the news and then the guy trying to photograph the park where it happened pays the price. It's gotten to the point where that "park" is where ever and whenever there are children around.


 
About four percent of the last 14 millon child pornography transactions in Britainmonitored by the FBI were teachers. 

That's the tip of the iceberg. Most of the chil pornography that crosses the path of the Oz authorities is free passed. Japan and Australia have a linked rep in relation to their laisez faire approach. I mean take the Henson thing, here's a schoolkid's review.


I went to Bill Henson's latest exhibition with my school today and the pictures he displayed of 11-15 year old girls having "sexual intercourse" with 18year old boys was disgusting. Most of the girls didn't even have breasts yet or pubic hair which made me feel ill in the stomach that people actually like this. One particular photo of a teenage guy probably about 19, had a strong grip around a little girl who had no breasts at all or even 'nipple fat' or pubic hair and he had his penis inserted in her from behind. I do NOT on any account think that is acceptable. I do not call them "works of art". I am not against all of his artwork, as I think he has taken amazing landscape shots that really grabbed my attention. He definently has talent for photography. But I only saw 3 photos in the whole exhibition of adults and of course they were not alone, but with children. I will once again state he does beautiful landscape shots, but I do NOT like his portrayel of the human "childs" body, very disappointed.


so (1) in the USA and UK, well kids are not allowed to visit 'galleries' like that and (2) that kind of art is in violation of federal statute in the USA and the SOA 2003 in the UK. Australia is far more like Japan, they are very laissez faire in relation to kiddie sex fetish material.

Dead horses hanging from gallery ceilings is the least of what goes on in Oz. A lot of stuff produced in Oz, simply can't be traded inthe UK and USA, so it is not really art, if you can't sell it in London, how can it be?


----------



## Garbz (Jun 27, 2008)

The thing about being an internationally acclaimed artist is that... well that word "internationally".
Lets see now he's had huge exhibits in London in 1988, 1990, 1993, 2001, 2005 (this was in NewCastle), oh and the controversial "Twilight" exhibit  which just caused this entirely academic slander exercise in Australia was in London in 2006.
Now the US... ahhh right 2006 in New York, 2004 in Kentucky and New York, 1990s been all over various American cities.

He's had displays in Austria, Spain, France, Italy, I could go on but I'd probably get tired of typing. Look for his artist profile if you want to find more locations.
Also don't make the mistake of thinking that only his recent art is controversial. His style has been much the same since the 80s

Now to the other lax facts of that post. Child pornography is not free passed at all by any authorities in Australia. It comes with mandatory jail terms. What is free passed is surprisingly enough things that are not child pornography, for instance Bill Henson's Art which only shows nude adolescents and shock horror nothing more. (won't speak for Japan here though). 

And no offence but taking a school kid's opinion on art involving a nude body is like asking Kernel Sanders if his chicken is healthy. Henson to my knowledge has never actually protrayed intercourse, nor even implied it in any of his exhibitions. I'd be interested in that school kid's opinion on Picasso's piece with the 20 penises, some of which are ejaculating, others inserted into vaginas.

Also when did London become the centre for artistic impression? Surely that would be the open nation of France and not the prude thinking British.


----------



## passerby (Jun 28, 2008)

nynfortoo said:


> There isn't really such a thing as a 'safe' place when you're in public. You're being watched all the time. Okay, it might be rude to take pictures of other people or their children without permission, but if your own kid is there, shoot away and let parents who don't want their children being photographed pull their children out of the shot.
> 
> At a sporting event, you have every reason to _expect_ to have your picture taken


 
Actually this is the topic of this very OP. It is about taking photos of the member of the family in this public event where other children will be in the frame.

_PARENTS are furious after being banned from taking photographs of their children at weekend sporting events_.


----------



## Battou (Jul 1, 2008)

Tazia Doll said:


> About four percent of the last 14 millon child pornography transactions in Britainmonitored by the FBI were teachers.
> 
> That's the tip of the iceberg. Most of the chil pornography that crosses the path of the Oz authorities is free passed. Japan and Australia have a linked rep in relation to their laisez faire approach. I mean take the Henson thing, here's a schoolkid's review.
> 
> ...



The reply you quoted has nothing to do with the Henson inncodent, It is about the rare occations where a pedoperve stalks his prey in school yards and city parks, utalizing a camera to gather intel and/or "Choice Shots" on the pupil they desire. These are the type of people that the masses fear the most and subsuquently get blown out of proportion by the media when discovered during or after an abduction . 

Because of the media hype revolving around these people, everyday park patrons and school officials are jumping to conclutions when ever they see a device clearly identifyable as a camera. 

Why....I don't know about you but I have never seen national coverage of any occation of a photos of birds taken in a city park......Not even boarderline exteinct ones.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jul 2, 2008)

Battou said:


> These are the type of people that the masses fear the most and subsuquently get blown out of proportion by the media when discovered during or after an abduction.



These people make up a small percentage.  Whether its blown out of proportion is opinion.  I know this will sound crazy, but I try to minimize opinion when trying to make a point.  Let the numbers speak for you. 

People seem to be obsessed with safety.  Maslow's Hierarchy of Human needs has it on the second level of its pyramid, meaning the only thing we desire more so is food and water.  It puts the desire of freedom to be at the very top under Self-Actualization.  Looking at this, it makes sense why people are so willing to throw away their rights in order to gain some order and security.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg/800px-Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg.png

I also think, as I stated before, that if you feel as strongly as you seem to, Battou, I  suggest you support a lobbying group.  In America, where there are so many individual voices (way too many for politicians to respect all of, even if they wanted to) interest groups are the way to get elected officials to hear and understand your opinions.  A donation to the ACLU, for example, may be of interest to you.

I'm sorry I didn't add anything to the argument.  I'm a negotiator/peace-maker by heart, so the art of the argument is something I'm horribly versed in.


----------



## Battou (Jul 2, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> These people make up a small percentage.  Whether its blown out of proportion is opinion.



You are mistaken here. You are correct in the reguards that it is a small percentage of the whole, however the media frenzy that ensues is not oppinion. Fact of the matter is these things get an aweful lot of coverage when it is discovered and people from one end of the aria to the other see it.

This media frenzy was originally intended to be a deturrent to those who would presue these kind of actions by making it abundantly clear that purpritrators would be cought and bare the full consiquences of those actions. However it has backfired and now the public is making assumptions that you will not fully grasp untill you have been falsly accused of this yourself.

I may wright it off as standard issue ignorance in public, but I take great offence to the fact that I, a county appointed Child Care Provider has a visit with a uniformed police officer in a packed public park. Why, because my camera has a bigger lens than everyone elses and people think I am a closet perve because they hear about them on the news. Such accusations could damage my recirtification, thus impeading on my personal security of employment just because I have a camera.

This is happening with way too much frequency, and some of us are not so lucky to have cops that are as intelegent and/or aware of the situation as I had. It's not a matter of politics, in America laws are currently in our favor, it's the general populous that does not know that. This is why people in the sports groups mentioned in the article in the OP think that they can just tell parents they can't have cameras at their kids football games and what not. They are ignorant morons who buy into the hype that every person with a camera is an unnecessary threat. For god sakes there is absolutely no corrilation between the Henson inncodent and youth sporting events....just where the hell do they get off saying there is... Oh yeah it was all over the news, I forgot.

Granted yes I understand that occured outside the US, but that last fact remains the same reguardless.


----------



## Samriel (Jul 2, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> People seem to be obsessed with safety.  Maslow's Hierarchy of Human needs has it on the second level of its pyramid, meaning the only thing we desire more so is food and water.  It puts the desire of freedom to be at the very top under Self-Actualization.  Looking at this, it makes sense why people are so willing to throw away their rights in order to gain some order and security.



I think there is a  fundamental flaw in your logic. What is freedom in the sense of this debate? It is the political *security*and *safety*from oppression and regulation by the government. This act of regulation represents an invasion of their political safety to many people, and many people are skeptical that things will be taken even further if such acts are allowed and that more of their fundamental freedoms will be invaded - there were quite a few examples of such things in the 20th century. Where you were once safe from the authorities when you tried to shoot your kid playing football, now you have safety from anybody taking a picture of your kid while his playing football (including yourself...). Which one one prefers is a matter of opinion. 
By the way, Maslow's arguments might be right or wrong, but a lot of his arguments and presumtions are interpretations and opionions, many of them based "just" on Maslow's thoughs. Nothing wrong with this, just how social sciences work.


----------



## Samriel (Jul 2, 2008)

Battou said:


> For god sakes there is absolutely no corrilation between the Henson inncodent and youth sporting events....just where the hell do they get off saying there is... Oh yeah it was all over the news, I forgot.



Point nailed.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jul 3, 2008)

Samriel said:


> I think there is a  fundamental flaw in your logic. What is freedom in the sense of this debate? It is the political *security*and *safety*from oppression and regulation by the government. This act of regulation represents an invasion of their political safety to many people, and many people are skeptical that things will be taken even further if such acts are allowed and that more of their fundamental freedoms will be invaded - there were quite a few examples of such things in the 20th century. Where you were once safe from the authorities when you tried to shoot your kid playing football, now you have safety from anybody taking a picture of your kid while his playing football (including yourself...). Which one one prefers is a matter of opinion.
> By the way, Maslow's arguments might be right or wrong, but a lot of his arguments and presumtions are interpretations and opionions, many of them based "just" on Maslow's thoughs. Nothing wrong with this, just how social sciences work.



Thank you for the insight.  I didn't think of it this way.  However, I still believe (personally) the need for safety and security in the sense of not being a victim of rape or assault relates to a much more primal desire than that to not be able to take photographs in certain places.  And that's  why I felt certain specific freedoms are more about self-actualization than safety.

I do understand no scientist creates unbiased results.  But I do put faith in his beliefs and opinions, as they are very well thought out (though imperfect, I will admit).  And assuming something else is going to happen just because this is is a logical fallacy (slippery slope).

Thank you for posting your opinion.  Although I disagree, I find it very helpful in figuring out why I feel the way I do (cognitive dissonance).  And maybe next time, you can convince me otherwise.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jul 3, 2008)

Battou said:


> You are mistaken here. You are correct in the reguards that it is a small percentage of the whole, however the media frenzy that ensues is not oppinion. Fact of the matter is these things get an aweful lot of coverage when it is discovered and people from one end of the aria to the other see it.



What I was saying (and I could be wrong), is that _some_ people out there may find the "frenzy" to be quite appropriate.  You know?

I personally am not one of these (I can't watch CNN, cause its coverage IMO and as you said, is over-saturated).  But I think some may find the reaction the media has to these events quite fitting.  That's all I was saying.

Sorry that I didn't make myself clearer.  I'll try harder next time.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 3, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> I still believe (personally) the need for safety and security in the sense of not being a victim of rape or assault relates to a much more primal desire than that to not be able to take photographs in certain places.



While the need for safety I understand, what I don't see is the positive correlation between the act of taking a photo and the actual assault. This is what troubles me personally about most of these discussions is that there is no evidence that a lack of a photo would protect anyone. The two are simply not causal in my mind. Worse still I am inclined to believe myself if they are causal that they may actually be negatively correlated. The lack of the ability to take a photograph and go take care of the perverted mental state in private may increase desire and actually cause an assault.

The same can also be applied to terrorism. The inability of taking a photograph does not equate to an inability to do surveillance. All you're doing is bringing the perpetrators closer to their target, and more often. The mention of a camera in various assault cases or cases about minors is what causes this association of the camera being directly related to the crime, and this is accidentally driven by the media

I also want to add this food for thought. There's no doubt the number of cameras has increased over the last 20 years. As the media would have you believe so have the number of assaults. But have the number of assaults increased, or only the number of reported / identified assaults?


----------



## nynfortoo (Jul 3, 2008)

Garbz said:


> I also want to add this food for thought. There's no doubt the number of cameras has increased over the last 20 years. As the media would have you believe so have the number of assaults. But have the number of assaults increased, or only the number of reported / identified assaults?



The population has increased, too. In fact, in the past 20 years, it has increased by about 2 billion.


----------



## The Dread Pirate Robins (Jul 3, 2008)

So often in these cases the best answer, in my opinion, is to use common sense.  Do allow grandpa to snap a shot of his little slugger grand-daughter staring down the pitcher during a game.  DON'T allow the same grandpa free access to the girl's locker room with his camera after the game.

If a game is taking place at a public venue and is open to the public, some members of the public are bound to take photos.

I have two daughters and I take some basic steps to protect them from pedophiles.  One, I don't allow them to just wander off with people I don't know at the park.  Two, I don't dress them in trashy clothes like I'm getting them ready for a career at Hooter's.  True, it is not either of my daughters' responsibility that there are pedophiles in the world, but I think one should take basic precautions.

I have occasionally had photographers (there are a lot of enthusiastic amateurs like myself in the neighborhood centered kind of around the camera shop) come up to me at a playground or wherever and ask if it's okay to take some shots of my kids on the play equipment.  I have so far not refused any such requests, adding the condition that the kid stays in my sight the whole time.  So far, I have never had a problem.


----------



## KD5NRH (Jul 3, 2008)

Garbz said:


> The mention of a camera in various assault cases or cases about minors is what causes this association of the camera being directly related to the crime, and this is accidentally driven by the media



Very little of what the media does to influence public opinion is accidental.  Let's look at some other stories:



			
				NY Times said:
			
		

> She had with her a compressed air pistol, a steel mallet, a knife, pepper spray, four feet of rubber tubing, latex gloves and garbage bags.



Any normal person will recognize that a steel mallet is called a hammer, and that all of these items with the exception of the air pistol (and that's not even very abnormal around here) are pretty normal trunk-stuff for anyone with enough mechanical skills to work on their car. (And it's perfectly reasonable in this case to assume that the suspect was at lesat that skilled.)  Listing off items and giving them bad associations is one of the media's favorite fear-mongering tactics.  Just imagine what they could do with the list of technical names of darkroom chemicals found in a lot of photogs' houses.



			
				Indian Country News said:
			
		

> A grand jury in Ketchikan has failed to indict a former tribal president of the Ketchikan Indian Community on felony drug charges.



Grand juries don't fail to indict.  Saying that they failed to rather than refused to implies that the suspect was guilty, and the jury knew it and wanted to indict, but just couldn't overcome some technical hurdle.



			
				Palm Beach Post said:
			
		

> The weapon identified as a 9mm Glock. It is one of the simpler designs in handguns and is popular for use by police forces around the world. It is capable of automatic fire, and the various models can carry 17, 19 or 33 shots, in a clip.



The fully automatic Glock 9mm is the Glock 18, which sells for well over $5,000, not counting the $200 transfer tax and all the Federal paperwork.  As far as stealing one, that's well nigh impossible as well, since there aren't very many in civilian hands in the US, and given the NFA ownership requirements, automatic weapons are well protected, and reported immediately if stolen.  If that were the case, there would be a whole other story about the gun being stolen and investigating how it got to this guy.  IOW, I seriously doubt he went through 6 months of paperwork and waiting to spend a small fortune just to shoot up a fast food joint, but the idea that he did it with a submachine gun just sounds so much more sensational than the truth.

Anything referencing an AK47; they're not cheap, and not that commonly used in crimes, but they sound a lot more evil and sensational than the various common rifles that are virtually always misidentified as such.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 3, 2008)

What an engrossing thread! I can't join in any significant way because I get uber-pissed at people who justify sacrificing liberty and rights for safety.  I believe it was Ben Franklin who said it best: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety shall have neither." 

Jeez, I can't even write another sentence on the topic without going ballistically postal and getting very insulting and personal - so I guess that's my hit and run for this thread. 

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine

And I think that means taking care of business yourself and not depending on the government to make rules about when and how you can wipe your ah-hem, noses. Turning the US and UK into nanny "tattle-tale" states isn't the answer unless you're trying to emulate pre-war and war-time Germany - (tho I hear some actually are). I also think it means DEMANDING your rights even if it seems a little too boisterous or intrusive for the event. I loved it when Garbz spoke of the coach tearing the grounds official a new orifice! Way to frigging go! We need more people like that guy and less wimps that are willing to "go along to get along"!!! And of course it surely means being hyper-critical of any kind of socialistic or tyrannical policies implied, or enacted by your government!


----------



## Edward Crim (Jul 3, 2008)

And it covers a full 35mm frame?




Tiberius47 said:


> Most pedophiles that want to secretly take photos of children at the weekend soccer match aren't standing on the sidelines with a 5D and a 70-300 f2.8.
> 
> hard to hide that.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 4, 2008)

KD5NRH said:


> Very little of what the media does to influence public opinion is accidental.  Let's look at some other stories: *snip*



Ok yes granted. But having a fully automatic handgun is sensational. Having a camera is not. In most of the cases locally anyway the media tends to jump on the computer. "The police arrested *** and several computers were seized containing thousands of images blah blah."

But I do agree, accidental was definitely the wrong word. I was going more with the meaning of the sensationalism they present, which accidental incites the fear of a camera.



Edward Crim said:


> And it covers a full 35mm frame?



Nah it won't cover anything since it doesn't exist. However the 70-200 f/2.8 which he was probably talking about does cover 35mm


----------



## Tazia Doll (Jul 10, 2008)

Garbz said:


> The thing about being an internationally acclaimed artist is that... well that word "internationally".
> Lets see now he's had huge exhibits in London in 1988, 1990, 1993, 2001, 2005 (this was in NewCastle), oh and the controversial "Twilight" exhibit which just caused this entirely academic slander exercise in Australia was in London in 2006.
> Now the US... ahhh right 2006 in New York, 2004 in Kentucky and New York, 1990s been all over various American cities.
> 
> ...


 

The kid is wrong, but if a kid wants to do kiddie porn with Bill, that other kid is right, that's real post-adult about pre-adults.

His kiddie fetish material is banned from just about every major gallery I know, it is illegal to trade in London. 

I think the kid was close enough to the mark. The kid was basically seeing a child porn merchant strut his stuff. That's what Bill does. His dark thing. When he isn't reading Silence of the Lambs or whatever.

http://www.artdes.monash.edu.au/globe/issue3/bhrmtxt.html


'The softness of Henson's photos seems to _allow_ the intense sexual nature of his subjects rather than create it. The realness of a naked pubescent girl with the mere suggestion of pubic hair, or an adolescent boy in shadowy contraposto with large hands and tumescent penis, is constantly tugged away from us into the realm of memory or imagination. In the 1995-96 works, apparently explicit sexual images generate abstract relationships in the dreamscape that Henson creates. The image of a couple ****ing almost doesn't even register on the brain. The naked torso of a girl adjacent to the open legs of a naked boy refuses to coalesce into a "complete" image; the boy's torso is almost like the girl's memory image, or her body a fantasy image of his. Henson's pictures seem mostly either pre-coital or post-coital. '

Two eye witnesses, if ya haven't seen i, don't be the expert.

Leave it to the kd

Tazia Doll


----------



## Tazia Doll (Jul 10, 2008)

"Child pornography is not free passed at all by any authorities in Australia."

Dream on. That's my line of work. Oz is notorious for child porn, bad teachers, and political exceptions, Henson's career is proof of that. He's a child porn merchant. 

I do a lot of work in W-DC elating to US foreign policy. Oz & Japan are probs. If Henson ain't stopped, Oz will be like Japan. Look at Art Monthly, that was a Japanese sado porn sex thing with trussed up schoolgirls and a naked 6 year old on the front.

The Japanese are sick with stuff - it is their idea of normal. It is scary to see it catching on in Oz, it really is. It is mainstreaming pedophilia.

Henson knocks it out in cow town, he's banned from just about every place. He can only do ordinary stuff in London, he has maybe two things on a wall at the V & A. 

He's even restricted at some of the galleries on Croggon's letter! The Oz media was too hick to call them up!

I can tell you somethng else, Japanese Schoolgirl Monthly, grant asisted though it is, won't get past Brit customs because, it's child pornography.

Tazia Doll


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 10, 2008)

You joined this site just to reply here? And what agency are you with? I think additionally that you're presenting falsehoods as fact. So far you've just been scamming.  I find so far anyway, that everything you've said turns out to be totally untrue. 

And isn't it interesting that you have no posts in any other thread...

What agency was that again please?


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Jul 10, 2008)

Hey, Tazia Doll- Yep, he is a child porn merchant just like I am Superman.

Get a grip.

Why don't you put your _agency _to work finding the real porn merchants.

People that think like you, are the real menace to our society.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jul 11, 2008)

I don't know anyone from Japan (except Bifurcator, and he is really cool).  But I think we should refrain from labeling an entire country as having pedophilic (?) tendencies.  That's a hasty generalization, and it does not add anything to the discussion other than to hurt people's feelings.  I can understand trying to help someone see your perspective, but namecalling only makes people retreat mentally and emotionally, both of which are counterproductive to the discussion.

The real question of child nudity is where you draw the line.  I think we can all agree it is VERY difficult to determine whether something is artistic or obscene (or this argument wouldn't be happening).  

So how can a government determine what child nudity is artistic or pornographic?  From a legal standpoint, it would need to fit a written description so it could be properly enforced.

The easiest way is to ban all child nudity like the US has done.  But another option is to have a review board decide.  The US does this with their movies by using the ratings suggested by the MPAA.  But many find this system horribly flawed.

So, to everyone who thinks this photo is artistic:  How do you make a universal rule that allows some nudity and not other nudity?  How can you make these situations as black and white as possible, or at least clear-cut enough to be able to properly enforce that which we would all find obscene?

For the record, I feel this photo is artistic, but I also have no clue how to *legally *allow this photo and not one of questionable intent.  And truthfully, if a government could not adequately enforce the ban of child pornography due to, "artistic" loopholes, I'd rather see photos like this be banned then see innocent children traumatized and abused.


----------



## Samriel (Jul 11, 2008)

This whole post has really nothing to do with photography, but hell, I...just...can't...restrain...myself from taking part in these quasi political discussions. Please forgive me :meh:



Tazia Doll said:


> The Japanese are sick with stuff - it is their idea of normal.



That's called "a different culture". And what you are doing is called "ethnocentric observation", and seems to be quite the boom in W-DC, I hear. Quite a few people consider that to be a much bigger problem then pedophilia.
By the way, there was no word (in the proper Western sense) for pedophilia or sexual harassment in Japan until the 70s - they have a different culture concerning these things (and many others...), and as long as they do not directly bother you or your children with it, why do you care? Do you want to now how many of *your* habits seem uncomprehensible and disguisting to the average Japanese? Yes, different moral standards are bad... VERY BAAAD...



			
				Senor Hound said:
			
		

> But I think we should refrain from labeling an entire country as having pedophilic (?) tendencies.


It is not neccessarily incorrect to say that a culture has certain tendencies (even pedophilic ones), the problem is taking and objective position - what is objective in cases like these? This is an extremely difficult topic, which can be easily solved and understood by living in a foreign culture for at least year or so.  Anyway, better to discuss it in with some hot sake.:coffee:



			
				Bifurcator said:
			
		

> What agency was that again please?



Yes, I would REALLY like to know that...


----------



## Senor Hound (Jul 11, 2008)

Samriel said:


> It is not neccessarily incorrect to say that a culture has certain tendencies (even pedophilic ones), the problem is taking and objective position - what is objective in cases like these? This is an extremely difficult topic, which can be easily solved and understood by living in a foreign culture for at least year or so.  Anyway, better to discuss it in with some hot sake.



I believe there is a problem with saying a country has a certain tendency when you don't back the claim up with any sort of evidence.  And a country that helps publish magazines that contain underage nudity is not the same thing as a country that helps support adults having sex with minors.  This is too big of a jump, IMO to consider it, "evidence."  And I'm sure more than one person of Japanese heritage would be offended by this hasty generalization the poster made about the Japanese being, "sick."  So, I still have to say I don't feel its productive to the argument.   But thank you for sharing your opinion

Sorry to derail.   Continue with Bill Henson...


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 11, 2008)

Well this thread by it's very nature is nothing but political. I also think it's something every photographer needs to consider before we find our cameras being treated like hand-guns - as indeed they already are in some parts of the USA.  Think I'm kidding? NYC passed (or maybe just enacted it without any legislative process I dunno) an ordinance that requires you to obtain a permit to carry/use a camera in any public area and cops are selectively seising equipment without receipt and additionally making occasional arrests. It's bogus and gets kicked out of court (for now) but that doesn't get you back your cameras in some cases nor spare you the arrest record and hassle.

But I was jumped on last time I answered a question with a politically toned answer so I better stop huh?


----------



## Garbz (Jul 11, 2008)

We need a "please don't feed the troll" emoticon.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 11, 2008)




----------



## Battou (Jul 13, 2008)

A few days ago I put the final nail in the coffin, but I'll repete it for the plastic immitation users who seem to think this is a good place to dump their views on the Henson issue and leave with out bothering to actually read the OP.



Battou said:


> ...people in the sports groups mentioned in the article in the OP think that they can just tell parents they can't have cameras at their kids football games and what not. They are ignorant morons who buy into the hype that every person with a camera is an unnecessary threat. For god sakes there is absolutely no corrilation between the Henson inncodent and youth sporting events....just where the hell do they get off saying there is... Oh yeah it was all over the news, I forgot.
> 
> Granted yes I understand that occured outside the US, but that last fact remains the same reguardless.




And now before we get any more of of those extremeists trolls who think this is about the Henson incodent, Lock this thread, It's over.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 13, 2008)

Henson... heh!!!!  Because of him we all have to suffer now!


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 13, 2008)

I was strolling through the arcade today and saw the above. I immediately thought of this discussion topic and how it's only "western" culture (or some people in it) that is so messed up.


----------



## RockDawg (Jul 15, 2008)

I saw this today. It's not directly related to Bill Henson, but it's related to the topic if this thread. 



> *Father-of-three branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park:*
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vert--photographing-children-public-park.html


 
Utterly ridiculous!


----------



## Battou (Jul 15, 2008)

RockDawg said:


> I saw this today. It's not directly related to Bill Henson, but it's related to the topic if this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Utterly ridiculous!




True, absolutely rediculous


----------



## Battou (Jul 15, 2008)

I thought I would share a question in reply to that last link provided form PL's forum.



			
				Battou said:
			
		

> sleepingdragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## nynfortoo (Jul 16, 2008)

RockDawg said:


> I saw this today. It's not directly related to Bill Henson, but it's related to the topic if this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Utterly ridiculous!



I would strongly suggest you take everything from the Daily Mail with a bucket of salt. This paper has a great tendency to make mountains out of microscopic dots.

Its readers and staff are renowned for being hysterical idiots.


----------

