Photographing children

[Keith]

Kids have been cannon fodder for numerous cultures for a long time. The industrial revolution was founded on factories full of young children, they become child soldiers in many African conflicts, they get sent down into toxic pits to harvest the materials needed to create rare earth elements for the electronics industry, they are usually the first to starve to death in famines. Protecting them from pedophiles is admirable but in reality they are threatened on a much larger scale by other perils and always have been. This is a discussion that addresses no issues aside from hysteria.

 

[gns]

You're deciding what's an unreasonable fear for somebody else, now?

That's why some statistics (facts) would be nice.

 

[Ranchu]

Let me put it another way. Do you think a smaller chance a child will be harmed means the fear of it happening then becomes unreasonable?

 

[gns]

Let me put it another way. Do you think a smaller chance a child will be harmed means the fear of it happening then becomes unreasonable?

Yes. If the facts force us to reason that it is extremely unlikely, then fear of it is unreasonable. By definition.

 

[Ranchu]

Why is that 'by definition'? You can't claim that, it's just you saying it.

The existence of pedophiles who harm children means a fear of children being harmed is reasonable in all cases. If the possibility exists, it's entirely justified to seek to prevent it, thus lowering the probability. I encourage it.

By definition.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Why is that 'by definition'? You can't claim that, it's just you saying it.

The existence of pedophiles who harm children means a fear of children being harmed is reasonable in all cases. If the possibility exists, it's entirely justified to seek to prevent it, thus lowering the probability. I encourage it.

By definition.

I have never seen any evidence of any documented case where a pedophile was doing street photography and then somehow harmed children with the photos.

Most children who are victims of sexual abuse are abused by family members or by the boyfriends of their mothers. People who work with children like teachers, coaches, scoutmasters, and priests also commonly molest children. Strangers virtually never do.

The newspapers in Fort Wayne publish the names and info of child molesters caught by the police here. Most are either family or men dating the child's mother, or the people I mentioned above who work with kids. I have never, in 20 years of reading these reports EVER seen a photographer listed in there.

Calm down. There was a time when Americans stood up for our freedoms, fought for them. Now we're begging the government to take them away for our 'safety.'

 

[Ranchu]

Dude, you live in Hibernia. The evidence you've seen is not the issue, I've been stating flatly the probability is irrelevant, that the possibility is the deciding factor.

Honestly, I don't know why photographers think anyone cares about their opinion on this subject. They don't. You can stomp around about your freedom all you want, the fact is is that you are a guest in the commons as a person taking candids, and an uninvited one.

 

[p.giannakis]

Dear Ranchu,

I don't think that there is anyone in here that is defending a sexual offender's plans to offend. My understanding is that photographers in here see a potentially bleak situation arising, the idea of being dragged to a police station and have a criminal record or a 'safeguarding issue' being raised against you because you took a picture. Cars kill so many people every year, banning them is insane though.
If at any point someone asks me not to take a picture of them or the kids in the street, i will comply with that because i do not want to come across as threatening of cause fear to others. But this is not what the original post was about. Going back to my original post - there was an email circulating from an educational institution to all parents in the area stating that there is a safeguarding issue because someone took somewhere a picture of kids en route to school. It advises telling the kids to contact the police.
That *is* paranoia. You could have been on the other end of this.

 

[Ranchu]

You don't know all of what went on that made them feel they needed to send that letter, all you have is the letter. You may have an opinion on the letter, but you are not in a position to judge whether it should have been sent or not. Even if you did know all that they know, you are not in an official position of resposibility for protecting the children, which I assume would engender more motivation to be proactive in doing that. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Just because it affects you negatively, that doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

You don't know all of what went on that made them feel they needed to send that letter, all you have is the letter. You may have an opinion on the letter, but you are not in a position to judge whether it should have been sent or not. Even if you did know all that they know, you are not in an official position of resposibility for protecting the children, which I assume would engender more motivation to be proactive in doing that. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Just because it affects you negatively, that doesn't make it wrong.

I can tell from my experience as a public high school teacher that the incident that caused some school administrator to send this letter was something that no rational person would have been concerned over.

You have to understand that public school administrators are virtually all failed teachers. To become a school principal, you have to be a licensed teacher. No good teacher wants to be an administrator. We became teachers so that we could teach students, not sit in an office and shuffle paper.

Taking pictures of people (including kids) on the streets is legal in the United States. Full stop. End of discussion.

 

[p.giannakis]

Just because it affects you negatively, that doesn't make it wrong.

If it affects me negatively, in an unfair manner, it is ethically wrong no matter if it is legal or not.

 

[Ranchu]

Taking pictures of people (including kids) on the streets is legal in the United States. Full stop. End of discussion.

Warning people about possible pedophiles and giving them information about how to protect their children is legal too, to continue the discussion.

 

[Ranchu]

If it affects me negatively, in an unfair manner, it is ethically wrong no matter if it is legal or not.

Probably some of the people who had their candids taken on the street feel the same, p., even the homeless ones.

 

[p.giannakis]

Probably some of the people who had their candids taken on the street feel the same, p., even the homeless ones.

I'll use your previous comment as a reply.

"You don't know all of what went on that made them feel [this way]. You may have an opinion on [that], but you are not in a position to judge whether [they feel like that] or not"

(the comments inside brackets are mine of course).

It's glorious outside, i'm going to take some pictures.
Have a nice day everyone.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Warning people about possible pedophiles and giving them information about how to protect their children is legal too, to continue the discussion.

There is no pedophile. This is nothing but baseless fear-mongering by mindless fools. The person taking pictures did so on the streets, in public, not on school property. He violated no law and did nothing wrong.

If this letter caused someone emotion-driven and irrational to harm a man taking pictures on the street because that letter led the aforementioned fool to believe that the photographer was a pedophile then the school district and the administrator who wrote the letter could be sued by the victim (the photographer) or his family if he was killed.

OR, if the photographer was taking advantage of his second amendment rights and was attacked by some fool who thought he was a pedophile, the fool could end up dead and the photographer would be protected by his right to self-defense.

 

[Ranchu]

Well, I'm going to bed. All that prognosticating is too iffy to bother about now. You aren't claiming you have any factual knowledge of what motivated that letter, are you?

 

[peterm1]

We live in an age of internet memes with panics based in irrational and often baseless fears that themselves in turn are built on generalizations and / or assumptions about people and their motives. All of which is reinforced by the tendency to virtue signal by too many folk. This is not to say that pedophiles do not exist and are a danger. But people will often automatically assume any man photographing a child is a pedophile and will declare them as such without a shred of proof (or even a slither of evidence). Which is why it is now quite rare for males to take up the jobs like school teacher in junior schools (grammar school / primary school depending on your country). It is also why parents in public places (parks etc) photographing their own kids have been approached by compete strangers who have denounced them loudly as pedophiles.

(Shades of Monty Python with filthy peasants shouting "She's a witch burn, her burn her". Yes, that is what society is back to today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

It is also why I try to avoid photographing kids even incidentally. I try to remember the old adage that assuming you yourself have an average IQ (i.e. 100) when you look around you, you should understand that 50% of the people you meet on average will be less smart than you are. I would assume most on this forum have somewhat higher IQs than that so the proportion of people less smart than you (who probably act on ill formed ideas without evidence because they have never been taught logic or critical thinking) is likely to be somewhat higher. BTW an IQ of 70 is regarded as border line retarded. There are a surprising number of folks like this around even some who not in politics..........!!! That my friends is a scary proposition.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I try to remember the old adage that assuming you yourself have an average IQ (i.e. 100) when you look around you, you should understand that 50% of the people you meet on average will be less smart than you are.

This is an attitude that is not only necessary when photographing children.

Erik.

 

[peterm1]

This is an attitude that is not only necessary when photographing children.

Erik.

Absolutely

 

[Richard G]

The boy saw me approach, in a crowded street. I looked at him. There was time for him to object. I presume they're country kids, obediently sitting, waiting, and not visiting social media.

Without guile or device by Richard, on Flickr

Two things I'd say: be careful, and be mindful of the society in which you live. I am careful about what I take. Shooting the child with the parent/grandparent seems to achieve some balance that quells dissent.

Approaching a child walking to school, sufficient to interrupt them or distract them: I wouldn't do that.

The other morning a tiny boy, not far from his father, asked why I had that camera, a silver M Leica with a small lens. "Just for fun" I said, photographing a park bench. He was satisfied, and his father amused.