Bill Henson aftermath

[Jedo_03]

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]

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.[/quote]

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

 

[Samriel]

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

I'm glad we agree on something.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

+1

 

[KD5NRH]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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?