Misuse of photography; when the law SHOULD win

[Seefutlung]

Glaston-

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

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

Gary

 

[rmh159]

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

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

 

[table1349]

And I have to disagree with you....

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

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

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

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

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

 

[usayit]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[table1349]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[craig]

We may be heading way off course here people.

Love & Puppies

 

[usayit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mike_E]

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

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

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

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

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

Sick sick sick - R M Thompson"

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

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

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

 

[usayit]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Mike_E]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mike

 

[usayit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

"And I don't know what you have against Christians but anyone who is really following Christ doesn't have the time or inclination to Judge anyone else."

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

 

[Rick Waldroup]

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

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

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

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

 

[Rick Waldroup]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mike_E]

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

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

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

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

mike

 

[The_Traveler]

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

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

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