E3only

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=555839

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...979877673.html


This link reminded me of the thread (below) and I thought of posting it...

I have read original thread, posted and felt very passionate about child protection and the freedom in today’s world for kids to be just that.

I know there will be legal differences between AU and US. But this thread highlights the possible positives (as I see it anyway) vs. US. I am not saying one country is superion to another but merely pointing out what I felt was a positive....

I do not intend to get responses on this thread on how one country is better than another but the story above makes me feel children are safer here on at least on aspect when it comes to ‘legality’ of doing something that should clearly be “subject over matter”.

This is a homeless man, at a public place, taking photos – striking similarities to the original case.

Anyway, just out of interest ……………………..

md95065

Yes, but "inappropriate" isn't the same as "criminal".

If the police just thought that it was "inappropriate" they should have warned the guy and told him to stop doing it. Arresting him on charges of child pornography seems to me to be "inappropriate" if all that he was doing was taking pictures in a public place.

E3only

Of course. I have no detailed research into "what the guy did was illegal/criminal" or not. The fact that he was arrested and asked to appear in court (bail was denied) means the matter is to be heard.

Against this, from the original thread - it was clear that the guy had done nothing wrong because he was videoing from a public place. It's a bit laughable (to me anyway) that someone can have camera's in a public area and video their neighbor in US with no issues (I stand corrected here!). . . . .

I do not think so the OP (original thread) called the police so I do not know how the police in US would have reacted. But responses on the thread made me feel - the police would not have done anything as they are powerless i.e. the guy was not doing anything 'illegal'.....

Against that - atleast the police here could cuff him up. In deed he may or may not be released without any crime against his name...but what I would never know is 'what if' this happened in US, could the cops cuff him up? Or would it just be 'o he has not done anything against law'...

md95065

It is really pretty much the same here in the US.

Sure the police could have arrested him - if only because any even semi-competent cop can usually come up with at least *some* excuse for arresting almost anyone even if they have not "done anything".

The problem is that it is difficult to come up with an objective standard here.

From the description of this case it sounds as if these pictures would not have been considered "child pornography" if they were taken by one of the children's parents, so how precisely do the become suspect just because the pictures were taken by a stranger? Unless you can come up with some objective criteria there is a great risk that cases will be prosecuted in a very selective way.

E3only

I absolutely appreciate your views here. I think I was amazed with the level of "Ha, can't do nothing. If you were so concerned why did you not cover up your children".

I understand your explanation, however I think the thread got so into legality and laws that morals were ignored. People almost started blaming the OP.

As a person who has never been to the states and unknown of the culture there, I took the thread (mind you various people responded to this thread with different opinion - all of them concentrating on legality) to be a sample size of how people think in the States. I am not sure if this guy in AU gets charged with anything or not (may be not I think).

But I just thought of sharing it anyway on the forum. I remember one of the responses on the thread was a "cultural" difference between Poms and US - ites. It was a valid post, however the question that I always had was, "Is cultural difference (just that) ok that kids get video-ed".....For record - I do not have kids but I felt for OP (did not agree on everything they said/did).....

Cheers.

JAJ

The court will of course decide that. However, if they agree with the interpretation of the police that sets a dangerous precedent that will make virtually every Australian parent vulnerable to arrest. And next time it won't be a "homeless man" - it will be a parent or grandparent.

If cameras are to be banned in public places, or if it should become illegal to take a photograph of any child, anywhere, then that is something that should be imposed through an Act of Parliament and no other way.

If the court throws out the charges, then one wonders if there would be scope to make a complaint against the police for a grossly unfounded prosecution.

Socially inappropriate behaviour is not automatically a criminal act, and if it is not, then it cannot be used as a basis to deprive a citizen of liberty.

Tracym

That's amazing - calling it pornography.

As far as I know, pornography is generally considered to be something of a sexual nature.

Taking pictures of innocent children at play, being considered pornography? wow.

This does sound like selective prosecution to me. Scary.

Bluegrass Lass

It is a dangerous precedent indeed, when a parent or family member can't take photos/video of their own child. Where does the line get drawn between "this could be pornography" and simply taking pictures of your own child? Does that mean I can't video my child getting her first swimming lessons, or swimming in the ocean for the first time because they are wearing a swim suit in public? Or how about not being able to video your child in a school play/pageant because other kids may in the shot and you don't have their parents' permission to film them?

I'm not a legal expert by any means, so I have no idea how lawyers and judges can pick and choose who to prosecute, but what this guy was doing does not appear to be criminal at all, IMO. Is it faintly disturbing? Yes. Criminal? No. That's just this Americans' opinion.

Ray

Homeless person and cell phones seems to be unusual

tamms_1965

I have children, now 19 and 21, but they have never been to a "public" pool. Most pools in our area are private membership which prevents strangers from appearing on site to photograph. The ones that the public (swim parks mainly)can go to requires an entrance fee just to get into the parking lot. Even if there had been public city pools, I don't think I would have allowed them to swim there.

Octang Frye

Tamms, I think you're overprotective. So you think that taking your kids to a private pool is any different to a "public" pool? <Raises eyebrow>

A lot of overreaction again. Without wanting to turn this into a flame war, Australia seems to be afflicted with the same malady that has really messed up the UK. The virus of politically correct do-goodery.

Yeah, there are differences. Differences in mindsets. For myself, I always err on the side of personal liberty. You give up that basic tenet of freedom and see where that will get you... As hopefully you're no doubt learning. BTW, how's that Internet censorship working out for you, E3Only?

Octang Frye

Wow, I just read the link. Absolutely farking pathetic. That's pornography?
Way to cheapen the meaning of what is real pornography. What a sorry state of affairs.

\ Wondering whether to cross Australia of list of places to visit.

Rete

If I followed that rule, my children would never had gone swimming. We certainly weren't affluent and didn't have a private house or an apartment in a building with a pool. We relied on county parks with pools or lakes for the children to swim.

meauxna

It's the damn Socialism I tell ya.

Octang Frye

ShamWow. Let me guess, it's a shammy cloth that miraculously cleans the foor?

For the amazingly low cost of $19.95. But wait, there's more. Order now and we'll give a second ShamWow for free, and these chrome lined ceramic door hooks.

We should have a name and shame thread, where people confess to buying crap from TV. I almost bought a "cyclonic oven" and some of the "Singers and Songwriters" collections.