Pajamas Media » Photographing Children Becomes a Crime

Photographing Children Becomes a Crime

The paranoid belief that all photos represent a threat to kids is more widespread than ever.

July 22, 2008 - by Frank Furedi

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

A hundred years from now when historians look back on our times they will ask why people regarded their youngsters as always “at risk,” and how they came to adapt such a suspicious fear of adult motives towards their children. Parental paranoia works in strange and mysterious ways. I am more than baffled by the current wave of anxiety about adults taking pictures of children in public spaces. A couple of weeks ago while visiting Cambridge, Massachusetts, my friend was refused permission to take pictures of squealing kids messing around in a park.

As someone living in the UK, I am all-too-familiar with the current panic about photographing children. Just last week it was reported that an English father, Gary Crutchley, faced a public outcry when he tried to take a snapshot of his sons playing on the slide. One officious lady took matters into her hands and attempted to stop Crutchley from performing this perilous act. And while he pleaded his innocence other parents also rounded on him, called him a “pervert,” and insisted that he stop taking pictures. When he stopped a police officer to help out, he was told that “it was just the way society is these days.”

As a father, probably the ban that I hate the most is the growing tendency to prohibit parents from taking photos of their children during school plays, concerts, and sporting activities. Six years ago, when Edinburgh’s director of education called for a ban on photographic or video recordings of nativity plays and school concerts, there was a huge outcry from parents. Since this incident, the outcry has died down and such bans are routinely adopted by schools and sports centers throughout Britain. Some schools do not even allow the photographer of the local paper to take a picture of their pupils playing sports. When a friend decided to take a photo of his son during a Saturday soccer match, he was accused of gross irresponsibility. How long before we insist that children play football behind closed doors or — better still — ban the sport all together?

Some schools in the West Midlands, Norfolk, and Luton have prohibited the audience from videoing or taking digital pictures of Christmas plays. In 2003, Blackburn Council banned picture-taking mobile phones in swimming pools in order to frustrate would-be pedophile photographers. Numerous schools have decided to take the pictures of their pupils off their websites — in case they are misused. The phenomenon of parents having to sign specific permission slips to allow their child to be photographed is now commonplace; as is the practice of day care centers refusing to provide parents with photos of their own children at their party. Local newspapers are now confronted with the challenge of how to fill the many pages left due to the ban on the publishing of children’s pictures. How long before the school photograph becomes a curious historic relic of a permissive age? Worse still, how long before the possession of a class photo is interpreted as evidence of criminal intent?

The assumption that pictures represent a significant threat to children has acquired a fantasy-like grotesque character. We rarely dare ask the question: what possible harm can come from taking pictures of children playing soccer? Dark hints about the threat of evil networks of pedophiles are sufficient to corrode common sense. Tragically, what the dramatization and criminalization of the act of photographing children reveals is a culture that regards virtually every childhood experience from the standpoint of a pedophile.

Every possible form of interaction between an adult and a child is perceived as yet another opportunity for child abuse. In a roundabout way society has normalized pedophilia. The default position is to always expect the worse — and therefore children should be placed in purdah.

Frank Furedi is professor of sociology at the University of Kent and author of Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child.

182 Comments

richard:

The law in the UK allows anyone to take photographs of anything and anyone, anywhere that is viewable from a public place. There is no need for a model release, or a building permit.

I’m looking forward to the day we see a photographer escorted by her, or his, own heavies, to brush aside the heavies in attendance on celebrities when they appear in public, leaving the photographer to continue working unhindered.

Jul 22, 2008 - 2:51 am Chaya:

So sad that people are allowing their fears to keep them from having keepsakes of their children.

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:59 am HeatherRadish:

“Allowing their fears”?? It’s not “their fears” keeping parents from photographing their own children, it’s busybodies with sick minds.

Jul 22, 2008 - 4:24 am Mike:

This is the result of pervassive relativeism. The liberal position seems to be, hey, who are we to judge anyone else’s lifestyle choices? Abort a viable baby?, legalize meth?, pedophilia?, murder?, why these are just choices someone has made in their life, and liberals say they must be regarded with full respect without thought of moral concern. Just ask Nancy Pelosi about pedophilia, right after she marched in a San Francisco parade honoring a top member and founder of NAMBLA. The liberals accept the most socially abberant behavior because of their moral blindness and then want to outlaw the most innocent and loving wish of parents to hold wonderful memories of children at young ages. It’s abusive of normal parents and children, all because liberals can’t bring themselves to condemn, punish, or even aknowledge, evil. Sick, sick, sick.

Jul 22, 2008 - 4:43 am DoktorNo:

Mike:

In other words:

Sexual liberation and permissivism = obsession about child safety.

I agree, and this is just a logical conclusion of moral relativism in modern Western societies.

Jul 22, 2008 - 5:36 am Dave:

Great post, but you’ve only got the story half-right.

It’s not considered verboten for people in general to take pictures of children; by and large, it is really only so for MEN. After all, the conventional wisdom holds that only men are perverts, child molesters, etc.

This movement to villianize the taking of innocent photos isn’t an end to itself, it is merely symptomatic of the overall media- and feminist-driven jihad against males of all stripes. No man is exempt, one need not look the part to be a suspect.

As a man, imagine yourself in the following scenario: you are wandering in a large department store, amusement park, or other large public space… and you encounter a small child (of either gender) who is obviously lost and in need of help. The child is frantic, frightened, bawling its eyes out. Do you stop to help the child reflexively? Do you dare to take the child by the hand, and lead it to a police officer or other person who can help locate its parent? To do so in today’s world invites arrest.

Think about it.

Jul 22, 2008 - 6:11 am Alan Kellogg:

Doktor No,

Permissiveness has damn all to do with it, the problem lies with pedophiles and journalists. A small coterie of perverts, and those who exaggerate their number and influence. When we learn of the importance of challenging authority is when we’ll see this situation turn around.

Jul 22, 2008 - 6:31 am lovemelikeareptile:

Dave is spot on– this is about the demonization and ugly stereotyping of men.
Its as if to corral a problem with prostitution , all women walking the public streets after 6 pm are to be stopped, interrogated, and told to go home, on the ground of suspicion of being a slut– a well -founded suspicion , because most women, as is well known, given any chance, are tarts.

Dr Helen had a comment devoted to this topic recently.

Jul 22, 2008 - 7:13 am newton:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

This quote is from C. S. Lewis, a tickler with kids, and the author of the Chronicles of Narnia - a man who would have probably had the police sent on him by insane parents today.

Jul 22, 2008 - 7:39 am Mommynator:

Dave - this actually happened to my son.

My husband’s company sponsors an annual outing to Dorney Park for employees and their families and this particular year my son was able to attend.

On our way to the catering area from the water park, we encountered a little boy no more than 3 years old, crying hysterically. Of course, our family immediately surrounded him to try to find his parents if possible.

For some reason, he attached himself, leechlike, to my son and would not let go (children love my kids).

We walked the child over to the appropriate park office, and because the little boy became hysterical when they tried to get him off my son, he stayed until the mother was located. Only then did the child releast my son and go to his mother.

The mother actually had the nerve to accuse my son of something even though his whole family (me, my husband and his two sisters) were with him the whole time.

No thank you, no relief, just squinty eyes and suspicions.

It didn’t come to anything because thank God the park personnel had some common sense (who would do something nasty with the whole family there?), but you’re right - it’s only males that are demonized in this way.

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:33 am Western Gael:

The problem does not lie with paedophiles, journalists, or that small coterie of perverts. It is simply the death of common sense in Britain.

Jul 22, 2008 - 9:28 am Philip Dhingra:

I think this is also a problem with adults. I see less and less photo-taking at parties for adults simply because of things like facebook on myspace. Nobody wants evidence of their partying-ways to go online, all around the Internet.

I would like to see a serious study on whether stalking has gone up because of the Internet. I hear a lot about stalkers from people now.

Jul 22, 2008 - 9:55 am Cletus:

In the UK, only the government is allowed to take pictures of you. They have a Camera on every corner.

Jul 22, 2008 - 10:03 am ddc:

I live in the US but I can certainly empathize with those who agree with this.

And honestly I don’t by all this claim of paranoia. No one can deny the facts that that children are being abducted on a daily basis. At least once a week there is an amber alert on the freeways I drive. With the prevalence of online child porn and the busts therefof, child sex ring busts, not to mention there actually being an organization of Man-Boy Love, and the very fact that children are being found dead all over the world and yes, I’ll throw women in there too as child abuser freaks although statistically far less women do should a thing, it should be the right of the parent to say, no way to taking photos of my kid unless you have my permission. It is also known that one of the things the released child sex offender does is visit places where children are to take pictures of children for objectification.

Jul 22, 2008 - 10:04 am MikeT:

And honestly I don’t by all this claim of paranoia. No one can deny the facts that that children are being abducted on a daily basis. At least once a week there is an amber alert on the freeways I drive. With the prevalence of online child porn and the busts therefof, child sex ring busts, not to mention there actually being an organization of Man-Boy Love, and the very fact that children are being found dead all over the world and yes, I’ll throw women in there too as child abuser freaks although statistically far less women do should a thing, it should be the right of the parent to say, no way to taking photos of my kid unless you have my permission. It is also known that one of the things the released child sex offender does is visit places where children are to take pictures of children for objectification.

This has been a problem since the beginning. There is nothing new under the sun, save for 24/7 news shows that remind us of the depredations going on around us. It is paranoia, and more disruptive for the children in the long run. They’re going to inherit the fear-mongering, regimented and controlled society that is being built ostensibly to protect them.

You think things are bad? Pederasty used to be acceptable in most of the world, and in big chunks of the third world it still is. Just ask any soldier whose served in Iraq or Afghanistan. By comparison, things are very improved over what they used to be in the way that children were used by adults even in the West.

You can thank Christianity for that.

Jul 22, 2008 - 11:01 am penny:

“No one can deny the facts that that children are being abducted on a daily basis.”

Children are NOT being abducted on a daily basis by strangers, that’s very rare, the vast majority of missing children are “abducted” by custody disputing parents or are teenage runaways. Your statement needs qualified. And, come on, children sexually abused by complete strangers is statistically rare too. A trip to Google might make the universe a safer place for you.

Jul 22, 2008 - 11:09 am Bugs:

It’s the usual thing: a small, irresponsible or criminal minority causes the entire population to suffer. Thanks to terrorists and illegal aliens, the authorities don’t believe we’re American citizens. Thanks to gang-bangers and school school shooters, the authorities think none of us can be trusted to possess firearms. Thanks to terrorists and pedophiles, the authorities assume we’re up to no good when we appear in public with our cameras.

I think the term for this is “moral panic.” I don’t know what the answer is, other than to stand up for our INDIVIDUAL rights whenever they’re violated by these supposed protectors of society and their paranoid enablers. Sure, there are pedophiles who take pictures of children - but I’M NOT ONE. Let me take pictures. There are psychos and criminals who shoot people - but I’M NOT ONE. Let me own a firearm. There are terrorists and illegals who use false IDs - but I’M NOT ONE. Let me ride an airliner without a body search.

The more we let them get away with, the easier it will be for them to eventually divest us of all our liberties in the name of “security.”

Jul 22, 2008 - 11:24 am Jim:

Yet the school run car wash to raise money for the band always has young girls wearing shorts, waving signs at passing traffic. But that’s organized by the school so it’s ok to teach the girls that lesson.

Jul 22, 2008 - 11:32 am paul a'barge:

Adios England. How sad.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:01 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: penny
RE: ddc

““No one can deny the facts that that children are being abducted on a daily basis.” — ddc

Be advised, ddc does not deal with logic or reality very well. Indeed, based on encounters with ddc in other threads on this blog, ddc has serious issues with misandry and hypocrisy. [Note: See discussion about Sleazy Men and Should Bachelors be Bagged and Tagged for evidence.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:18 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: I Wonder

Are most of the people who complain about men taking pictures of their children in the public venue women?

This report and the one from Mommynator seem to suggest that. However, in the latter case, I suspect that the mother of the 3-year old was going over to the offensive, in more ways than one, in order to avoid a rap of child-endangerment/abandonment.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The best defense is a good offense.]

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:20 pm Zach:

Jim touched on it, but it is especially odd for parents to be paranoid about this area, but buy bikinis for their prepubescent daughters or allow their teenage daughters to wear shorts with “juicy” written on the back or “pornstar” written on their t-shirts. On the one hand they see no problem hyper-sexualizing their children but on the other they think everyone else is a pedophile?

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:23 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: Bugs
RE: [OT] Riding Airlines

“Let me ride an airliner without a body search.” — Bugs

If you fly naked, all they’ll demand is a BCS.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. — Benjamin Franklin]

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:24 pm Rick Lockridge:

I videotaped our elementary school’s talent show this year (having first obtained permission from the principal, although it was a public performance) and later uploaded some highlights to YouTube and started sending ’round a link. This prompted an immediate uproar from several parents, who were terrified that their children would appear in such a public forum, where “strangers” could see them. “But,” I replied, “the performance was public, anyone could buy a ticket, any parent could videotape this and post the video on YouTube, and moreover, the kids would get a real kick out of seeing a professional-looking movie of themselves (I make videos for a living, after all) on YouTube.”
Didn’t matter. The chicken-little parents were wailing like banshees. Just to make peace, I capitulated, took the video off YouTube, put it on my private site and sent links to parents who requested them. Not a terrible compromise, I guess, but it’s a shame that we can’t give kids a moment of YouTube celebrity for fear that some predator out there will choose just that medium to aid him in choosing his next target.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:30 pm ddc:

PJM for some odd reason seems to draw in the most disgruntled men.

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2816#1
* 797,500 children (younger than 18) were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.
* 203,900 children were the victims of family abductions.
*58,200 children were the victims of non-family abductions.
*115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently

How pervasive is the problem of child sexual exploitation?
statistics from ‘94.
* Research indicates that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually victimized before adulthood.

_________________
1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually victimized before adulthood. It bares repeating.

Why should it matter if it’s Uncle Ted, Mr. Ted the school math teacher or Ted from the next town or Aunt Helen? Parsing serves no one, it still remains that kids are vulnerable and by a huge ratio. Don’t blame the messenger.

The prevelance of such high numbers prompted this kind of additional protection so apparently seeing the necessity mothered (or fathered) the invention of. Tough times it seems would deserve tough measures.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:30 pm Nana:

I agree tht we have become paranoid, but the truth is that children are often victims of abuse. One solution is to teach children so they can recognize what is and what is not appropriate actions toward them. I like the coloring book I found at http://www.drbethrobinson.com. I gave it to my grandchildren.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:36 pm Lea:

My brother had a baby yesterday and in the little window to see the newborns there was a sign up that said you couldn’t take pictures.

What? Seriously, babies all look squished and gross and they have no identification of name or anything. So what exactly is the problem with photographing them? I’m so confused.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:39 pm ddc:

Penny,

WHile I hate to stoop to the level of this child, I’ll give you my side of Chuckle. You’ll soon see the level of his hypocracy lies in thoroughly believing that all the ills of his prior failed marriages (as well as the world at large) is due to the presence of women. More specifically when we were given the vote. Every female who doesn’t by into his biblical recitation of women is subservent to men = feminazi.

You can agree with Chuckle or not, doesn’t matter to me however to be fair and equal a little heads up from the other side (gender) is only a good thing.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:41 pm Vinny Vidivici:

Thanks, Penny.

Remember the hysteria a decade or so back when every day care center seemed to have a child molester on staff? No doubt our sensationalist and irresponsible media could give some people the impression that kiddie porn merchants have staked out the nation’s playgrounds and soccer fields.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:41 pm Fake Craig:

How about burkhas for the kiddies?
Bite my tongue, the Brits are probably already considering it.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:44 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: Nana
RE: Another Solution…

“One solution is to teach children so they can recognize what is and what is not appropriate actions toward them.” — Nana

…is to teach them self-defense EARLY; tempered with self-discipline.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Where there are no ‘family values’, there are no such things as families.]

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:44 pm ddc:

To Rick,

To be fair I wouldn’t like my kid being splashed on youtube either. It’s well known that Youtube also accepts uploads of porn, which is their right as a Hosting site, but it has acquired a sketchy reputation on which to put your children on.

My husband and I handled it a bit differently. My husband with the help of another parent created a private website (very easy to do) for all of us who had children in our child’s particular activity, only parents had access to the links. This enabled all those parents, grandparents and other family to view and upload photos and video while not being exposed to the general public. Worked out for everyone and we all felt better about it. With a little creativity there are ways to make everyone happy and safe.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:52 pm Farix:

At two youth camps that I work at during the summer, I always double as the camp’s photographer. We use these pictures to document our year and to sell the camp for the coming year. While on the campgrounds, I freely take pictures of the campers and their activities. However, when we go off the campground, I have to be a little more conscientious of what I’m photographing. After all, a male in his 30s taking photos of children ranging in age from 8 to 18, particularly at a pool, is going to raise a few eyebrows. For the most part, I have to rely on the older kids to take photographs while I sit back and supervise.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:54 pm Jeff:

“Yet the school run car wash to raise money for the band always has young girls wearing shorts, waving signs at passing traffic. But that’s organized by the school so it’s ok to teach the girls that lesson.”

No kidding. I pulled into McDonald’s a couple of months ago while a fund raiser car wash was going on. The girls were wearing their bikinis which were quite revealing. The girls were VERY good looking and not ashamed to show it. I see girls at the store (especially the mall) wearing very revealing clothing; some of them no older than 12 or 13.

Yet some of the same parents gripe about Hooters and don’t want “that kind of place in my town”. Many of the girls I see in public are revealing as much or more than the girls at Hooters.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:55 pm RAH:

Considering the amount of parents video taping and taking photos and every kid has phone with camera taking pictures and they post them on myspace and youtube, I find this very surprising. No one that I have ever seen has objected to taking photos of their kids and other kids. Maybe because this is n the US and the UK has gone insane. But this paranoia is not evident on the east coast of the US.

If any one had the presumption to criticize a parent taking photos they would be told to F*** off.

Jul 22, 2008 - 1:00 pm Jeff:

“The prevelance of such high numbers prompted this kind of additional protection so apparently seeing the necessity mothered (or fathered) the invention of. Tough times it seems would deserve tough measures.”

I would imagine those numbers have been at about the same levels (percentage wise) for a long, long time. It’s just that we now have the 24 hour news cycle and the internet to spread the fear.

I don’t have an issue with people keeping their kids safe. I want mine to be safe, too. However, someone taking a picture of them playing or putting a video of them on YouTube IS NOT A THREAT to their safety any more so than taking them to the park or the store. Either way, people they don’t know can see them.

If someone is that fearful for their child’s safety, they should home school them and never let them go out in public. That is the only way to keep people from seeing them.

Safety is one thing; irrational paranoia is another.

Jul 22, 2008 - 1:11 pm Lea:

However, someone taking a picture of them playing or putting a video of them on YouTube IS NOT A THREAT to their safety

How much of this is part of the weird fear of the INTERNET some people have? Taking pictures that can be put on the INTERNET. Putting film on the Internet.

Some people totally think you’re going to get abducted if you play around myspace. I bet that’s part of this.

Jul 22, 2008 - 1:21 pm roy in nipomo:

ddc:

“* 797,500 children (younger than 18) were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.”

One of the reasons this number is so high has to do with the mandated reporting system imposed upon law enforcement. In Calif, if a child is reported “missing,” even if the parent calls back two minutes later to say the child was found, a “missing persons report” must be filed and the child entered and removed from the state & national missing persons’ computer system. If a juvenile is reported as a runaway, located & returned, then leaves again 30 minutes later, it counts as two “missing persons.”

I have often (cynically) wondered who makes money by having an inflated number for “missing” persons…

Jul 22, 2008 - 1:26 pm Brian:

Back in 2000, Marian Rubin took several nude pictures of her granddaughters, ages 4 and 6 and was arrested and charged with child endangerment and was suspended from her job and considered a sex offender. She later wrote a book called “Naked Truths” ISBN: 9780595729265.

“Naked Truths is the true story of a New Jersey grandmother who was arrested for taking innocent nude photos of her two young granddaughters. Through the telling of her personal experiences in the clutches of the criminal justice system and child protective services, she raises serious questions about crucial issues that concern all of us: issues of privacy and censorship; of freedom of expression and the erosion of our First Amendment rights; of overzealous and wrongful prosecutions; and of our frenetic attempt to protect children in a very threatening world, often sacrificing the very children and families they claim to protect. Naked Truths is about a modern day witch hunt where innocent people are caught in a trap meant to catch actual pornographers and pedophiles; where film processors are vigilantes for the state and where the justice system has free rein to create havoc with no accountability.”

Jul 22, 2008 - 1:44 pm MikeT:

DDC is either misinformed or trying to be deceptive:

It’s well known that Youtube also accepts uploads of porn, which is their right as a Hosting site, but it has acquired a sketchy reputation on which to put your children on.

Except that YouTube does not accept pornography under their Terms of Service:

B. YouTube reserves the right to decide whether Content or a User Submission is appropriate and complies with these Terms of Service for violations other than copyright infringement, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscene or defamatory material, or excessive length. YouTube may remove such User Submissions and/or terminate a User’s access for uploading such material in violation of these Terms of Service at any time, without prior notice and at its sole discretion.

There is risque stuff on YouTube, but pornography is pulled whenever YouTube staff discovers it.

Jul 22, 2008 - 1:51 pm Michaelyi:

ddc appears to be one of the most disgruntled and innumerate of women. It’s the generosity of men that makes possible the PJM ddc whines about. Sheesh.

The very statistics ddc chose to wave around illustrate the truth of the remarks made earlier by penny and Chuck Pelto. A common mark of innumeracy is slinging around plural nouns with zero information about their magnitude and relative percentage to the total population. (It’s also the mark of someone who has no sense of proportion.) The attempt by ddc to peddle a claim of “1 in 5 girls …” based on “research” that she doesn’t bother to cite has the same stink as the infamous “1 in 4 coeds are raped” big lie that feminists (and their fellow travellers) have been trying to propagandize us with for decades.

As for YouTube, it is an example of a technology that can be used to violate most people’s intuitions about privacy and privacy rights yet our laws haven’t caught up with that. Even though present law in the US supposes that photographs can be taken at (what did the professional photographer who commented earlier call it?) a “public event” because at such a venue one has no expectation of privacy; still, doesn’t one have a reasonable expectation of no _publicity?_ After all (to use the examples mentioned here), neither playgrounds nor school plays are intended for viewing by a worldwide, anonymous audience.

Jul 22, 2008 - 1:58 pm ddc:

Mike,

Getting into a parsing match over youtube is pointless. Does youtube have, on its site, material that noone under 18 can view? Yes it does. And how easy would it be for a minor to fake his/her age in order to gain access? very. Whether it is soft-core, or “risque” doesn’t matter.

The fact remains. It may not matter at all to you and your family if you choose to upload your children videos on a site visited my those wishing to see “boys kissing boys” or “girls kissing girls” can, and which has total open to the public access but taking for granted that other parents think as you do is a bit arrogant. That is left up to them to decide and noone else. Nor should they be judge for not wanting their kids on it.

Jul 22, 2008 - 2:17 pm ddc:

Michaelyi,

One more in the small gang of bitter PJM men. Instead of writing your pointless diatribe maybe you would see the link I provided.
Here it is AGAIN http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2816#1
Jesus, what a knuckle head you are.

If you want to challenge the information therein, take it up with the researchers.

Jul 22, 2008 - 2:25 pm Michael McNeil:

ddc:

Your own statistics show how “great” the problem is: “115 children were the victims of ‘stereotypical’ kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.”

Emphasis added on the “or.”

Jul 22, 2008 - 2:35 pm vince52:

At our neighborhood block party, I tried to catch shots of kids playing in the inflatable “bounce house” so they could be published in the local newspaper report about the party. I felt an intense sense of disgust after I was approached by a parent who implied that my interest in taking the goddam pictures was somehow sexual. YUCK! Either pedophilia is far more widespread than I imagined, or these parents are lunatics. I won’t take pictures of kids whose parents object, but that doesn’t stop me from regarding the fear-based objectors as incompetent people.

Jul 22, 2008 - 2:47 pm ddc:

Do you read? The statistics came right off the Website. I did not make them up do you understand that? Here for the 3rd time: http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2816#1

Is there some reason you would like to ignore the following facts also found on the website?

* 797,500 children (younger than 18) were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.

* 203,900 children were the victims of family abductions.

* 58,200 children were the victims of non-family abductions.

58,200 NON-family abductions. This is for the US only and in certain states, cities and communities, parental permission is required where photographing their children and posting it to public sites is concerned. I am assuming that whatever the statistics are in the UK it was enough for the officials there to incorporate a few new rules.

Jul 22, 2008 - 2:59 pm Lea:

or intends to keep the child permanently.”

Emphasis added on the “or.”

Not to start a fight, but why are you putting emphasis on that ‘or’? The plans of a stranger to hold the child overnight, transport the child 50 miles or more, kill the child, or demand ransom don’t seem to be good things, or better than keeping the child permanently. Not disagreeing with your general point which is (I think) that the stats make parents more concerned than they should be.

Or with the point roy made that these stats may be overblown, because of regulations and runaways. There are clearly pedophiles out there, but its probably not so huge a problem that people need to act like a crazy person to any stranger anywhere near their children.

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:08 pm Michael McNeil:

Erratum: I didn’t mean to italicize the entire last phrase, but only the word “or.”

Note to PJM: please add preview to your commenting system.

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:09 pm truthsword:

Forget cameras in England…. you may not even be able to look at kids in Maine…

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/NEWS/804060343/-1/NEWS01

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:12 pm Michael McNeil:

Lea: why are you putting emphasis on that ‘or’?
ddc: Do you read?

I do read, and I read in that that only “115 children were the victims of ‘stereotypical’ kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance…” — with a number off added qualifications, connected by that “or.”

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:23 pm Joe:

I was curious about the NISMART-2 study and was appalled to discover how little empirical evidence there is for the claims in that study, yet it is being bandied about as though there is. I though they had used police reports, but in fact, most their research was making phone calls and then extrapolating numbers.

Some researchers used NISMART-2 to examine media bias in reporting abductions. What they didn’t realize–or did and chose to not point it out–is that their research showed that NISMART-2 massively overinflated their numbers.

I suspect that one of the things the NISMART-2 researchers did was call people up and ask if the number of times they didn’t know where their children were and counted those as “missing” incidents. So this would have included my seventeen-year-old son driving to one friend’s house when we though he was driving to another one.

In addition, they made no attempt to verify that custodial claims were actually legitimate. So, for example, a workmate has legal custody of his daughter, but for complex reasons, she is currently living with her mother. If he asserts his rights and takes back physical custody, she could claim a familial abduction when no such thing actually happened.

Evidence that these numbers are massively overinflated is that they are simply not reflected at all in state Amber alerts.

The most startling aspect of this is how few people openly question the veracity of NISMART-2, despite such obvious flaws. The reason is simple: Money and Power. Exaggerating danger is one of the strongest tools government has. Researchers know this and know that the better the numbers, the more money they get in way of grants.

PS. The biggest lie is the claim of 58,200 non-family abductions and 115 kidnappings. Why make such a bizarre distinction? How ia a non-family abduction NOT a kidnapping? Because the 115 number can be confirmed, the 58,200 is just made up. (Come on people, do the simple math; 58,200 a year is over 1,000 a week. In an average size state like mine that would mean three a day. How many amber alerts have we had in the last year? Three. Two custodial parent disputes and one where a neighbor murdered the girl.)

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:27 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: Joe, et al.
RE: The NISMART ‘Study’

Yeah. I’m always ‘impressed’ with ‘household surveys’ over actual police reports. /sarcasm

Oh. But they DID ask some question of police and sheriff departments. In 400—count em—counties. Cherry picking the counties too, from the overview document.

This looks to be a CLASSIC example of that truism

Figures don’t lie but liars figure

I’m not surprised that ddc bought into it. As I informed penny (above) ddc doesn’t seem to care much for reality or logic. Let alone REAL sadistics….as we called it in some of the higher-level staff-puke training programs I attended.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Like other occult techniques of divination, the statistical method has a private jargon deliberately contrived to obscure its methods from nonpracticioners. — Ashley-Perry’s Statistical Axioms]

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:36 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: Vince52
RE: Query

“I felt an intense sense of disgust after I was approached by a parent who implied that my interest in taking the goddam pictures was somehow sexual.” — Vince52

What was the gender of the parent who implied this?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Noooobody expects the Snapshot Inquisition! — Monty Python (paraphrased)

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:41 pm Evil Pundit:

How typical, a feminist using made-up numbers to demonize men.

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:48 pm sestamibi:

Dave/Mommynator

It was a dark night in Sept. 1988 aboard the Alaska Marine Highway ferry between Seattle and Juneau. A little girl, about 3-4 years old, was lost and crying hysterically. Most everyone else on the deck was asleep, but I followed her around (but NEVER touched her!) until we located her parents, a couple of spaced-out hippies who dozed off and left her to her own devices.

Of course, twenty years ago the parents thanked me for watching out for her safety instead of reporting me to security.

But that was then, and this is now, where we have the spectacle of something called Dawn Hill, a Maine state legislator, offering to make “visual harrassment” a felony in said state. In other words, any man can be imprisoned on the say-so of any woman if looked at the wrong way.

How long before guns are used to settle this issue?

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:58 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: The NISMART ‘Study’ & Its Intentions

It seems to me that the purpose of the NISMART ‘Study’ was to inculcate a sense of ‘fear’ in society. And the likes of ddc are the loud-speakers.

The purpose would appear to be to increase the sense of paranoia to a level where the society insists on greater and greater ’security’ measures in order to alleviate the sense of fear. This, as anyone who has studied history knows, leads to the elimination of a free society.

And, I’ll wager dollars against donuts that the Democrats or some such alleged ‘progressive’ element is pushing this whole business.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. — Benjamin Franklin

Jul 22, 2008 - 4:04 pm ddc:

Chirping Chuckie the child in men’s clothing. No wonder the 1st wife left for the other guy.

I am always fascinated by the small group of PJM men who espouse the let’s disprove any involvement of men in any by any illogical/emo means possible without providing any actual proof to support the claim, or, let’s at the very least go with 115 children victimized really is only much ado about very little therefore no need for worry, rhetoric. Also appearing, and equally as fascinating, is the total disbelief that anyone could possible dissagree with the thinking at all.

Eh. At the end of the day gov’t officials in the US and in the UK have the good sense to avoid such self-serving pitfalls where children are concerned and that’s what any parent could ask for. Good looking out Maine and the UK.

Jul 22, 2008 - 4:23 pm Trouble:

Of all these anti-photography folks (of either sex), I wonder how many also enjoyed a nice night out recently, to go see the Sex And The City movie?

We willingly participate in the sexual revolution, and then complain about the sexualization of society. The Law of Unintended Consequences is a bear, ain’t it?

Jul 22, 2008 - 4:25 pm ddc:

Hey Chuckle,

“It seems to me that the purpose of the NISMART ‘Study’ was to inculcate a sense of ‘fear’ in society. And the likes of ddc are the loud-speakers.

Now apply this astounding bit of genius reasoning of yours to “Islamic Terrorism.” Oh, I do think we can. The Patriot act is overkill of a paranoid President and Islamic Terrorism drummed up by the Conservative party think tank particularly Oil buddy friends of the President to strike fear in the American citizens so as occupy a third world country and procure their oil, don’t you think? Of course you do.

Jul 22, 2008 - 4:38 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: ddc
RE: Paranoid, Eh?

“Now apply this astounding bit of genius reasoning of yours to “Islamic Terrorism.”” — ddc

I ain’t afraid of no terrorist. — Ghostbusters (paraphrased)

And quit trying to change the subject. You’re clumsy at it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Let us go forward in our mission and our duty. Fearing God and nothing else. — Winston Churchill]

Jul 22, 2008 - 4:47 pm Jay:

Great article. I myself was asked to leave a soccer field in Laguna Beach California while attempting to take photos for various parents. The coach was “in my face” about this. The frantic women thought I would be placing these photos on some pervert sex site. What has our world come to???

Jul 22, 2008 - 5:13 pm ddc:

paranoid? of this place? nah. of strangers taking photos of my kid? if you don’t have my permission i reserve the right to get in your face.

you’re lightweight and ya got issues for days chuckle.
______________

I skipped “sex and the city,” but Batman was amazing. Don’t miss it.

later, gators

Jul 22, 2008 - 5:16 pm penny:

* Research indicates that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually victimized before adulthood.

No, it isn’t worth repeating, it’s pure CONJECTURE. And, it’s from a politicized source like the Super-Bowl-Sunday-higher-incidence-of-wife beatings garbage. I sent you with your initial post which was riddled with hyperbole and factual errors scurrying to Google, so try again. You fit the pattern of the disingenuous little lefty that either makes things up as you go along like your first post or cherry picks data from agenda driven sources. Try this for a reality on child abductions statistics: http://www.slate.com/id/2157738/ and how fatuous your claim is.

Jul 22, 2008 - 5:23 pm Beez:

At the very least, it’s impolite to take pictures of other people’s kids without their permission or without some other vested interest in the photo (like your OWN kids are in it).

Jul 22, 2008 - 5:35 pm Joshua:

There’s also the Photoshop factor to consider. Even the most innoccuous of photos can be doctored into pornographic ones, using image-editing technology available to everyone. I suspect that’s where most of the paranoia comes from - not so much from the fear that some pedophile will get off to a normal everyday picture of one’s child, as from the fear that that picture will be just the first step toward making that child an unwitting kiddie porn star.

Jul 22, 2008 - 5:42 pm ddc:

Penny you sound like a guy. AND I love the name-calling, “disindenuous little lefty!” That’s a first. Grrr. Vicious! Flame war!

I digress,

from the same article you posted….

“But in other ways, the NCIC may understate the figures. Many missing persons aren’t reported at all—a 1997 study estimated that only 5 percent of nonfamily abductions (in which a nonfamily member detains a child using force for more than an hour) get reported to police.”

The LARGER point remains…how many kids missing are too many kids missing until more is done? Pick a number. 115? 1,000? What number of chicldren either victimized, murdered, or abducted is the correct number.

3,000 people in a population of 300,000,000 people were killed on 911 correct? A gazillion dollar war, and 4,000+ troops dead and 10’s of thousands more terribly injured, ensued. So based on all of that or none of that what in YOUR mind would be the correct number of kids harmed for you to want to enact a bit more rules which if looked at logically - make sense if you’re a parent. I would bet the parents of one of those kids would say telling someone they can’t take pictures of your kid and risking a little humiliation is a very small price to pay.

Jul 22, 2008 - 5:45 pm ddc:

Beez and Joshua,

Finally some rationality.

Jul 22, 2008 - 5:47 pm Ehkzu:

I live in a town with a population of 56,000, within the San Francisco Bay Area. It’s a college town close to several high crime areas. I went to the police and asked how many successful child abductions by strangers had been carried out in the ten years since 1997.

The cops’ answer: zero. None.

I read the stats cited by DDC. The site–the Center for Missing and Exploited Children–depends for its funding on people believing that there’s a nationwide crisis of child abduction going on. That doesn’t mean they’re lying, but it does mean they have an ample motive to lie, and the means to do so.

The only figure I found useful for the purpose of this discussion was the 115 kids really abducted by real strangers (or slight acquaintances). I read the news daily and this figure comports with my ongoing reading of the news, and with the stats I got from my local police department.

DDC will read this and blow off what I say.

Here’s why. Humans have a number of heuristics–the biological equivalent of computer programs in firmware–in our brains, all of which served to keep us and our tribes alive during the 50,000+ years when our ancestors were recognizably human but didn’t have agriculture yet.

For example, when you see an electrical outlet for a three-pronged plug it looks like a face. Two vertical slots over a round one. That’s because our ancestors needed to err on side of seeing faces where they weren’t in order not to miss ones where they were. It was a lion-eat-people world out there.

Another heuristic is what I’d call our “threat-assessment module.” Obviously something in our brains needed to monitor level of threat at all times to keep us alive. That’s why an odd noise can wake us up out of a sound sleep.

The problem, as Jeff touched on, is that we now live at the receiving end of hundreds of news outlets, nearly all neither liberal nor conservative, but instead simple venal: they need readers/viewers to sell ads, and so their journalistic credo is “If it bleeds it leads–if it thinks it stinks.”

So anyone who watches the news receives vivid info about every horrible thing that’s happened nationwide–plus every extra-horrible thing worldwide–at all times.

Thus the fact that the Israelis just released an Arab jihidi who murdered a four year old’s father in front of her, then beat her to death with butt of the gun he’d shot his father with, gets poured into my consciousness right now.

And a child abducted by a stranger in, say, Tampa, gets most of the news coverage for several days, followed by weeks of Nancy Grace ranting about it on CNN, followed by the Lifetime channel making a docudrama about it for women who aren’t yet totally paranoid to watch at their shuddering leisure.

So people like DDC intuitively “sense,” courtesy of this threat assessment heuristic, that children are being whipped off their own block every day.

And they conclude that every photographer is a perv until proven otherwise.

But it’s the heuristic that’s driving them. Too bad even Liberal Arts BAs usually know almost nothing about how people work, so they can realistically digest the information we receive about what’s going on around us.

Hence all those ritual satanic abuse cases a few decades ago, 99% of which turned out to be made up. Ditto the day care center witch hunts.

Of course there’s a real problem out there. No one knows for sure but there are probably tens of thousands of children (i.e. below the age of 18) being used as sex slaves in the US, usually brought in from our ghettos, or Mexico, or Eastern Europe.

And there are certainly drooling monsters out there in the dark. Just not remotely as many as DDC believes.

And all that has nothing to do with people photographing children.

As for this all being the fault of moral relativism–I find that laughable. There are just as many right wingers as left wingers who are totalitarians, and their dark fantasies about reality endanger us all–not just our children.

Jul 22, 2008 - 6:36 pm ALP:

Good lord. I’m a petite middle aged female! This article is yet another validation that I should continue my efforts to avoid children at all costs. Though I have not been as demonized as men usually are in this situation, my experiences come close. My SO will actually switch elevators if the one he has chosen is boarded by a mom with kid in tow! The aggravation and the liability simply are not worth any benefit you may offer a child in need. That goes for any toddler wandering the streets of downtown Seattle unaccompanied (the actual STREET, not the sidewalk). After having rounded up a kid from the center of an intersection in the middle of a work day, the mom (who was too busy perusing wine at a wine store), simply bitched at me to leave her kid alone, looked daggers at me, and stormed off.

Jul 22, 2008 - 6:45 pm Bozoer Rebbe:

If you don’t want people taking pictures of your kids, lock them in the house.

In America you have the right to take pictures of anyone in public places. You may not have the right to benefit commercially from those pictures without a signed release form, but there’s absolutely no expectation of privacy in public.

Jul 22, 2008 - 6:56 pm Bozoer Rebbe:

ddc

I’ll throw women in there too as child abuser freaks although statistically far less women do should a thing,

If you’re going to bandy about statistics regarding women and child abuse, how about the fact that women are twice as likely to kill their children as men are? They are also more likely to injure their children as well.

Yeah, I know, it’s the big bad patriarchy that puts women in difficult situations.

Jul 22, 2008 - 6:59 pm Bozoer Rebbe:

Penny you sound like a guy.= Uses verifiable statistics and logic.

of strangers taking photos of my kid? if you don’t have my permission i reserve the right to get in your face.

I don’t need your flipping permission to take pictures of people in a public place regardless of their age or the misandry of their supervising adult.

I’ll throw women in there too as child abuser freaks although statistically far less women do should a thing,

Since you brought up the subject of child abuse, women and statistics, how about the fact that women are twice as likely to kill their children as men are? They’re also more likely to physically injure their children than men are. They are also more likely to use a weapon when committing domestic violence.

Jul 22, 2008 - 7:08 pm ddc:

Ehkzu,

Civil gets civil in return.

We both agree, it seems by your admission, that there is a problem, Of course there are other sites relating to this issue, yet not one detractor has put a counter to the one I linked, for real debate. Until they can they remain opinion with added vitriol and a lot of hot air and posturing.

A Slate article provided by “penny” with no indication of stats or real information to counter the link I provided even REFERRENCED the exact link I provided. So I am not sure what he/she thinks was proven by such.

Let’s assume 115 IS the number. Is it enough of a number or not enough of a number of children abducted by strangers to act, and perhaps more importantly, what do you tell the parents of #114? Not enough to do anything, sorry?

If anyone can come across with a source with reliable statistics that disbutes the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children site, then a real discussion can be had.

Jul 22, 2008 - 7:42 pm ddc:

bozeer

More hot air. Is there a brain out there?

So you wanna take pictures of other people’s kids do you big guy? Nobody gonna stop ya?

I’d stay outta of Maine with those thoughts big fella. http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/NEWS/804060343/-1/NEWS01

Jul 22, 2008 - 7:56 pm Lea:

There’s also the Photoshop factor to consider. Even the most innoccuous of photos can be doctored into pornographic ones, using image-editing technology available to everyone. I suspect that’s where most of the paranoia comes from -…..from the fear that that picture will be just the first step toward making that child an unwitting kiddie porn star.

I just cannot believe people are seriously worried about this. I mean, I am sure you are right and there are a few, but enough to make this big of a change in society?

This article is yet another validation that I should continue my efforts to avoid children at all costs.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with children, just with the over protective, under intelligent parents. And man alive do I hate it when people get all “it’s for the children” on me. Not everything can be justified as for the children. I got into an argument with people at work one time about whether kids should be allowed to bring a peanut butter sandwich to school. What I learned from this encounter is that apparently kids of 10 who are deathly allergic to peanuts are not bright enough to eat their packed lunch and will instead be trading with other kids and their peanut butter and jellys of death. So all peanut butter should be outlawed from all schools.

I mean, I have a cousin who was ten at the time and ten year olds, unless they have a mental handicap, should be old enough to know that they shouldn’t eat something that will kill them. Those people are nuts.

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:00 pm Lea:

I’ve never heard that stat. Is this including post pardum issues, or abuse or neglect? All of the above? I would be interested in seeing some more details on this.

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:02 pm SJ Reidhead:

I am doing a piece about this tomorrow. I completely agree about photographing children and placing their photos on the web. It’s not about abductions. It is about the fact that 1 in 5 children will be sexually abused by the time they are 18. While it is true that a majority of this abuse will come from family members, not all of it does. I am very much against photographing children without their parents’ permission.

This is nothing new. Twenty years ago if a person wished to photograph and publish photos of children legal releases and signatures were required. To say that the rules and regulations are a result of current culture is quite inaccurate.

In the early 1980’s I was taking photographs at AstroWorld in Houston. Even then parents did not like the fact that a single female was cruising the park photographing their children.

I would rather err on protecting a child. Having experienced abuse at the hands of an educator when I was a child, I know what can happen and how difficult it is to recover. To this day I will not allow anyone to take my photograph.

SJR
The Pink Flamingo

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:01 am Ehkzu:

Now that everyone understands that our assessment of reality gets a little skewed by our brains because our brains are perfectly adapted to the reality of living in a little hunting and gathering band in East Africa 50,000 years ago, and even assuming we can apply some kind of counterspin so we have some semblance of a realistic view of reality…here’s what we face:

1. Our children face quite a few dangers–however, one of those dangers is being raised by parents so freaked out about the dangers that they destroy their kids in their frenzy to protect them.

Take the Internet. It’s true that pervs invade chat rooms and whatnot and try to lure kids into trysts.
Um, news flash: nearly all kids aren’t turned on by pervs! Who knew? Whenever most kids get approached by pervs online they block them and go on. Kids are attracted to teen pop stars. And the kids that do get into trouble with internet predators are usually kids who are getting into trouble every way they can.

So the best way to protect kids against Internet predators is to give them a loving home where they’re fully engaged–where the family eats dinner together and discussed current events and what the kids are learning in their classes–where the parents watch TV shows with the kids and discuss them afterwards.

An American religious leader once said, more or less, “I don’t have to govern my people. I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”

And though there are pervs with cameras shooting pics of kids in public places, that’s really not where kids are endangered. Nor is it from stranger abductions except in exceptionally rare instances. More likely it’s some adult in their lives who generally interacts with kids more than other adults–an extra-friendly priest, or girl’s soccer coach, or genial Uncle Ted, or a step-parent who also has a drinking problem.

But you HAVE to remember that there are also adults who love children in a wholesome way and who may resemble every example I just gave.

And you also have to remember that pervs look for kids who are looking for attention and affection that they’re not getting at home. And if you’ve made your family a fearful fortress looking out at the world with suspicion, you’re creating just the sort of unhealthy environment that makes kids long for someone who’s just nice to them.

The Bernie Mac TV show did a great job of satirizing the “helicopter parent” who drives his kids away from him in the name of protecting them.

We can argue about stats all day and have to admit at the end of the day that all stats except for stranger abductions are based on a lot of guesswork.

But we should be able to agree that there is a certain amount of danger even if we disagree about how much.

And we should also be able to agree that it’s possible to be overprotective, just as it’s possible to get so busy that your kids grow up in an emotional vacuum.

I put it to all of you that photographing children in public is done by both normal people and pervs, but that even when it’s pervs taking the pics, they’re not the pervs who represent a danger to your kids. That is people who are pervs of some sort who have some kind of relationship with your kids when you don’t have much of one with them. There’s the biggest danger.

You have to strike a balance or you’ll harm your kids at either extreme.

I’ll end with an example. Last summer we were at Lake Tahoe on the beach, waiting to see the fireworks that evening. The beach was jam-packed with people–thousands of them. I got out my little point-and-shoot camera, walked to the water’s edge, turned around and started shooting pics of the crowd, building up a panoramic shot by zooming to the widest angle and taking a series of shots, turning about 35 degrees for each one to get the panorama.

While I was doing this a man accosted me and demanded that I stop taking pictures of his son. I had no idea who he was talking about. At the distance he and his son were sitting from me, I would have had to have a telephoto lens a foot long to even make out details of their faces. As it was they were just dots in my wide angle landscape shots.

The guy was really angry. He was sure I was there for only one reason.

Of course I was within my legal rights, and the guy was a moron. He might have had cause for distress if I was stalking his kid with a camera or shooting with the kind of camera you see the pros use at sports events.

But it shows what kind of dreamworld such people live in. They imagine they’re at the center of the universe, and everything revolves around them. I’m guessing this guy is going to spend the next half-decade causing his son excruciating embarrassment in one public setting after another, and achieving nada in terms of actually protecting him.

One more example: here in my college town the number of kids riding bikes to school has dwindled. Parents drive their kids, or the high school kids drive themselves. Yet, as I pointed out in my previous comment, the number of successful stranger abductions here is close to zero over the last decade. On the other hand, the incidence of child obesity has zoomed up, because these kids mostly get no exercise.

So the parents are protecting them from an almost nonexistent danger while setting them up for life of obesity and the ailments and early death that often accompanies obesity.

But obesity kills people slowly and quietly, so it doesn’t make headlines like Polly Klass’s killer did and still does.

Which makes us kind of a silly species, as easily misled by sensationalistic talk show hosts as the bull is by the matador’s waving cape, so that he doesn’t notice the sword in the matador’s other hand…

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:29 am Dan:

I find this so disturbing. The instant conclusion drawn when anyone has a camera is that they are a sex offender? Oh, wait, they don’t even need a camera, now just LOOKING at a child is a crime. Horrifying, and yet defended by some on this board! And you dare call yourselves the Land of the Free?

I’m SOOOOOO glad I don’t live in either the US or the UK. You people have gone totally bonkers. How exactly are you supposed to go through life; looking up at the sky for fear you might accidentally look at a child?

How can you preserve memories of your own kids when you are forbidden to record sports or plays or activities where others are involved? The future is going to be very weird and a bit sad when we cannot look back at pictures of daily life and see children. I love to see pictures of my own childhood, but some on this board apparently think that’s suspicious, because, horror of horrors, OTHER children are in them. Should I black out all my classmates for fear I might be accused of being a pedophile?

When I visit the US in August if see a toddler in the street, I will walk on by. Reporting it to the police is evidence that I looked at them……

Perhaps the burqas are a good idea, to protect the remaining normal humans from accusations by the nutters.

If you want to see the slippery slope, turn around and look up, there is it above you.

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:01 am Shannon W:

It’s so creepy to see all these men here getting all bent out of shape that they can’t take pictures of other people’s kids. Why are they so worked up?

Some like Jeff have even admitted to finding scantily-clad teens (below the age of consent) exciting!

” The girls were wearing their bikinis which were quite revealing. The girls were VERY good looking and not ashamed to show it. I see girls at the store (especially the mall) wearing very revealing clothing; some of them no older than 12 or 13.”

And hanging out at the mall leering at 12-13 years olds? I think this anti-photo/anti-leering movement is NOT paranoia.

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:10 am jackprent:

In order to prevent children from being abused, the following video is an excellent resource.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkxtA0YpLkk

Jul 23, 2008 - 4:41 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Shannon W
RE: If…

…you don’t care to be looked at as a woman, wear a burqa.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jul 23, 2008 - 4:48 am Chuck Pelto:

P.S. And dress your daughters in such as well.

Jul 23, 2008 - 4:49 am Sara:

I know a lot of parents are upset with “comprehensive” sex education and sex clubs that have been introduced into public schools because it erases the line of the way in which adults (strangers)can sexually interact with their kids. If they object, they are shouted down as homophobes or “extremist Christians.”

My son’s eighth grade sex ed teacher was pumping the kids to tell her the nitty gritty details of their sex acts with one another. It made most of the kids feel uncomfortable because most weren’t even involved in sexual intercourse and sex is private, anyway. Finally, my son had enough and shouted with a laugh “Perv alert, perv alert!” The whole class laughed at the teacher and she did not punish my son. She did not want him telling the Principal why he shouted “perv alert.”

I guess what I am saying is that parents are freaked out right now with how the children are treated as sex pots in the culture and political sex objects in the schools. Rather than direct a response to the appropriate source of the problem - authority figures- some are lashing out at all “strangers” who interact with their kids. It is twisted.

Jul 23, 2008 - 5:21 am Jeff:

@Shannon

“It’s so creepy to see all these men here getting all bent out of shape that they can’t take pictures of other people’s kids. Why are they so worked up?

Some like Jeff have even admitted to finding scantily-clad teens (below the age of consent) exciting!

And hanging out at the mall leering at 12-13 years olds? I think this anti-photo/anti-leering movement is NOT paranoia.”

That is WAY over the top.

I never said I was “bent out of shape” for not being able to take pictures of other kids. I am simply saying that if I am taking pictures in public of my kids, I shouldn’t need to worry about some paranoid parent accusing me of being a pervert. I am just saying that merely taking a picture does NOTHING to harm children. If I try to sell a picture of a child for profit, then I need to get permission from that child’s parents.

I never said I found the car wash girls exciting. You said that. I simply said they were very good looking and not ashamed to show it.

Also, I am not “hanging out” at the mall “leering at 12-13 year olds”. I am simply saying that while walking in the mall and other PUBLIC stores, I have seen young girls dressed in revealing or “sexy” attire.

You are stepping over the line by accusing me of being “excited” by and “leering” at young girls in clothes meant for adults. You assumed what I was thinking.

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:22 am ddc:

“I would rather err on protecting a child. Having experienced abuse at the hands of an educator when I was a child, I know what can happen and how difficult it is to recover. To this day I will not allow anyone to take my photograph.”

SJR
The Pink Flamingo
________________________________

Word.
I came across a study while trying to find any information on the topic or anything periferally related. There was a survey posed to a group of college students based on “believability” of child sex abuse being at the level it was. The finding revealed that both men and women who had been in your similar situation and women who had not, all agreed that child sex abuse was indeed a huge issue. The men who had never experienced sexual abuse as children doubted the statistics.

Jul 23, 2008 - 10:17 am MikeT:

DDC:

Is there some reason you would like to ignore the following facts also found on the website?

* 797,500 children (younger than 18) were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.

* 203,900 children were the victims of family abductions.

* 58,200 children were the victims of non-family abductions.

You keep throwing these stats out there, but you fail to interpret them in light of the metadata about them.

1) Mandatory reporting laws skew the first stat.
2) Family members are the overwhelming majority of the abusers of children.
3) 58,200 is a fairly insignificant number adjusted for the U.S. population on a whole, now over 300,000,000.

Simply put, the number of children who are actually abducted is not really that high, and a child is more likely to be sexually abused by their relative(s) than some stranger taking a picture that happens to include them.

Jul 23, 2008 - 11:18 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: SJ Reidhead
RE: Bring On the Fascist Thought Police

“I would rather err on protecting a child.” — SJ Reidhead

You have one of two options to fulfill your dream.

[1] Never let your child out of the house into the public venue.

[2] Lock everybody else up while your child is out in the public venue.

Why? Well because Shannon has OBVIOUSLY thought that Jeff was a threat to ANY AND ALL children. Therefore, not being able to read minds…by YOUR lights…we must lock up all children or everybody else…even other children.

What’s it going to be brightie? And how will you enforce it?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I’m open to other alternatives.

P.P.S. What nationality background is Reidhead?

Jul 23, 2008 - 11:33 am Chuck Pelto:

P.P.P.S. I’m suddenly reminded of the fascist thought police from Bablyon 5; Ministry of Peace, MinPax for short. Their premise was…

We are not worried about what people do, as opposed to what they think.

Jul 23, 2008 - 11:44 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: An Example of the Ultimate SJR/ddc Dream for America

I recall reading, a couple of months ago about an incident inn Scotland where a man did not save a stray toddler from drowning in a pond because he was afraid that someone would accuse him of molesting the child.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. SJR….That certainly looks like an ERROR on the side of caution to ME. How bout you?

Jul 23, 2008 - 11:57 am Jeff:

“Well because Shannon has OBVIOUSLY thought that Jeff was a threat to ANY AND ALL children. Therefore, not being able to read minds…by YOUR lights…we must lock up all children or everybody else…even other children.

What’s it going to be brightie? And how will you enforce it?”

The problem is that we have already started down that path with “hate crimes” legislation. We are now policing what people are thinking instead of just what crime they committed. If I beat the crap out of someone, I obviously dislike them a great deal. It doesn’t make any difference if I did it because they were a certain color or sexual orientation or religion. Anyone who beats the crap out of someone for no good reason should be punished just a severely as someone who does it because the other person was gay (or black or Jewish…).

Getting back to the topic, I just want to emphasize what Shannon is doing. Just because I noticed that some young girls were scantily clad and were also very pretty, she assumed I was “excited” and “hanging out at the mall” to “leer” at girls.

The clothing is so revealing that you don’t have to leer to notice how revealing it is. You can’t avoid noticing if you even look in their direction. My wife and I walked out of a store at the mall a month or so ago and almost ran into some girls.

MY WIFE is the one who noticed their clothing and made the first remark about how much cleavage and waistline skin area was showing. I actually hadn’t noticed initially since I was trying not to spill the drinks we had in the stroller. My five year old even said “I can see their butts”. My point is that it is noticeable to any casual observer, not just perverts.

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:15 pm ddc:

Mike,

I’ll concede that that # stated by the Nat’l Missing Children’s website might not necessarily be the correct number. Yes we are a population of 300million, that includes men, women, children, the elderly, etc. I don’t have a breakdown figure of what % children represent of that number however. For argument’s sake, the number of NON-family abductions is 115. For all we know it could be higher or lower. My question would be at what number do we decide there is cause for concern? It’s a legitimate question.

If Dateline’s “to catch a predator,” which was disturbing to watch onetime so i avoid it, is any indiction to the predatory nature of the internet and children, not to mention people getting busted for i-net kiddie porn, is there any wonder both parents are concerned. Fathers as well want to protect their sons and daughters.

At some point we as a society all have to decide when it is that one person’s freedom (to snap photos of someone else’s child) interfers with another’s freedom to protect their minor child from invasion of privacy.

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:22 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff
RE: Like….

….I was saying.

The thought police are here!

And they are poorly equipped, except for their prejudices.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:33 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff, et al.
RE: Kids ‘Hanging Out’, In More Ways Than One

MY WIFE is the one who noticed their clothing and made the first remark about how much cleavage and waistline skin area was showing….My five year old even said “I can see their butts”. My point is that it is noticeable to any casual observer, not just perverts. — Jeff

They’re eager for attention from the male of the species. They’re doing whatever it takes to ‘out perform’ the competition. And the competition is getting ‘bad’.

As James Lileks put it, they’re inspired by Bratz, whom he refers to as Hookers-in-Training.

On the other hand, we’ve got the likes of Shannon. And maybe she’s getting jealous; and therefore going over to the offensive vis-a-vis her attack on you.

On the third hand, if any male were to pay any such attention to HER, she’d probably have the cops on him in a heart-beat, even if she were dressed as one of the Bratz-type. The congnitive-dissonance is quite remarkable.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Feminist, n., One who loves attention and then damns those who give it to her.]

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:44 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: ddc and Ignorance of the Law

“(to snap photos of someone else’s child) interfers with another’s freedom to protect their minor child from invasion of privacy.” — ddc

I don’t know exactly what the laws are where ddc may live, but everywhere else I’ve noticed, “Invasion of Privacy” is impossible when one is out in the public venue.

In their house or in a restroom stall, there is such a thing. But not out on the street or on a playground. Nor anywhere else where one can be seen out of doors from a sidewalk or street.

If I am wrong, I would like someone to show me the state or county or municipal code that says otherwise. Then I’ll suggest every sane person move AWAY from there. And let the maniacs run their private asylum into the ground.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Hell is empty and all the devils are there! —- The Tempest]
[]

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:51 pm ddc:

Fool,

Did i mention a law? I’ve never encountered someone so thick.

It’s about common courtesy. About personal space. And where minor children are concerned Yes, idiot, it’s about invasion. In some areas of the world, if you want to photo someone or someone else’s child, you ask permission. Are you purposely being idiotic? You must be since you keep trying to drive some ridiculous point and fail. Pray a little harder for enlightenment.

Jul 23, 2008 - 1:17 pm Blue:

“It is about the fact that 1 in 5 children will be sexually abused by the time they are 18.”

That is pure and complete poppycock. An utterly fantastic, pull it out of your ass number.

Jul 23, 2008 - 1:41 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: ddc & Ignorance of the Law Part 2

“Did i mention a law? I’ve never encountered someone so thick.

It’s about common courtesy.” — ddc

Notice how the Law of the Land has absolutely NOTHING to do with ddc’s mentality. If SHE doesn’t like it, then YOU shouldn’t be doing it. Even if it’s perfectly legal to do it.

And I’m supposedly ‘thick’ because I happen to know the law and support it.

Can you say, ‘Projection’? I knew you could….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I especially liked the ‘fool’ business.

Jul 23, 2008 - 1:48 pm ddc:

Notice how the UK and Maine, in our own country aren’t not buying your stupidity.

Kids = 1 Fools = 0

Jul 23, 2008 - 2:33 pm MikeT:

DDC:

If Dateline’s “to catch a predator,” which was disturbing to watch onetime so i avoid it, is any indiction to the predatory nature of the internet and children, not to mention people getting busted for i-net kiddie porn, is there any wonder both parents are concerned. Fathers as well want to protect their sons and daughters.

To Catch a Predator was sensationalist garbage. If you chum shark-infested waters you find yourself surrounded by sharks. Big surprise there. You ought to be more upset about the fact that they went after that one guy who realized what he was doing was wrong, and didn’t show up at the house.

At some point we as a society all have to decide when it is that one person’s freedom (to snap photos of someone else’s child) interfers with another’s freedom to protect their minor child from invasion of privacy.

Ummmm bait-and-switch? How did we go from the subject of child molestation to child privacy? Furthermore, the issue at hand here is officious busybodies who either get rabidly angry over people photographing their own kids or taking pictures that happen to include their children in some way.

Notice how the UK and Maine, in our own country aren’t not buying your stupidity.

The very fact that you think the UK is a model for anything other than, increasingly, what Oceania from 1984 would look like says a lot about your stances on politics. It is, after all, a society where criminals are frequently coddled by the police, and law-abiding citizens are hounded by the state for having the “audacity” to meekly confront criminals who they have repeatedly reported, without response, to the police. If you aren’t aware of this trend, then you really haven’t paid enough attention to British news to know what you’re talking about with respect to the state of things in the UK.

Granted, there is something creepy about someone who is intently photographing other families’ children. However, this is nothing that a civil “move along buddy, nothing for you to see here” from the police couldn’t handle. This sort of case is also far less likely to happen than the benign examples discussed here.

Jul 23, 2008 - 2:47 pm Lea:

Granted, there is something creepy about someone who is intently photographing other families’ children

I agree and think the key word there is ‘intently’. Shouldn’t parents have a little more discretion about who they get mad at? Can’t they tell the difference between a dad taking pictures of his kids and the soccer game in general or someone taking wide shots at a beach and one creepy pervert taking many pictures of a specific child? I think that’s where the issues come in.

Thankfully, we’re more at specific parents asking people not to take pictures, which is their right. I don’t think they should make any more dumb laws about this though.

Jul 23, 2008 - 2:59 pm Jeff:

“In some areas of the world, if you want to photo someone or someone else’s child, you ask permission.”

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am talking about taking pictures of my kids and having other children happen into the frame. I don’t normally go out and shoot other people, but it is legal to do so in a public place. The only time you need permission is if you are going to use the pictures for profit.

I would hate to see a time when I cannot take pictures of a monument or historical place due to the fact that someone’s kids are going to photographed as well.

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:06 pm ddc:

Let me ask, can you tell if a man or woman snapping away at your kid is going to use the photos for ill? I sure wouldn’t be able to, but yet I have to wonder why the f they ARE taking pictures of my kid. Since it is my kid, i have every right to say cut that shite out, take photos of someone else’s kid who doesn’t mind.

It’s truly remarkable the insistance at downplaying this so vehemently.

Look, personalize it a little. Would you appreciate a stranger whether it be male of female snapping away at your kid in a public place? If you are without minor children, then use a niece, nephew or grandchild you are spending the day at a park with. Your answer being no, does not negate those parents, aunts/uncles grandparents who say yes, this crap bothers me.

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:10 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: ddc & Ignorance of the Law Part 3

“Notice how the UK and Maine, in our own country aren’t not buying your stupidity.” — ddc

Notice that it is not against the law in either the UK or Maine to photograph people in the public venue. But ddc thinks it is. Why? Because she can’t read/comprehend English very well.

Notice that in the primary article that the officer did not arrest the guy, as in enforcing a law. He just didn’t do anything to help the guy in the face of the obnoxious women.

Notice also that the point made above about Maine is that someone WANTED to enact such a law. It hasn’t been done.

But ddc acts like such laws have been enacted.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:23 pm ddc:

My answer to you Jeff is kindly say, the only way i can photograph my child in is with your kid also in the frame, would you mind?

How hard is that?

And need I remind you monuments are ususally public property, someone else’s kid - is not.

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:39 pm ddc:

To All
Re: Chuckle (attention hore)

Recites scripture. Favorite verses? Anything to do with women submitting to men. He likes that. That is his wish for the world. Turning back time to Biblical days. Anything else he is severely threatened by. Apparently including, yet not exclusive to, mothers (and fathers) wishing to not have their kids treated like public property. Hates women due to multiple (wife offences) broken marriages. Do as he says, think as he thinks otherwise he will attempt to internet bully you. Hides in male dominated forums to berate ocassional female visitors with a “ah get er boys: To:ALL, Re: DDC and whichever other female.”

I think I’m done here.

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:55 pm Jeff:

“My answer to you Jeff is kindly say, the only way i can photograph my child in is with your kid also in the frame, would you mind?”

No, not at all.

“How hard is that?”

Easy.

“And need I remind you monuments are ususally public property, someone else’s kid - is not.”

Okay, one more time. If you are in public, there is no right not to be photographed. The way you see it, if I were taking a picture of the Jefferson Memorial and you child happened to be in the frame, I should be arrested.

How utterly childish. Once again, no harm could possibly come to a child from simply having his picture taken.

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:41 pm Ehkzu:

Last year my spouse and I were in Bali, in Indonesia, and one evening we went to the night market in Gianyar. I had my little point and shoot camera and was taking pics of everything–people, food stalls, the evening sky, buildings, scooters, trees, everything.

What I’ve found in most countries with most people is that if you take a pic of them with a digital camera and them show them the pic, most people are delighted–it means you think they matter. I’ve found that European and Asian tourists tend to kind of ignore the locals, mostly. It’s the Americans who actually interact with them–ask them about their lives.

Among the many pics I took at the night market were some of the children running around. The vendors always bring their kids with them, so there are always a whole bunch of them at these markets, just playing around while their parents work at the stalls.

I took a shot of some kids without their realizing it, then showed the pic to them on my camera’s LCD screen; then they posed for a couple more shots. After that my spouse, our driver and I walked on. About half an hour later we came back that way, and two of the kids approached us holding out thousand rupiah notes (worth about 9 cents). Our driver, interpreting, told us that the girls hoped we’d give them prints and were offering to pay for them. I had the driver tell them we’d see what we could do.

The next day I went to an internet cafe and made prints of the shots and gave them to the driver, who as it happened lives in Gianyar. He took them to the kids that evening, and next day told us they were amazed and dlighted. These are poor Javanese Muslim children whose parents are eking out a living in Bali, which is mainly Hindu. So they don’t get much attention or respect.

I tell this story because there’s so much theoretical discussion and flaming going on here, I thought it would help to provide something concrete.

Let me add that a perv could photograph/look at the “market children” in many cities in Indonesia to his/her heart’s content, but if they tried to do something even slightly improper with one of those kids…he probably wouldn’t get out of there in one piece. Everybody watches out for everybody’s children. Oh, and you don’t find the kids dressed provocatively at all–ever. This is a moderate Moslem country, but it’s still a Moslem country.

The net result of this experience: we brought back thousands of photos that we’ve shared with our dive club, family and friends, and done our bit to promote tourism to Indonesia, one place where your dollar still goes a looong way.

Meanwhile, a few Moslem kids in Gianyar think Americans are nice people–and have some photos of themselves that could well be the only photos ever taken of them. And our driver was also touched. Most of the locals we work with tell us Americans are pretty much the only foreigners who connect with them, while the others tend to be aloof.

So we didn’t “respect” these kids’ “privacy,” or their parents’ “right” to totally control their interactions with others.

And it would be a smaller world with less joy in it if we had.

Jul 23, 2008 - 11:20 pm MikeT:

Recites scripture. Favorite verses? Anything to do with women submitting to men. He likes that. That is his wish for the world. Turning back time to Biblical days.

Not to be unduly snarky, but “Biblical days” covers at least 2,000 years of history spanning several countries. Which biblical days did you have in mind?

Jul 24, 2008 - 3:42 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: ddc; Facts, Law and the Mongering of Fear

If she were an lawyer, which she obviously isn’t, I’d say she was using option #3 of the Lawyer’s Rule:

[1] When the facts are against you, argue the Law.
[2] When the Law is against you, argue the facts.
[3] If the facts AND the Law are against you, call the other side names.

But I guess she is proof-positive that you don’t have to be a lawyer in order to (1) be caught in the problems depicted in options #1 and #2 of that rule and ultimately having to resort to option #3. Look at her comportment in THIS thread; ‘fool’, ‘thick’, ‘idiot’.

What I find interesting in her latest ad hom is the beginning of fear mongering. Plying her ignorance as reason to instill fear in anyone else who’s willing to pay any heed to her polemics.

This new tactic could become option #4 to the Lawyer’s Rule; ‘If options 1, 2 and 3 don’t work, rant about how the other side is a threat to society.’

If she knew what she was talking about in the first place, she might be effective. But she obviously doesn’t. Enough people have called her out about her poor source of data (NISMART-2) and her ignorance of the Law.

Maybe she should read a Good Book now and then. If she knew It better, she might be able to better attack those whom she despises.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Know your enemy and know yourself and you shall never be defeated. — Sun Tzu, The Art of War; mandatory reading at Benning School for Boys]

Jul 24, 2008 - 5:09 am Chuck Pelto:

P.S. I find it interesting that she is beginning to imitate me in format. As the saying goes

Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

Jul 24, 2008 - 5:11 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: ddc
RE: Ground of Your Own Choosing

“[He] Hides in male dominated forums to berate ocassional female visitors….” — ddc

Another point of ‘ignorance’. Ask Amy Alkon, Rachal Lucas and that Andrea [Tim Blair’s hostess] Harris about me.

However, I’m willing to go anyplace [on the web] to engage anyone in discussions. The problem is that even if I’m as mild mannered as I am here, they tend to ‘kill’ me. Why? Because they don’t care to hear what I have to report and they are embarrassed, just as you are here. So, in order to avoid further embarrassment, they ‘kill’ me.

Oddly enough, Dr. Helen has not deemed it appropriate to ‘kill’ me. That despite the fact I am continually calling out her ‘overlord’….as you think I see the Instapundit.

So. Choose your preferred area(s) of engagement. If the topic piques my imagination, I’ll drop in. And we’ll see what transpires. I suspect that it will be more evidence of the behavior I’ve noticed on the blogs I cited.

Looking forward to new adventures in the blogosphere.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Good can tolerate the existence of Evil. But Evil cannot abide the existence of Good. Because Good will continually be pointing out Evil’s failings. And Evil cannot exist with such embarrassements. Hence, Evil will always try to kill Good.]

P.S. You won’t find that in any Scripture. But if you do, please tell me.

Jul 24, 2008 - 6:57 am ddc:

- “biblical days” in this country to me and many other women? pre women’s right to vote. that should suffice.

- and I quote: “[Know your enemy and know yourself and you shall never be defeated.” it’s VERY telling this fool sees me as an “enemy.” Not surprised. Quite a powerful position as if threatened is what you feel, then you indeed have a problem. Sun Tzu- Art of War. Good read I’ll admit.

- has nothing to do with flattery and more to do with mockery.

- in regards to “The Topic” of the article, apparently he is taking this very personally as an afront to his very manlyness…or somthing. who the hell knows. The Maine article is a bill going to senate. It passed in the House.
And I quote: “A bill that passed the House last month aims to strengthen the crime of visual sexual aggression against children, according to state Rep. Dawn Hill, D-York.” It also passed the state’s fiscal review.

The article goes on to say that Police Dt. DAVID Alexander’s hands were tied when a call about a man appeared to be observing children entering a public bathroom at the beach. The Police could only ask people such as this man, to move along.

York Police Chief DOUG Bracy NOTED that York police respond fairly regularly to reports of public peepers on the town’s beaches. <—Maine’s public bathrooms are not the exception.

With ever-growing concern over sexual predators, Bracy said the arrests will also allow police to check backgrounds and determine if there is a criminal history involved.

“There is a growing outcry by the public to protect our children,” Polic chief DOUG Bracy said, noting that tourists from all over the country visit York.

If you don’t think this will eventually include people who snap away at other people’s children you could be wrong. If enough parents complain, as was the case in Maine with public “visual aggression” then you’d probably be wrong.
________________________________________________

Even a Self proclaimed pedophile (never having been arrested) likes snapping away at children http://www.komonews.com/news/local/7719902.html

“We just love being around children,” McClellan told a Fox network reporter in March. “It’s almost like a high, a legal high. It makes us happier than anything in the world.”

McClellan, of Arlington, trolls parks, fairs, schools and even church events just to get close to little girls. And then posts the best locations and upcoming events from Seattle to Bellingham that would have a high turnout of little girls.
But KOMO 4 News found Jack McClellan blogging on a separate site that’s all about “girl chat.” On his blog, McClellan brags about how a girl flirted with him.
And then the bombshell, he writes: “All I want to do is consensually love Lgs. If it were legal to take that all the way to sexual touching, I’d do it.” <—-He was thrown out of Southern California as well and I believe is back in Seattle. If anyone thinks THIS person is an exception all you need to is research the busts of OTHER online “blogs” such as McClellan’s. People who take photos of other people’s children for personal pleasure are not restricted to what someone would call “creepy” looking as with other cases of picture-taking offenders come in the form of your locol radio host. http://www.nbc11.com/news/16204688/detail.html
Albeit child porn.
_________________________________

The point: nobody knows who these people are or what their motives are who snap away at our kids. Child Sex offenders are let out of Jail every day. The recidivism is high as it has become increasingly well known that these offenders PREFER children to objectify. Women over the age of 18 does not do it for them. As to the number of these child sex offenders out and about in our society all one need do is visit google to easily find who is living in your community.
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/innocent.htm <–proliferation of online child porn.
http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/Search.aspx?lang=ENGLISH <—registry by zip/town/county.

Jul 24, 2008 - 7:59 am ddc:

- Chuckle seriously did you just underhandedly paint me as evil? And you as Good? Ok George, very Interesting. Now would that be evil like in…Osama?

Funny I don’t see you as an enemy, good, evil, or whatever. I don’t know you. I do see you simply as a blowhard, a pain in the 4ss however. Nothing more really. Thanks though for giving me such power. Although I doubt it was your intention. You should ease up on taking the internet so personal though, can’t be good for you.

Jul 24, 2008 - 8:15 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: ddc
RE: Evil Is…

“Chuckle seriously did you just underhandedly paint me as evil? And you as Good?” — ddc

….as Evil does.

Have you ‘killed’ me yet? Amy Alkon, Rachal Lucas and Andrea Harris, as well as a number of others have. Just for doing nothing more, nor anything less, than what I’ve done here.

I DO suspect that if it were in your power, you’d ‘kill’ me to. But as you haven’t yet, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Hope that helps…

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Wisdom cries in the streets, and fools try to kill her. — Proverbs and Reality, as observed by Chuck(le)]

Jul 24, 2008 - 8:27 am ddc:

And I quote: “I DO suspect that if it were in your power, you’d ‘kill’ me to. But as you haven’t yet, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.” ~ Chuckle

Wow. Just wow.
There is something wrong with you. Do you even see the paranoia behind your comment? If you don’t, that could be a problem, no joking.

Jul 24, 2008 - 8:41 am Chuck Pelto:

P.S. Name your ground….and bring your sisteran.

Jul 24, 2008 - 8:44 am deguello:

All you have to do is put headscarves on the girls, turbans on the boys, say you are a Muslim and the pc addled brits(not to sat the cambribge halfwits) will leave you alone.Hell, you can even beat the boys, kill or sell the girls! just don’t forget to cry “racism”! if anyone interferes.The West is a moribund culture,ru by hysterics,and pc mob rule.

Jul 24, 2008 - 8:49 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: ddc
RE: [OT] Observations on Reality of the Blogosphere

“Do you even see the paranoia behind your comment?” — ddc

No. I see experience. I’ve been ‘killed’ on a LOT of blogs. Most recently Amy Alkon’s and Rachal Lucas’. Why for? For doing nothing more than what you were damning me about above. [See Item: ddc, @Jul 23, 2008 - 3:55 pm]

Proof enough for me of your proclivities, if you had the (1) opportunity and (2) power. Indeed. I was explaining that very think to Amy and Rachal when they decided to ‘kill’ me. In other words, ‘paranoia’—of the clinical form—has nothing to do with it. It’s based on experience.

But I notice that you STILL fail to identify the [blogosphere] ‘ground of your own choosing’.

Why IS that?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The best defense is a good offense.]

P.S. And I’m a firm ‘believer’ in taking the ‘battle’ to the ‘enemy’…..