It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New Jersey Trying To Pass Law Banning Photography Of Children

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:30 AM
This is the kind of knee jerk reaction that is very bad for society. A 63-year old man was taking pictures of 8-year old girls at a public pool because he thought they were sexy. They didn't have anything to charge him with so they go overboard with the legistlation.

And even the bill's sponsor, republican Assemblyman David Russo, acknowledges the bill is too broad.

Also this part is quite telling. Even the bill's sponsor thinks it's overboard. Why don't they word it so that "taking images of underage children for the purpose of sexual gratification"? Sounds simple enough. We have it such here and it seems to work.

New Jersey legislators are trying to make it illegal to photograph children in public without parental consent, proving that they have no Constitututional common sense to be lawmakers.

Source: PINAC

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:40 AM
Following the comments in PINAC I came across this link as well. It says that "aggressively looking at children" would become a crime. Source. Wth? So some guy with maybe ad/hd or some mental disability that gets interested in patterns sees a child wearing clothes that have something interesting to them. So they look and they're now committing a class C or D felony??? How do you someone was looking at a child with "that thought"? There's tons of legimate reasons to look at children in public. Another thought crime legistlation.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:42 AM
Damn, I'll try to stop smiling to children in public, they might make a law to incarcerate me.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:45 AM
If you live in Maine that's exactly what they're trying to do. That second link has that story. How would they ever even prove this? I'm bit stunned by these.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:49 AM
Personally speaking, I have a huge problem with the idea that it's a ''crime'' for a person to photograph someone else in a public place. I may not agree with the intentions of the person taking the photo, but I fail to see how this is actually a crime.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:05 AM
If the child is clothed and not being abused, then where is the victim. I could easily snap a photo of a child unintentionally, and suddenly I'm a criminal. It is certainly too broad. If it were parents taking pictures of their kids at the pool, there wouldn't be a problem at all. Then the parents upload the pics to internet to share with friends and family, and suddenly anyone who looks at them could also be a criminal.

"Oh no, that guy gets some sort of sexual thrill from these pictures! We must punish him!"

This is like punishing a person for their thoughts. It depends on who looks at the images as to whether a crime is being committed. It's completely absurd.

edit on 10-5-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:18 AM
So how do you prove that they used it for "sexual gratification"? He could just say he liked seeing kids play, and it made him feel younger.

As a father of a daughter, I don't want anyone taking pictures of my child without my permission.

It's not like they will go around busting people for doing it, but if you don't like it, you can get a cop, and they will have something to charge someone with, instead of just sending them off to the next pool/park to do it again.

Just my $0.02

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:46 AM
They should make it illegal to photograph children.... if you're wearing a trench coat

srsly tho, i agree. Way to broad.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:50 AM
I guess this about sums it up

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:10 AM
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Not only that how would they prove the intent of the photographer? Also in that Maine law how would one prove the thoughts that the person looking was having?

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:27 AM
reply to post by PsykoOps

Will sex descrimination fall into place in these situations? Maternal females and ol grannies go gaga over small children. Just they other day I was stricken with an acute case of the adorbz. A little girl was walking down the sidewalk on mothers day. She was wearing a pretty pink pastel outfit with matching coat. Similar to how us gals dressed in our youth decades ago. Not only was I hit with nostalgia and adorazable cuteness, but I stared. Somehow I just can't see the police carting off ol grannies for cooing at babies.

edit on 11-5-2011 by elouina because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:26 AM
As a keen photographer myself, I always take an interest when I see idiotic legislation like this.
As if political and media hysteria, making everyone think people taking photographs in public places are terrorists on recon missions wasn't enough, they then go for the pedo angle, to protect the kiddies!

I have seen examples of this sort of thinking already in the UK, where police have been called and arrests made of innocent people for taking photographs in areas where children play... but are not even necessarily there at the time the photos were being taken.
Photography discussion sites are replete already with tales of harassment by police and other authoritarian buttholes over taking photos in public places, which there is no law prohibiting - yet! - but which many people are now conditioned to suspect as being somehow wrong.
Yes, there are pedos about, always have been, but knee-jerk reactions to the problem such as this proposed legislation do nothing to stop it at all, make everyone a suspect and have people jumping at shadows. Inevitably, this will lead to more police harrassment of ordinary people and just watch them tag other riders and pork to the bill.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:43 AM
Yeah UK had it really bad with the new anti-terror laws. There was one guy who was actually arrested for taking a picture of a fish and chips shop. The cop said on camera that he could be a terrorist

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:51 AM
this is a very broad statement. the photography aspect i see plausible due to much paparazzi, but how are kids going to learn to become adults if we're pussy footing around them. they don't need to be shielded.. they can never learn right from wrong if they're just being handed everything with a peaceful life. that is not what reality is. look what they did to our school systems, now the government wants to intervene with the experiences children learn from their every day lives.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by ThaLoccster

Funny because it's true. What's worse kids know it and use it. I taught 6th grade math for a year at an inner city middle school. Shortly after I started the year the teacher next door came to me and said, "Don't ever be alone in the room with one of the girls". This was something I had already figured out so it was no biggie. Sure enough several months into the year one girl asked if she could see me for a minute after class. I said yes and then stopped the last girl leaving and told her to wait by the door for the one who wanted to talk to me. The 13 yo girl who wanted to talk to me walked over to the desk and said, "Mr. Wasco if you don't change my grade on this test to an A I'll tell my mommy you touched me down there". I wasn't really even surprised but told her, "I'll say you're lying and she'll say you're lying", and pointed to the girl by the door, "now get out of here. You still fail". I didn't even report her because I didn't want the feared P word even being brought up.

edit on 11-5-2011 by wasco2 because: doh

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:01 AM
Thought-crime legislation that will make criminals out of plenty of completely innocent people.

But rest assured it's for your own good.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:11 AM
We already have that law in our country yet the Government and airports photograph children without parental permission thus breaking that law.


log in