RoadWarriorFromLP

Keep it up, and you'll be winning the gold soon enough:

fatbrit

What's liberal about it? I'm reading this thread and wondering what the OP's fretting about.

AmerLisa

If someone was videotaping my child.....they had better have a written consent signed by me or my husband, or their equipment would be smashed. A child isn't always aware - DUH! Whose job is it to protect the child?

scrubbedexpat097

You don't have kids do you...............

Octang Frye

And more power to you. Of course you look after your children and insulate them from as much of the world as you can.
That's not the point I'm making though. I'm cringing over the pantywaists who objectify children as precious little snowflakes. Man-up Nancy. If it bothers you that much, do what AmerLisa suggested.

AmerLisa

You're saying they should be insulated, but then they aren't precious?

rew1000

I agree, with all due respect to the OP's genuine distress.

What makes a camera so special? When you're in public, you're surrounded by people who can see you, and remember what they see. If that makes you uncomfortable, you can adjust your behaviour/dress accordingly, or seek out somewhere private. (Unless you believe that a camera can steal your soul - http://photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00DnuX)

I think the law has it about right - you can be photographed in a public place (unless privacy would be expected, like a public bathroom), but a photographer cannot stalk you, harass you etc. If the photograph is to be published, you may have the right to object to things like implied endorsement of a commercial product, etc.

Kali-forniarrr

Why is it that bodily fluid carelessness always becomes everyone else problem? I was on a flight last week and this older "mother" took the flight attendants names and all this shit, and had the whole plane jump around for some trivia..painful.

Tracym

It DOES matter. Legal behaviour is one thing, illegal another. And what actions are appropriate differ a lot between the two.

As I said, I wouldn't care for it - and would probably ask the people who owned the pool to intervene.

But there is a big difference between legal and illegal actions - and the appropriate reactions to either.

I'm not positive which it is - but I'm leaning towards thinking legal. And if it IS legal - doing things like plastering pics all over etc. are not particularly appropriate, and possible illegal themselves.

Again, my sympathies to the OP - I'm sorry they were concerned. And I wouldn't have liked the guy either. But it doesn't sound like the child was harmed thankfully.

fatbrit

I'm sorry but having kids is not a qualification for either being liberal or wondering what the OP is fretting about.

Personally I think the guy was a weirdo and could well have been a paedophile. However, since he didn't approach the child and was using a camera in a public area, there's a limit to what anyone can do if he isn't under some sort of parole order or had broken . I simply don't want such incidents to make using a camera in a public place illegal, I'm afraid.

The weirdo has done little harm. He didn't approach or speak to the child and does not know their identity. By all means report it to the local cop shop. But these silly ideas of assaulting the guy are beyond stupid.

Octang Frye

Hooray for reasonable people.

Am I actually agreeing with fatbrit? -shudder-

Rete

Truly socially unacceptable? To what? Take pictures, film a street with people, film kids playing in a pond? What is unacceptable about any of that. He did not do anything illegal. If he did, then all of us are guilty of the same behavior. The child was clothed. At least it appears she had on undies. Don't know if her chest was covered. But if the parents were willing to have their child play in a pool in their undies and/or a bathing suit then they were also allowing others view their child.

He filmed a child at play. He did not touch her, violate her physically, mentally or emotionally.


Which they did. Liability for what?????????????




And others will be taking this seriously? That someone was filming children in a public area?

I have children. I have grandchildren. I have a child who was sexually violated as a young girl. I don't say any of the above lightly for I would never want what happened to my child to happen to any child. However, you cannot curtail the legal liberty of others because what you think might be the reason for their actions.

Octang Frye

Yeah! Go get 'em, Rete.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Liberal, conservative, apolitical or otherwise, no decent parent wants to aid and abet some stranger in the act of perving his or her kid. That's particularly true during the age of the internet, when that video could be disseminated to thousands of like-minded head cases who get off on this sort of thing.

I am generally a zealous free speech advocate, but the internet has made some of those notions archaic, because images are so easily distributed to such a wide population. Imagine your image being disseminated without your consent to an audience not of your choosing, or footage of the OP's daughter being circulated among eager pedophiles looking for their version of soft-core porn -- would you really, honestly want that?

fatbrit

Unless the images was attached to either my name or pseudonyms, I don't think I'd ever find it on the Internet.

I drink my daily java in an very gay coffee shop and, with my stunning good looks and charming yet heterosexual nature, would not be surprised at all if one of the regulars had snapped me with his Apple and was wanking over me at home or with his buddies over the Net. Does it bother me? Not at all! Provided he doesn't print my name beneath it.

I don't want my internet censoring in some futile quest to protect children, I'm afraid.