Bill Henson aftermath

[Jedo_03]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Arch]

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

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]

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]

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.

Arch - Moderator

Thank you for your comments and advice.

La porta è chiusa

Jedo

 

[Senor Hound]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.