Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by chanel, May 6, 2011.
NJ Lawmakers really need a vacation. Unbelievable.
Political correctness run amok coupled with nut job moronic left wing lunacy equals one more incredibly stupid attempted law.
Pheh...if you read the bill it says "child to be the subject of such reproduction"
The key word here is "subject".
Kids in the background of a photo where something else is the focus...is not the subject, therefore not unlawful.
I worked 13 years in the newspaper business, editors have loooong required parental consent for photos of a child or children if they are the focus of the picture.
Sounds totally unworkable.
If you are in the public domain you do not have the right to expect privacy.
However, there is a difference between just being in a picture, because you were there, and being in a picture because the photographer wanted you (or knew you would be) there, if you get me drift.
Where one draws the line between just accidently being in a picture and stalking or privacy invasion isn't easy to define.
Such distinctions must be decided in the context of the event.
Even for high school sports? Community activities? My children have been in the paper numerous times. I've never signed a consent.
Who is to say what the subject is? If you are taking a picture of the ocean and there are children swimming, who is to say what the subject is? How are people to know what the age is of people in the ocean?
If they are worried about voyeurism, there is already a law on the books. If they are worried about harrassment or intimidation, etc . there is already a law.
digital age....things go on the net.....i always ask parents before i take a picture of any kid....just common decency in my opinion
I think you would have to know what is behind this law, what created the desire to make the law.
For example, news media could be exempted...that would be an easy addendum.
Is it illegal right now to post a youtube video of kids doing something stupid? Should it be?
Would you, as a parent, want to see your 13yo in a video doing something incredibly embarrassing to you?
I would want to see the actual bill, and what the intended spirit of the law is.
There was a creepy guy videotaping a young girls' swim meet. A mother got freaked and asked that he be arrested. Cops said there was no law. So just like every other nanny state idea, idiots say "no pictures ever It's for the children!!!" And while I'd hate to see some inappropriate video of my kid doing something stupid, I would not their friends jailed for it. Imagine opening that can of worms.
No kidding. Whats the justification for preemption?
What constitutes news media? How do the cops know creepy guy at the swim meet isnt press? Whats the probable cause for asking for his credentials? Now were talking police state.
Youd think someone involved in drafting this law would get with a legal advisor first to explore civil rights issues before proceeding.
Odd. In my state, which is pretty solidly rightwingloon land, I've had to sign or decline numerous forms giving or not giving my permission for my kids to be photographed.
I don't really get your objection, chanel.
Separate names with a comma.