Taking Photos In A Public Place

[Rachel Foster]

Hi, all. I read about an interesting situation and immediately thought of this group. I realize that this question has been discussed several times, but this case is unusual (maybe?). This occurred in a rural area, and it involves a professor in a college town.

This prof was arrested because he was taking photos at a county fair that were suspected of being "inappropriate." Some of the photos were of young girls. When the photos were reviewed, they were found to not be "inappropriate enough" for anything stronger than a charge of disturbing the peace.

The incident has been reported in both the local paper and the college paper. That's enough to ruin the man's life regardless of the true story. One thing that particularly struck me was the gender issue. If I had been the photographer, I seriously doubt I would have been arrested. However, pedophiles are overwhelmingly male. So, is it justified?

http://www.themorningsun.com/articl...d-with-disturbing-the-peace-in-mecosta-county

http://www.cm-life.com/2013/08/13/c...the-peace-after-taking-photos-of-young-women/

 

[Paul Abbott]

It looks like he was presumed guilty before innocent, and how can he be disturbing the peace?
It sounds more like 'joe public' were disturbing the peace in reaction to what he was doing...

You cannot condemn someone taking pictures in a public place like this, even if they are of young girls...
Anyway, I hope he keeps up what he's doing, I can only imagine how good his photographs are...but what an astounding piece of work his photographs might bring to us all in this age of paranoia and concern.
After all, in regard to photographing young kids in public places it's like we're living in the dark ages at this point in time, where nothing was recorded or set down on record...

 

[Rachel Foster]

I'll have to see if he is a photographer. I may have met him once or twice but don't know much about him personally.

 

[Jerome Marot]

From your quoted source:
http://www.cm-life.com/2013/08/13/c...the-peace-after-taking-photos-of-young-women/

According to court documents shared with Central Michigan Life, the pictures he took appeared to be “centered mostly on the buttocks and thigh area” of young girls and adult women.

 

[Asher Kelman]

From your quoted source:
http://www.cm-life.com/2013/08/13/c...the-peace-after-taking-photos-of-young-women/

According to court documents shared with Central Michigan Life, the pictures he took appeared to be “centered mostly on the buttocks and thigh area” of young girls and adult women.

Jerome,

I can understand the concern. It does sound suspicious of "lewd intent" but there would need to be corroborative evidence as opposed to presumptive belief. So if his computer was filled with child pornography, then one might reasonably infer that these pictures were related to the same obsession. Still, the nature of the pictures would have to be such that they were obviously "erotic" to logically prove a felony. So we'd have to see his work to make some reasoned judgement.

After all, any photographic artist could take such pictures and have no lewd or lascivious intent. Furthermore the pictures of a wider scene could be later cropped to provide a composition that was worthy of hanging in a major gallery.

It's a slippery slope to destructive censorship if the man is deemed guilty by virtue of being male and taking pictures that exclude what does not make the picture powerful.

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

I can understand the concern.

What concern are you exactly thinking about? Let me check something: if the man was a painter instead of a photographer and was drawing images with obvious "lewd intent" in the privacy of his home, would that be cause for concern? And why exactly?

After all, any photographic artist could take such pictures and have no lewd or lascivious intent.

You are tempting me to do a quick google check for art which hangs in museum and has obvious lewd and lascivious intent. But then you would have to censor my posts.

I'm joking, of course.

 

[Rachel Foster]

It's an incredibly difficult situation made worse by the fact that just recently another CMU professor was sentenced for possession of child porn on his work computer. A few years ago, a local well-respected physician was sentenced for child porn on his home computer. As a parent myself, I understand why people are uneasy. However, I do think this resembles the proverbial villagers storming the castle with flaming torches, etc.

A later article stated photography is his hobby. So, as far as I can see, he's not broken any laws (even if he does shoot with a Nikon D300 rather than a Canon!).

We are in the position of defending some real creepy types of people in order to protect our rights as photographers. But it goes deeper: In order to protect basic freedoms, we have to champion cases that may offend us deeply.

I mentioned this case to a photographer friend in Lansing, and she said she has been challenged when taking photos of children, also, so apparently both women and men are viewed with suspicion.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I'll never forget the case, decades ago, of a grandmother, pounced upon by a posse of eager policemen lying in wait, as she came to collect her processed film. It had pictures of her grandchildren in their tubby bath, LOL! Well, the district attorney, defending the public's morals, forced this lady into a costly caught battle. In the end, after having paid so much in defender that she lost her life savings and home, she made a plea bargain of being guilty to some minimum charge of lascivious pictures of children and had to register as a sex offender just to stay out of prison!

So this is the reality of the atmosphere which judges photographer's lewd in intent! If they can torture grannie, then they have no mercy on anyone else.

Asher

 

[fahim mohammed]

One has to be sensitive to the their surroundings!!

Therein lies the secret of photography. And avoiding misunderstandings or worse.

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

One that has the intention to take pictures for unethical activity, doesn't take his camera into the open (in public view) where he can be spotted... does he? Should I be arrested for shooting this?

 

[Paul Abbott]

Exactly, I guess it depends on his focal length...The hysteria alone would ensure he has a long one, surely.
Hmmm, maybe I should have said that better but i'd only be kowtowing to all the bleeding hearts and over-sensitive types...

They're are plenty of safeguards in place to protect children, it's whether they're implemented correctly or not...In fact, I would prefer to see these b*****ds who commit paedophilia etc., castrated and thereby giving a better deterrent. Although I bet they'll be people calling it a mental illness next...
They're's no excuse for castration not happening but it will give 'human rights' activists something to talk about and defend I bet...

Fantastic photo by the way, Theo'. In no way should you be arrested!

 

[Asher Kelman]

Exactly, I guess it depends on his focal length...The hysteria alone would ensure he has a long one, surely.
Hmmm, maybe I should have said that better but i'd only be kowtowing to all the bleeding hearts and over-sensitive types...

They're are plenty of safeguards in place to protect children, it's whether they're implemented correctly or not...In fact, I would prefer to see these b*****ds who commit paedophilia etc., castrated and thereby giving a better deterrent. Although I bet they'll be people calling it a mental illness next...
They're's no excuse for castration not happening but it will give 'human rights' activists something to talk about and defend I bet...

Fantastic photo by the way, Theo'. In no way should you be arrested!

Let's not go to fast on the castration campaign, Rachel. First, reread the grandma story above. That means that any male thus found guilty would be subjected to your punishment and likely, as not, it would be wrong. Secondly, I'm not sure that castration would make much difference. Is their proof that testosterone levels alter the behavior so much as to make those truly harmful deviants safe? After all, the adrenals still produce testosterone behaving steroids and would you then advocate, adrenalectomies?

I'd wager that a good proportion of convicted perverts with cameras are actually harmless but troubled and some are even totally innocent family or amateur or professional artists. Think about Jock Sturges who was prosecuted for photographing minors nude and now recognized as a major artist of, (AFAIK), impeccable ethical character as far as his photography is concerned.

Asher

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

I wonder..., is taking pictures enough suspicion to create a prosecution? I mean discusting people like paedophiles are, tend (from what I hear) to share stuff or organise stuff in their computers... Surely one cannot be accused only because a cop (or some "suspicious" parents) thought more of a (probably) innocent action... Don't they ask for a prosecutors order to check for some more evidence? ...surely one doesn't just wake up and say "from today on I will be a twisted monster mind"... this should be common sense for the authorities to act...

P.S. I want to thank Paul for using the word "fantastic" for my image, ...it's really flattering when it comes from him...

 

[Paul Abbott]

In all reality Theo, I personally can't see paedophiles indulging in photography of kids like this, they're activity is conducted behind closed doors and away from prying eyes, on they're computers like you say...
I believe that taking pictures in public just wouldn't cut it for them, they have other means I guess...

I don't like it when paranoia and hysteria takes over. It was just like when 9/11 happened and the bombings in London, photographers were all considered terrorists for taking pictures of buildings. I was constantly pulled over by police and given 'section 44''s to sign, it was nuts!
If there hadn't been protests over this happening then architectural photography would have become a guerilla tactic...
I ended up seeing a lot of photographer's wandering around with hi-vis' jackets on to make them look like the respective building's officials or city security...

Asher, I found Jock Sturges photography shocking and enlightening. Great stuff! Btw, that's the second time you've called me by someone else's name. I was Michael in my 'Chair Stacks' thread and now i'm Rachel here...lol

Theo, I forgot to mention that your photograph totally 'arrested' me and that's a far far better thing in all of this...Nice one.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Rachel's a psychologist. She could explain my thread of deep intent. My guess is that maybe I hold her profession partly responsible somehow for calling the fellows who get arrested "perverts". I just don't believe even half of the police assertions these days!

Asher

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Theo, I forgot to mention that your photograph totally 'arrested' me and that's a far far better thing in all of this...Nice one.

I'll split this in two answers because I want to avoid Paul's (too flattering for me) comments to twist the (very interesting) subject...
Paul, I believe that what touches you more on my photograph is the time.... We where both youngsters in London at the days and me (I'm only 2-3 years younger and was doing my degree at a Wales university), I was too influenced (still am) by Antonionie's "Blow up" (as well as "Slow train a'coming" by the Yardbirds) to seek pictures like that... I have hundreds of them... Here is another one that could be related to an extend as a follow of Asher's story on the "grandma"...

I would prefer if the conversation on the matter will continue through PMs.... (or mail). I 'll be mailing you shortly since things are very "rough" here and I want to promote this work... (which has perhaps been waiting too long in drawers...).

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

In all reality Theo, I personally can't see paedophiles indulging in photography of kids like this, they're activity is conducted behind closed doors and away from prying eyes, on they're computers like you say...
I believe that taking pictures in public just wouldn't cut it for them, they have other means I guess...

I don't like it when paranoia and hysteria takes over. It was just like when 9/11 happened and the bombings in London, photographers were all considered terrorists for taking pictures of buildings. I was constantly pulled over by police and given 'section 44''s to sign, it was nuts!
If there hadn't been protests over this happening then architectural photography would have become a guerilla tactic...
I ended up seeing a lot of photographer's wandering around with hi-vis' jackets on to make them look like the respective building's officials or city security...

Asher, I found Jock Sturges photography shocking and enlightening. Great stuff! Btw, that's the second time you've called me by someone else's name. I was Michael in my 'Chair Stacks' thread and now i'm Rachel here...lol

My opinion is that both "right and left" ethics has become too conservative after 80's and the ECHO of the 60's that one could still hear... "Hysteria" is no more than a "let me leave in peace" political reaction of society... Now, does all this has as consequence the "demotion" of art, as well as peoples vales as to what is civilisation and how it advances, this may be the "real" subject for a discussion...

OTOH, law has been "caught" wrong many times as history explains... IMO it's more there to help conservatism survive, while an artists action is exactly the opposite....

We all have to wonder if democracy is the right of the most to deside for the minorities, or if democracy is the right of the minorities to express themselves....

In our days, none seems to wonder on the matter....

 

[Rachel Foster]

Asher, don't blame me for the castration comment! It was Paul! He did it! (points finger and runs away)

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ok, I'm going out on a limb here. Let's say the guy is a pedo and the motivation for the photos was sexual. The behavior was not illegal.

Isn't that the bottom line?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ok, I'm going out on a limb here. Let's say the guy is a pedo and the motivation for the photos was sexual. The behavior was not illegal.

Isn't that the bottom line?

Rachel,

He can have perverse thoughts with or without the camera. If he actually threatens kids safety, then we should do something, however before that, we just have to be alert and responsible for the safety of our precious kids.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

If he threatens the safety of children, yes we should protect them. But we must protect them from all such threats and pass the appropriate legislation. If he's not breaking a law, our hands are tied until we do.

My point is that imputed motives or thoughts are actionable unless they accompany an outlawed act.

 

[Asher Kelman]

If he threatens the safety of children, yes we should protect them. But we must protect them from all such threats and pass the appropriate legislation.

Rachel,

I'm all for protecting kids, but just what new laws would you want? There's enough false charges with the laws we have. The issue seems to be letting out of jail proven child molesters and killers, not making wider nets to catch men or women who might think deviant thoughts!

If he's not breaking a law, our hands are tied until we do.

Is that a bad thing?

My point is that imputed motives or thoughts are actionable unless they accompany an outlawed act.

You must mean "imputed motives are not actionable unless they are accompanied by an outlawed act". Still, the current laws assume evil motives for a grandmother taking pictures of the kids in the bath! That's our base line and shows how poorly we focus our energies in this matter!

However, repeat offenders seems to be able to wander around, unsupervised!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

That's exactly what I mean to say, Asher. He didn't break any laws, so he should not be charged. Legally, let's leave him alone. But as a mother, or as any protective, caring adult, should I notice such a thing, I can and will watch carefully.

We forget that laws are only one aspect of maintaining civil order and protecting the innocent. Proactive, non-violent, unarmed, common-sense governed actions are another method. Please note I am NOT advocating vigilantism, armed or not. All I'm suggesting is REASONABLE vigilance and a call to the authorities, all guided by common sense.

 

[Jerome Marot]

He didn't break any laws, so he should not be charged.

That is not quite how a legal system works and maybe discussing the matter in some more details will allow a better understanding of the problem at hand.

You or I are not the one to decide whether that person broke any laws. Only an official (a judge) can do that. And to do so, a complaint must be filed. So indeed if there is a suspicion that someone is taking pictures of children with lewd intent, a complaint should be filed an a judge shall decide whether the law has been broken or not. The problem here is that the mere act of filing a complaint results in the suspect reputation being ruined, lost job opportunities and his name being published in a newspaper (and on this forum). When the judge decides that this person did not break the law (as was the case), damage is already done.

Additionally, since we are talking about laws (broken or not), we should recognize that laws are very much a local thing. They vary from country to country.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Very true, and good point. Perhaps that should read "if he has broken no laws, no charges should be filed. "

 

[Jerome Marot]

Very true, and good point. Perhaps that should read "if he has broken no laws, no charges should be filed. "

That is still not the way a legal system works. Charges must be filed for a judge to step in and decide whether the law has been broken or not.

Let me take an example. Suppose your house has been broken in and you suspect your neighbor. You file charges against him on your suspicion. Police will then step in and check: ask you why you suspect him and if they believe your reasons ask him where he was at the time the house was broken in. If they find what they believe to be evidence, a judge will decide. Even if the neighbor is found to be innocent by the judge, he or she will still suffer during the enquiry: having to be questioned by the police and, depending on his or her reputation, being suspected by other neighbors.

And there lies the problem: if your suspected robber is not liked by the neighbors (because of an alternative lifestyle, skin color, religion, etc...) the damages will be far greater than if that person is liked by the neighbors. Possibly, if your neighbor is a respected member of the neighborhood, the enquiry will not even be made.

That problem is not with the judicial system per se, it works more like Lynch's law than anything else. And for anything sexually related, that problem is extreme.