Photographing children

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...........................

Definitely. This point is hammered home when one goes to a place where there is no internet or other influence. This photo was made in the small agricultural town of Banao in central Cuba which has no internet and sees no tourists. I simply walked into the yard, smiled and waved at the woman and began photographing her kids. She just kept on washing dishes as I shot about 20 frames.

270-young-girls-in-water-pan-Banao.jpg
 
Warning people about possible pedophiles and giving them information about how to protect their children is legal too, to continue the discussion.

But such warnings are irrational based purely on emotion and not reasoning and facts. If one would get too carried away with the accusations, one may find themselves involved in a lawsuit for slander or defamation. You can't go around calling out people as pedophiles for no reason.

Logic and facts should trump irrational fear.
 
Any reason, or none. I'm not going to play word games. Do you want to claim a right to access to other people's children against their wishes, Roger, or not?
You ARE playing word games. A "right to access to other people's children against their wishes" is hysterical nonsense. There's no "access" involved if they're in a public place.

Cheers,

R.
 
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.'

this is

robert
 
Unlawfully obtained? I doubt that, unless there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, or if a person's private parts were being photographed without their permission, in the case of UK and Australian law. Can't speak for the US.

This is not about logic, it's about fear and emotion. Logic's got nothing to do with it. Anglo-Saxon cultures are presently gripped by fear and emotion, unlike France (see Roger's tractor girl story).

Of course when I said "Unlawfully obtained" I meant it with scepticism and irony.
 
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.

Exactly.............
 
You ARE playing word games. A "right to access to other people's children against their wishes" is hysterical nonsense. There's no "access" involved if they're in a public place.

Cheers,

R.


Not only that, but, by american laws, in PRIVATE space but the picture is taken FROM PUBLIC space. IT'S THE LAW. Everything else is housewife's hysteria.
 
I photograph anyone by following the same basic principle that I think a lot of street photographers follow—be conscious of the people you're photographing. It's pretty easy to tell who doesn't want a camera in their face. It is interesting that having a small innocent Leica M6 can cause uneasy-ness (not as much as a DSLR though, mind you), but you can have your iPhone out at all times and take as many pictures of you want and no one would be the wiser.

I tend to shoot from the hip a lot just to avoid having attention drawn to me. However, that isn't always fool proof. Just last weekend I was out in downtown Austin during the final day of SXSW, and there was a bouncer sitting on a chair outside a bar. I wanted the picture to be at his eye level but I didn't want to call attention to myself, so I took the picture from the hip and started to move on. Right after I advanced the frame, this group of people (all adults) accused me of taking a picture of their crotches. First, the lens wasn't pointed anywhere near this group, much less their crotch. Second, if I was a creep and wanted crappy pictures of random stranger's crotches, I wouldn't use a professional camera that is visible to all. I'll refer to my smartphone comment earlier in this post.

Part of the street photography game is the possibility of getting into a confrontation with someone. I always carry my business cards with me that has my email address, phone number, and website. If I come across someone that wants the picture emailed to them, I'll be happy to do that and give them my card so they can reach me. I also have them on me just in case I do get accused of something so preposterous, that I can educate them on who I am and what I do. Each of my cards has a unique photograph of mine on one side as well, so that way they can get an immediate impression of my work without having to look up my site.
 
Back
Top Bottom