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.
This is the whole story.
Some N.J. lawmakers target people who photograph children without parental consent | NJ.com
My objection ravi, is that it would be expensive, unnecessary, and impractical. It is essentially a thought crime. We don't arrest people because there is a .000000000000001 percent chance that a creepy guy might pleasure himself to a picture of a child at a swim meet. Sheez.
If they want to ban sex offenders from photographing children, I'm all for it. But the ACLU would freak over that one.
If they want to arrest ordinary people who like to photograph, frankly they can go to hell.
here is the damned problem: yankees are a bunch of pussies in general.....that man filming 8 to 10 yr old girls and saying he likes them that age....or likes to watch them at that age is simply saying....i like to film your daughters and then jack off to her when i get home...yeehaw....key banjo music cause this person would have gotten the mal kicked out of him by the fathers ....some times community actions beats the hell out of expecting the police to do anything....unless you want some old lady or youngster tasered
We need some of you Southerner fer sure! The guy actually was arrested but let go. But, hopefully the cops gave him a good talkin to.
Throughout the year and for each and every school outing, I have to sign releases which either give or decline permission for my kids to be photographed.
Appearantly, there is a growing plague of strangers going about photographing and videoing children they are not related to. Why else would such a law be needed or even suggested? The question is: Is this really happening ? Is this about the publishing of material, or just the making of it ?
This could lead to more and more preemptive laws:
Islam has laws that prohibit women from showing too much of their bodies in public. Maybe there should be a law in the West against parents allowing their children to show too much of themselves in public.
Remember when kids were taped singing an "Ode to the President" and then the school received threats? That's probably what started it.
It wouldn't matter, pervs are pervs regardless of what kids wear in public.
It's about the making of the material, which in essence gives the photographer an image of your child to do whatever he likes with.
I've taken a lot of pictures for the paper and for me, personally. I don't ask for permission most of the time. That's just not the way it works.
School consent forms address the PUBLICATION of photos - not the filming. Security cameras film kids all day long - with or without consent. This bill would prohibit TAKING pictures without consent. In order to stop creepy guy at the swim meet, moms would have to be prohibited as well. It is ludicrous. And even if it dealt solely with publication, would that include the internet? If people post pics on Facebook, would they be violating the law? If people don't want the possibility of their kids pics being taken, they should keep them in the house or cover their faces like Prince Michael Jackson.
Why not pass a law making it a crime for creepy guys to photograph young girls' swim meets? Doesn't take a genius to see why that might not be a bad idea.
But no photographs of children PERIOD? I call bull shit.
Well George while I agree with you, who is to decide who's creepy? It could be someone's grandfather or even a teenager who likes young girls. If the swim team wants to ban all non-relative fans or have them show ID, that's their perogative. But one size fits all for any place where children gather, would be insane.
It most likely won't go anywhere, but stranger things have happened in the Garden State.
N.J. Assembly panel considers bill outlawing photographing children without parental consent | NJ.com
Separate names with a comma.