Jailed for a Zerbert

[bmattock]

We've been talking about how we are losing our rights to take photographs. Since 9/11, it has become increasingly difficult to legally take photographs of certain buildings, bridges, and so on. In England, there have been problems with people taking photographs of children (not their own) in public, for fear of paedophiles and sexual predators.

Obviously, we live in a world that is changing. There may be no more paedophilia than there was a hundred years ago - but it may be that it is reported more often now, that families no longer hide away their 'strange uncle' or 'odd cousin' and instead turn him in to the police. With the advent of the internet, people with those evil predilictions can find and communicate with each other, perhaps making their depradations even worse.

I do not deny that it is every parent's job to watch over their children carefully, to protect them with zeal. And society has an implied obligation to make sure that children are not preyed upon or harmed - we can't turn a blind eye.

However, sometimes things go too far. One may be philosophical and say that laws and rules that go too far are just pendulum swings that will eventually self-correct; but sometimes innocent people get caught in those pendulum swings.

Consider this:

Happy Ending for Couple

Happy Ending For Raleigh Parents Accused Of Sex Offenses

POSTED: 5:27 pm EDT July 26, 2005
UPDATED: 5:40 pm EDT July 26, 2005

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Imagine going to jail for showing playful affection toward your baby. Now cleared, Charbel and Teresa Hamaty say that is exactly what happened to them.

[SNIP]

"I know and I believe it was a nightmare," Charbel Hamaty said. Last August, he was jailed on felony sex offenses for family photos he casually dropped off to be developed at a North Raleigh Eckerd.

In a batch of impromptu party pictures, a few showed a naked Kristoff, then an infant, being kissed by his half-sister, Victoria, and proud father Charbel.

"You see the back of the baby, and like if someone is kissing the baby's belly button," said Teresa Hamaty.

Instead, police saw the worst and also arrested Teresa Hamaty for taking sexually explicit photos.

[SNIP]

Teresa Hamaty was released on bond, but waited months to reunite with her children. Charbel Hamaty sat in jail six months before the district attorney dropped charges after an expert's report showed no criminal intent.

So, charges were dropped. No harm done. Right?

Well, Charbel Hamaty sat in jail for six months, labeled a child sexual predator by police (and you may have heard how well sexual abuse of children is looked on by other inmates). Their child was taken away, and only just returned. No doubt there are many in the community who will continue to look at this family with suspicion. If they had not had financial support from people in Charbel's home country of Lebanon, who knows how bad the damage might have been?

NOTE: A 'zerbert' is:

Urban Dictionary: Zerbert

One of the problems is, and will continue to be the fact that very few people want to confront this issue or discuss it. If one argues that the police and prosecuters might be going too far, one could be seen as defending paedophiles or somehow being in sympathy with them. And no one wants that, so we remain silent while the police put people in jail for giving their naked infant a kiss on the bellybutton.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Richard Black]

Bill,
I have taken pictures of my children when they were small that I gave no thought to the possible perversion of someone's mind. Innocent pictures that everyone in the extended family wanted. I didn't get them printed because of my wife's good sense to caution us against it. I abhor pediphillia and child abuse as I see in my job the ramifications and long term effects of it. Now, with cell phone cameras, we see men, usually, taking pictures of women in Wal-Mart and the malls. The police in OKC, Ok have reacted to more than a few calls. We will see a limitation put on photography, if not by law, by custom.

 

[Kevin]

We will see a limitation put on photography, if not by law, by custom.

And probably only within the USA.

Wait, I did read something recently about New Zealand...

 

[bmattock]

Bill,
I have taken pictures of my children when they were small that I gave no thought to the possible perversion of someone's mind. Innocent pictures that everyone in the extended family wanted. I didn't get them printed because of my wife's good sense to caution us against it. I abhor pediphillia and child abuse as I see in my job the ramifications and long term effects of it. Now, with cell phone cameras, we see men, usually, taking pictures of women in Wal-Mart and the malls. The police in OKC, Ok have reacted to more than a few calls. We will see a limitation put on photography, if not by law, by custom.

Well, strange as it may seem, it is also a further nail in the coffin of film (vice digital) - and a strike against printing digital photos at kiosks as opposed to printing at home.

What galls me is that these photos were taken at a family gathering - a party. In full view of all the relatives, who were witnesses for the husband. The police didn't want to hear it. And several people kissed the naked baby. But hubby went to jail for six months. Well, he's not white. I guess it's ok then.

You're right about the rampant abuse of cell phone cameras, et al. I believe that there was a recent story in the paper about a man here in North Carolina who was arrested for pretending to be 'metal detecting' (a popular hobby about 20 years ago) on the beach, when he was actually taking 'upskirt' photos (a type of fetish, where a person - usually a man - takes photos up women's skirts and gets some kind of thrill from that).

At the moment, the 'rules' are arbitrary and capricious - made up on the spot, enforced haphazardly and by personal prejudice instead of according to laws.

I'll be glad when there are real laws on the books that can at least be enforced evenly - but sorry for one more freedom gone down the drain in the dubious name of 'protecting' us.

How many freedoms do we permit our governments to restrict? Just one more. Yes, we'll stop there. But we never stop there, do we? Everybody has a pet peeve that they want made illegal so people will stop annoying them by doing it. And if you dare to speak out - well, you must be one of those horrible people yourself!

A 'no win' situation.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

And probably only within the USA.

Wait, I did read something recently about New Zealand...

The Lord High Mayor of London has made it clear that he won't permit photographs to be taken of children in public in his jurisdiction. And that means any photos. If you take a photo in public in London, and it has a child in it that is not yours, you could be liable for arrest. Enforcement is spotty, but it appears to be happening from time to time. Amateur Photographer has been covering this, and it is both shocking in itself, and shocking that no one seems to care much - oh well, if it protects the children...

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[SRMC]

Regardless of the innocence of content, there is no limit to the number and types of pedophiles that will take an interest in photographs of childen. That is precisely why I do not post pictures of family or have a web site. You'll never see me post the traditional picture of my newborn on the bear-skin rug.

My wife recently learned that pedophiles were trolling through message boards devoted to mothering issues, including cloth diapering, for the purpose of stealing photographs. These mothers had posted pictures of their children in quite beautiful hand-crafted diapers and covers. One of the mothers was looking for pictures of types of cloth diapers and found copies of these pictures on a pedophile's web site. These pedophiles had copied these pictures and set were making suggestive comments about them. They had extensive discussions of where to find these pictures, and quite frightening comments about whether they knew names, addresses, etc. Needless to say, state and federal law enforcement agencies are now involved, but the fact remains that these innocent pictures were stolen and traded for perverted purposes.

We have a very snap happy family, and just about every aspect of our kids' (and nieces' and nephews') lives are documented. Between me, my dad, and my mother in law, there is always at least one camera in hand. I don't worry about my photo lab finding any of our photos objectionable, but I do worry about others who may take an unnatural interest in them.

For those of you in California, don't forget about the Megans law web site, to see whether sex offenders live near your family or parks you frequent.

Steve
SRMC

 

[bmattock]

Regardless of the innocence of content, there is no limit to the number and types of pedophiles that will take an interest in photographs of childen. That is precisely why I do not post pictures of family or have a web site. You'll never see me post the traditional picture of my newborn on the bear-skin rug.

Steve,

What you say is quite true - and quite interesting - and I'm glad you got the police involved.

I'm not talking about a hypothetical here. I'm talking about a family who had their newborn infant ACTUALLY taken from them by the state for six months - an innocent man ACTUALLY kept in jail for six months. And all because an overzealous DA's office got a wild hair up their backside and responded to this "EEK, everbody with a naked picture of an infant is a pedophile" nonsense.

We want to protect children. We want to protect society from predators. We want to put those kinds of sick bastiches in prison.

But in our zeal to protect - we put innocent people in jails and take their kids from them.

And I'd like to hear your defense of why that's a good thing.

Who apologizes to this man? Where does he go to get six months of his life back? What about a baby, deprived of its family for the first six months of its life?

How was society served by this miscarriage of justice? Who was protected?

Somebody 'splain this to me.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[SRMC]

Bill,

I certainly did not mean to give the impression that I in any way approved of the actions of the DA and I don't think a reasonable reading of my post should give that impression. I am certainy in the same camp as you, and am thoroughly disgusted that some DA with an overactive imagination, or probably a desire for fame and higher elected office, has harmed this family.

We should not have to worry that some pimply faced idiot at the one-hour photo store is going to take offense at our innocent family photos, or that the photo gestapo is going to raid our homes because we've taken a picture of our kids playing in the bathtub.

My point was that in addition to overzealous government officials, we also have to be careful about what pictures we post of our families, as who knows what some sick bastard may use them for.

Steve
SRMC

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

I certainly did not mean to give the impression that I in any way approved of the actions of the DA and I don't think a reasonable reading of my post should give that impression. I am certainy in the same camp as you, and am thoroughly disgusted that some DA with an overactive imagination, or probably a desire for fame and higher elected office, has harmed this family.

We should not have to worry that some pimply faced idiot at the one-hour photo store is going to take offense at our innocent family photos, or that the photo gestapo is going to raid our homes because we've taken a picture of our kids playing in the bathtub.

My point was that in addition to overzealous government officials, we also have to be careful about what pictures we post of our families, as who knows what some sick bastard may use them for.

Steve
SRMC

Steve,

I'm being TOO EMPHATIC in my writing - I need to tone down a bit. My apologies, I did not mean you personally. I meant the generic 'you' as in all those people out there who are reading this thread (I'm watching the count go up) and not saying anything - because they basically believe that it is OK to put people in prison first and determine if a crime has been comitted second, perhaps?

I'm with you on this - it's getting crazy out there, and we all have to be careful.

Imagine going to the local Micky D's and some kid is running around like crazy. He slips and falls on the greasy floor, starts to cry. Your first impulse is to see if he's all right - but no - I am not going to lay ONE HAND on that kid. Let him bleed out, I'm not putting my mitts anywhere near him. 'Cause someone might want to put ME in prison for six months while they figure out if I'm really a freak, just hanging out in fast food restaurants and waiting for a kid to slip and fall.

And forget taking photos in public - there might be a kid somewhere in the background - God knows what I might get up to once I get those photos home!

This is the world we're creating for ourselves.

And my point is - to those who would say I'm exaggerating - this fellow in the story spent six months in jail over something like this. Not an imaginary six months, not an exaggerated six months - a REAL six months. All because we're freaking out as a society and demanding 100% blanket protection from all evil for our children - to heck with the facts.

A general expression of disgust, not directed at you, Steve. Sorry!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Roger Hicks]

Bill,

Slight exaggeration -- Red Ken (mercifully no Lord -- yes, Lord Mayor, but not Lord High Mayor -- has been jumped all over for his ideas, not least by my esteemed editor Garry C-W at Amateur Photographer.

There is quite a counter-movement in the UK but the overall attitude is what led to my comment about leaving the country in the thread about street photography technique. That's why I said that the US doesn't seem as bad as the UK -- yet.

You may or may not know that I have a weekly column in AP in the UK and the rampant erosion of civil liberties -- both the paedophile paranoia and the so-called 'War on Terrorism' -- is one of the things I have attacked.

Last night, by coincidence, I was talking to an old friend about nude pictures of his 7- or 8-year-old daughter Jess that appeared about 15-20 years ago in my book on portrait photography published about 15 years ago. I saw this was a way to DESEXUALIZE the nude, and as I said to Mike, if I'd laid a finger in her, I'd have thought he was fully entitled to beat me to a pulp. But I didn't, and he didn't, and we're still all friends, including Jessie who is 27 next birthday; I spoke to her too.

This is the failure of society and the substitution of blunt, bluenose law for decent human relationships.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Pherdinand]

Yeah, it's pretty bad case.

What I don't understand is the following (sorry Steve, nothing personal, since I do agree with you too!)
Say Jim is a pedofile and lives in a large city in Alaska. WHy would he bother stealing happy family photos from the Net and trying to figure out where the ones on it live in another large city in Tennessee and go there do bad stuff - he can just go to his neighbor or to anywhere in the city, look for a kid and do it! I don't see the added danger by having the photo put up and copied etc on the Net. As soon as you live in a society, there is the danger theoretically at least. It is not increased if you put family shots on the Net, unless you keep your kids locked up and in full secret. Am I completely off?

It sounds to me like this: I have an ultra-expensive BMW. I drive it every day and park it anywhere in the city. But I would not make a photo of it and put it up on a website, since someone might find the photo and steal my car!

I have to note that I have no children so it's easy for me to talk - to talk objectively without worrying about my own. And no, i have no BMW either.

 

[sooner]

Bill,

Although this thread is getting dangerously removed from photography, I agree with you 100%. This is exactly why I'm a member of the ACLU, although whether you agree with them or not, the point is we should all be concerned about injustices applied to our fellow citizens. Pedophiles are almost always white males, so the man in your story doesn't even fit the profile. But in the US, even in an area where the stats overwhelmingly favor minorities, it's the poor black guy who rots in jail. A few grand in the bank and a semi-sober attorney should have been able to get him out in a few days. Uh oh, now you're getting me worked up!

 

[RML]

Bill, calm down! 🙂 You're blowing a gasket if you're not careful.

Seriously, though, you're right. I, too, was starting to freak out by all the news of pedophiles, terrorists, increasing crime, war, racism, economies going bad, spiraling deficits, etc. After spending a good 4 weeks in Mongolia with no access to legible media I returned home to find out a movie maker had been brutally slain by a self-proclaimed Muslim fundamentalist in Amsterdam, mosques and churches had been attacked and counter-attacked, and that Holland had for two weeks turned into a frightened society, turning almost fanatic in it's fear and disgust of the murder. That moment I stopped reading news papers and watching and listening to the news on tv and radio. It gave me lots of time to persue other issues (my photography, my wife and kid, for instance), took a heavy load of my back and made my life a simpler one. I'm now back at reading news papers, though only scimming the headlines and not bothering to read the crap in the articles. Not following the news in detail is thé remedy for societal anxiety.

 

[sooner]

RML,

I agree with you that we all have to manage personal anxiety, and control how much we let things "get" to us, and sometimes shutting out the world is the answer, at least temporarily. BUt have you heard the cliche that goes something like "all evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing?" If our neighbors become freightened and decide to lynch an innocent refugee family, say, then maybe we should get stressed out enough actually to stand up and protect them. The problem, IMHO, is precisely that too many people have shut themselves off and don't care enough to stand up to the extremists and the politicians who try to build a career on irresponsible "feel good" policies. This is nothing against you, personally. Just a thought.....

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

Slight exaggeration -- Red Ken (mercifully no Lord -- yes, Lord Mayor, but not Lord High Mayor -- has been jumped all over for his ideas, not least by my esteemed editor Garry C-W at Amateur Photographer.

Roger,

Sorry, some Google quotes I found have him as "Lord High Mayor" - I have no idea what the difference might be. As a Welsh 'Madoc' descendant, I think of myself as the real Prince of Wales, but that's about all I know about royal titles.

There is quite a counter-movement in the UK but the overall attitude is what led to my comment about leaving the country in the thread about street photography technique. That's why I said that the US doesn't seem as bad as the UK -- yet.

The things I have been reading in AP freak me right out. Of course, precious little mention of it here in the USA. Well, we didn't hear much about Long Kesh, either.

You may or may not know that I have a weekly column in AP in the UK and the rampant erosion of civil liberties -- both the paedophile paranoia and the so-called 'War on Terrorism' -- is one of the things I have attacked.

I read your column. I like it, generally. It costs a small fortunre to subscribe to AP over here in the USA, sadly.

Last night, by coincidence, I was talking to an old friend about nude pictures of his 7- or 8-year-old daughter Jess that appeared about 15-20 years ago in my book on portrait photography published about 15 years ago. I saw this was a way to DESEXUALIZE the nude, and as I said to Mike, if I'd laid a finger in her, I'd have thought he was fully entitled to beat me to a pulp. But I didn't, and he didn't, and we're still all friends, including Jessie who is 27 next birthday; I spoke to her too.

There are a number of photo books out there that would be 'Exhibit A' in a criminal case against John Q. Public if he/she were accused of paedophilia - yet were legal to sell on the bookshelves at the time. All exist in some gray area that nobody wants to talk about. The books are there - theoretically legal - but illegal if owned by people we don't want to have them. Nobody can quite explain it, but there it is.

This is the failure of society and the substitution of blunt, bluenose law for decent human relationships.

I feel it all falls under the 'if it saves one person' rubric.

Here's a non-threatening example - this really happened.

In Chicago, a number of years ago, Mayor Daly (the not-dead one) decided that what Chicago really needed was mandatory carbon-monoxide detectors. At the time, those detectors cost something over one hundred dollars each (they are cheaper now). He decreed that everyone who lived in Chicago city limits would be required to purchase and install one in their home or apartment. Landlords would be required to purchase them for their apartment buildings and rental facilities. In some cases, the cost ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars, and bankrupted some smaller landlords or forced them to sell their investments at a loss.

A number of people were made examples of and went to jail or paid big fines.

A number of people where tossed out of their low-income housing when the landloard raised the rent to cover the cost of the carbon-monoxide detectors, or in some cases, sold the property to be torn down and new higher-priced buildings built in their place.

A number of small landlords, investors, etc, went broke.

Do you know how many people die of accidental carbon monoxide poisoning in the USA each year? About 90. In Chicago? About 3. Per year.

Mayor Daly defended his actions - "If it saves ONE CHILD, it is worth it."

No, actually. It's not. Life is dangerous. Take precautions, but otherwise, get over it. (generic statement)

Then you add the hysteria of parents over their children and the madness goes off the scale.

Yes, children deserve to be protected to the best of our ability.
No, I am not defending child molesters and other nasty people who hurt kids.

In most of our various countries, we are innocent until proven guilty. No longer for the photographer. Guilt first, punishment second, proof when we get around to it. But even fellow photographers shrug and say "If it protects ONE child, it's worth it." A mantra that will lead us to a bitter place.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

Although this thread is getting dangerously removed from photography

Well, it sure could - but my original point applies to all photographers - here's a fellow who spent six months in jail for appearing in a photograph of a naked baby (his child) with him blowing a zerbert on the kid's tummy for the delighted relatives.

There - back on topic!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Bill, calm down! 🙂 You're blowing a gasket if you're not careful.

Bang!

No seriously, I appreciate the warning. I'm fine, really. I just talk excitedly sometimes.

The problem is that there are many things in the world we can't control - natural disasters, terrorists, weather, and so on. But this nonsense about putting photographers in jail for taking pictures of their own naked kids - this is a problem of our own making. No DA is doing this for the fun of it - they're doing it because parents, terrified of the news stories about the scary paedophiles (who really are out there, no joke there) are demanding that 'something be done'. And this is the result.

We can put a stop to this nonsense. Or we can shrug and say we're glad it wasn't us.

But what if you get a knock on the door tomorrow and some guy in a suit wants you to come along quietly because you took a photo of some kid on a swingset and the guy at the one-hour photo mart thinks it was an 'upskirt' shot?

Should we just shrug and ask where to forward your mail?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[mac_wt]

In reply to RML and maybe getting really OT.

Yes, I think a lot of this hysteria is created by the media. If the paper has a spectacular murder on the front page it sells better. Ergo more spectacular murders equals better quarterly results for the papers. This is a perverse bussiness.

However, I still find that a lot of people who have irrational fears are very badly informed. In the Belgian press, most of the time things are put in some perspective. So I still encourage everybody to read the entire article, not just the titles. In these troubled times I think it is best to be very well informed. Untill 40 years ago (in Belgium) that wasn't needed. You did what the priest said, or what the mayor said, or what the party leader said. You voted on the same party as your parents, you repeated the opinion found in your 1 newspaper (you could choose between red, blue or orange). That is not the way our society functions today. People are encouraged (or required) to form their own opinion. To form an opinion, good information is needed.

I despise the trends in our television news. News readers (they used the be journalists, but they are turning into just pretty faces) have to read slower (less information in the same time). If someone is interviewed, the interview is reduced to 1 or 2 quotes and if an opinion is needed, most often someone in the street is asked to give it (why ask the university professor, when you can get an easy quote from that lady buying her groceries). This is very poor information.

I hope this opinion doesn't offend anyone working in the bussiness. I like the media, I don't like some of the current trends)

BTW. Do you think it is true that fear is good for the economy?

Wim

 

[Roger Hicks]

Wim,

Of course fear is good for the economy. It also makes people easier to dominate. Why else do you think there is so much support among politicians for provoking terrorism? They are safe; it's the little people who get hit.

Of course in Belgium you have sex too. As we do in France (Angers).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[RML]

I was perhaps a little unclear in my statements. I don't follow the news media anymore on a regular basis. As Wim said, it's just pretty faces and a lot of dros. I do, however, try to keep up with the thoroughly written media. In Holland we have a weekly magazine "De Groene Amsterdammer", which I subscribe to and try to read at least a few times a month. There's also the BBC on TV with some very good and well-balanced programs. I'm not ignorant about today's news and (world) politics. I just prefer to shut out all the static and focus on the information that enables me to form a well-founded opinion.

As much as Bill can get excited I share most of his feelings and opinions. "If it saves one..." is the biggest load of BS I've ever heard. Here in Holland every week 1 child dies of physical violence in the private sphere, meaning beatings, chokings etc. by a parent, sibling or close relative. Nothing is done about it, and no media coverage. However, the few children that got abused and murdered by pedophiles in the past 5 years in Holland and Belgium (Belgian members will remember Dutroux vividly) have had great media coverage and high profile court cases but still we're talking about 1 or 2 case per year. Governments and parliaments have been dubbing over laws to make life increasingly difficult for pediphiles, citing "if it saves 1 child" but not considering the far-reaching effects these laws have on common and (formerly) accepted behaviour and expressions of love of parents and their children. All the while, a child a week dies of physical violence and no-one seems to know or care....