Photographing Children without Parental Consent

[George Costanza]

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.

Lauren James Weir, an attorney for the New Jersey Press Association, said that would have a “chilling effect” on free speech.

“The bill also imposes a duty on a newspaper to verify the age of every person who is photographed or recorded, whether that person is the focus of the image or a person in the background,” she said.

In an email, New Jersey ACLU Executive Director Deborah Jacobs called the bill “ridiculous.”

N.J. Assembly panel considers bill outlawing photographing children without parental consent | NJ.com

I was being a little facetious when I suggested a law banning "creepy" guys from photographing young girls' swim meets. Of course such a law would never hold water, precisely for the reason you cite - who's to say who is "creepy"? That's the reason I included the word in my original post.

Know what I like to watch? Girl's beach volleyball. Am I right, guys? I mean, you want to talk about hard bodies. And those BUNS . . . Oh my God!

Does that make me creepy? If so, I plead guilty.

 

[chanel]

Shame on you! J/K Beach volleyball is a popular sport here on the Jersey Shore. Maybe they'll just have to limit it to 18 or older lest some creepy guy becomes aroused. Good ole NJ... Errrr!

 

[Unkotare]

Brady should find the guy from Barstool Sports and kick the ever-livin' shit out of him for starters.

 

[LAfrique]

While such a law may be ambiguous, because of too much child abuse, I support laws with clause protecting children. Children need protection.

 

[Toome]

The problem with these types of laws is that it is aimed at a subjective judgment. There is nothing wrong with taking photographs of kids. It's the perverts who get some sort of jollies from those pictures or who use them to line up their next victim that are wrong.

I agree with the posts that point out there appears to be no distinction made if, for example, I were to take a video of my grandson at a ball game because I happen to be proud of his sports achievements, post it on facebook so I can share this pride with others and then get charged under this law because:

a. I'm technically not the child's parent nor am I his legal guardian.
b. There were other children in the background, and I didn't go around to get their parents' permission even though at the time I was focused on my grandson and didn't intend for the other kids to be in the video.

This is just one of those dumb laws laced with good intentions but with no real application in the real world.

Go after the perverts instead.

 

[midcan5]

I was recently holding my granddaughter at a Jersey shore amusement park when an oriental woman asked permission to take her picture, I gave her permission. Two months from now my granddaughter will have changed and this women's picture will be a segment of time now past. I see nothing wrong so long as it is done politely. Consider all the street photographers of the past? I still do street photography. But today there are many people, the Amish and some other religious groups are an extreme examples, who guard their privacy and create legal or situational problems. People have different standards of taste or they are nuts when it comes to certain things, some are nuts period. Blaming this on PC or others neglects the real issue of privacy and personal concerns.

PS I forgot to add my granddaughter is a beautiful child and takes after her grandpa. LOL

 

[Unkotare]

Rugs are Oriental. That woman was Asian (if you can't be more specific than that).

 

[George Costanza]

Political correctness run amok coupled with nut job moronic left wing lunacy equals one more incredibly stupid attempted law.

And this goes back to "the left" exactly how?