Taking pictures of your kids are you? You Pervert!

[Bob Hubbard]

"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

 

[jks9199]

"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

What's next... Charging parents with possession of child pornography for having pictures of their kids in the bathtub?

He was taking pictures of his own kids, fully clothed, in a public setting! It seems that he worked to avoid capturing shots of someone else's kids...

I do understand the concern. I've checked out people hanging out near playgrounds and the like... but if they had reasonable explanation, came back clean on a record check, and weren't doing more to set the alarm bells off... that's as far as it went.

 

[Empty Hands]

Sadly, this sort of thing is not at all unusual. A product of our current moral panic about child molesters, I am afraid. Child molestation isn't any more prevalent than it used to be, and children are more in danger from their close relatives than anyone else. Yet the panic continues. The occasional casualties like this guy are usually excused by the crusaders as a regrettable yet understandable and expected part of fighting this "threat." Similar to the drug war, now that I think of it.

For my part, I both look forward to and dread having children. All it will take will be one ninny thinking that having lunch with my daughter "doesn't look right" to ruin all our lives. I am also glad I am into digital photography after hearing about all the parents hassled when they have pictures developed at the photomat.

 

[Empty Hands]

Charging parents with possession of child pornography for having pictures of their kids in the bathtub?

Now that you mention it...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Some of the paranoia over photography is nuts.
If you have pro looking gear, your'e a bad guy.

It's like, folks, Mr. Pervert isn't going to stand there in public with $6,000 in gear, and a big *** lens. He'll be sneaking shots with a cheap point-n-shoot, or his camera phone.

Mr. Terrorist isn't going to show up at the bridge with a 22MP Med-Format. He'll have a little tourist camera, maybe even a disposable.

Common sence, it's MIA today.

 

[Andrew Green]

Should have let mom take the pictures, no one would have said a thing. After all, all men are perverts, or at least thats what some people would like us to believe.

Fortunately the cops backed him up and said he was doing nothing wrong. Although I'm not sure that is better as I was expecting to find out he was arrested and put on a sex offender list for his family photography...

It doesn't even seem to be molestors that are the scare now, but that everyone with a camera... ok, every male with a camera, is going to put there pictures up on the internet.

 

[theletch1]

Should have let mom take the pictures, no one would have said a thing. After all, all men are perverts, or at least thats what some people would like us to believe.

Fortunately the cops backed him up and said he was doing nothing wrong. Although I'm not sure that is better as I was expecting to find out he was arrested and put on a sex offender list for his family photography...

It doesn't even seem to be molestors that are the scare now, but that everyone with a camera... ok, every male with a camera, is going to put there pictures up on the internet.

Amazes me that, even though it seems like every week we hear of another woman molesting a child, men are still automatically targeted as the predators and women can get by with stuff that would land a man in jail... guilty or not. Sure, I understand that "Woman as nurturer" can cover for a lot of public activity that would flag a guy but, man, I thought "profiling" was wrong.

 

[terryl965]

This is just stupid

 

[Bob Hubbard]

This is just stupid

Try getting a "naked baby in the bath" picture developed at your local drug store.

 

[jks9199]

I want to address a few things.

First: Bob, I'm sorry -- but the perverts and the terrorists are sometimes smart enough to know that cheap/suspicious cameras will give them away. Please note that, outside of certain places like Langley/CIA Headquarters, my practice, training, and belief is to INVESTIGATE the suspicious action, not begin with a new jerk "he's a pervert/terrorist/monster." I used to watch the kids playing baseball near the community center where I teach. Obviously, none of the kids were mine -- and if someone asked, I can explain myself. Same sort of thing with photographers.

Second: Child Porn. A nude picture is not necessarily pornography; a nude picture of a kid isn't necessarily child porn. There has to be a salicious or sexual nature to the picture, not just nudity. Real child porn makes those of us who are normal sick; it's kids doing things that aren't appropriate, and it hits you in the gut. I don't -- and I never want to! -- work child porn, but I've had to see enough of it. It makes you sick. What happened in that case is that the Child & Family Services Department wasted weeks and weeks of effort in an inappropriate and unsubstantiable investigation. I don't blame the store photo clerk for calling the cops. And the cops may not have had a choice; they did have some pictures there that could suggest that the kids were put into dangerous situations. Especially since, in the writer's own words, the kids took some of the pictures on their own, and the parents didn't know what was in them. Too many times, CFS has overworked people with the wrong training conducting investigations. The interviews should have taken place within the first week, and the entire roll of film should have been reviewed. There's no reason that the investigation should have lasted weeks; the only explanation is that the case workers assignment load was too high. In fact, the very length of the investigation suggests that there was little real concern for the safety of the children. In short, hearing only one side of the case, I think the investigation was terribly mismanaged. I've had several very bad experiences working with CPS -- along with a few really good experiences. I've had cases where they don't start investigations they should... and where they've come to us with significant cases. It's just very uneven, because they aren't criminal investigators -- they're social workers.

But there's really no easy solution. The over-reacting mothers in the story that started this thread aren't right; they're like a novice student who jumps at every twitch when sparring. But they wouldn't be wrong to ignore something that made them concerned, either. In terms of photography -- there's been no real definition of pornography; rulings basically hold "we know it when we see it." Then you get some clerk who barely speaks English developing the film, with a 19 year old store "manager", and it gets dumped on a patrol officer. Often, as a mandatory reporter, he doesn't have a choice about reporting something that he knows is silly -- or he as to take the police report, and a supervisor who's afraid of being called on the carpet for a judgement call like that passes it on to CPS -- who are mostly social workers, not real investigators. Too often, a CPS worker's job consists of hitting the checkmarks on the list, not really investigating.

 

[Archangel M]

Cant put it any better than jks9199 just did.

 

[Kacey]

I understand the concern, I really do... but it also concerns me that we've reached this point, where paranoia overtakes sense.

 

[thardey]

I understand the concern, I really do... but it also concerns me that we've reached this point, where paranoia overtakes sense.

When in history has it been otherwise?

 

[Archangel M]

Well. Since this didnt really involve any government action I dont think its such a big deal. A lot of people believe some really weird stuff.