There is precedent saying if your camera aims at the clothed crotch of a 17 year old it is the same as if you filmed yourself raping a baby.

My daughter was on the girls' tennis team at her high school. As an amateur photographer I took my god camera and long lens to a practice to get some actions shots.

One of the moms came up to me and made sure one of my kids was on the team, otherwise she'd have called the cops on me.

Earguy: I took my god camera

I've always wanted one of those ;)

Earguy: My daughter was on the girls' tennis team at her high school. As an amateur photographer I took my god camera and long lens to a practice to get some actions shots.

One of the moms came up to me and made sure one of my kids was on the team, otherwise she'd have called the cops on me.

so it's ok to ogle young cheerleaders, but taking pictures is creepy?

One of the moms came up to me and made sure one of my kids was on the team, otherwise she'd have called the cops on me.

Aim your camera at her cleavage when you answer.

I keep picturing that judge from Drop Dead Gorgeous.

Yesdog: Parents know how sexualized cheerleading is nowadays, yet they still allow their girls to join. AND they are horrified if someone is sexually stimulated when their princess is grinding her crotch and air-humping.

Right. I think that in order to clear things up, we should make sure that all cheerleaders under the age of 18 only perform when wearing hammer pants and long-sleeved shirts that are about 3 sizes too large.

I wasn't permitted to film a 'show' my 6yo's school class put on even though my 6yo was in the show.

When my four year old niece was in a school show filming was limited to one performance to prevent disruption. Donald Norman has some good commentary on our obsession with recording our lives to the exclusion of living our lives. As somebody who walks around with a camera and lives in the city where police said taking pictures of a school "might not" be a crime, I have an interest in both the obsession and paranoia aspects.

long-sleeved shirts that are about 3 sizes too large.

Yes! If they are baggy enough you can look down the front.

Kome

I see stories about fathers who rape their daughters' friends during sleepovers without touching their own children. In one case he taped the encounters and his daughter took his videos to the police.

You know, sexual exploitation of kids is about as horrible a crime as most people can imagine, which is why, in my opinion, we've gone sooooo overboard about it. The statistics show that it's really not all that common, but if you ask the average parent, he or she will confidently tell you that the baby rapers are lurking on every block. I mean, just look at all the sex offender hits you get on this highly-reliable website!

Anyway, I don't mean to diminish the gravity of the crime, but for Pete's sake, it's the newest custody dispute tactic. My modest prediction: the registries will either be found unconstitutional or will wind up with so many names that they become useless.

thats just farking retarded.

So why was he trying to hide his camera if his motives were pure? Could it be that the camera was full of crotch shots? Yes, it's public and the girls have clothes on, but that doesn't mean that this guy wasn't being a pervert.

ZAZ: Kome

I see stories about fathers who rape their daughters' friends during sleepovers without touching their own children. In one case he taped the encounters and his daughter took his videos to the police.

This kinda smacks of urban legend.

I hear stories of kids getting poisoned or injured by halloween candy, but a search of medical records and law enforcement records seems to indicate that it's never, ever happened. Every kid who's bit into something sharp or poisonous on halloween did it at a halloween party, and the perp was a relative.

So, references or it never happened.

Sensei

So why was he trying to hide his camera if his motives were pure?

Since this is the Land of the Free, the answer is: its none of your freaking business.

If you don't want to be photographed or videotaped, don't go outside. Otherwise, shut up and sit down.

Asa Phelps: This kinda smacks of urban legend.
ZAZ: Worcester (Massachusetts) Telegram, September 19 2002, page B3:

...which provides enough info for an on-line reference.

Sadly, some people cannot differentiate their fantasy and their reality.

One of my good friends owns a gymnastics academies. He hires he to photograph all the meets his students attend.

I learned long ago to dress like one of the coaches and have a LOT of plastic badges hanging on a lanyard around my neck - people really get weirded out by a guy with a camera taking photos of teen female gymnasts.

Oh, and these are events open to the public. Go figure.

a LOT of plastic badges hanging on a lanyard around my neck

"This badge authorizes the wearer to take pictures of teenage girls in tight outfits revealing every contour of their taut young bodies."

Then you'll see if anybody reads it or just trusts that anybody wearing plastic must be safe.

Before the internet was big I knew a guy who printed out a "usenet press" fake press card and got people to accept it as legitimate. Now that everybody has a printer and graphic arts software that's not so easy to get away with.

I will never get tired of being simultaneously outraged, and yet not surprised, at these ridiculous cases.

Marcus Aurelius: Since this is the Land of the Free, the answer is: its none of your freaking business.

If you don't want to be photographed or videotaped, don't go outside. Otherwise, shut up and sit down.

This is such bullshiat. Just because our children go out in public, does not give implicit consent for perverts to photograph them and build their spank banks. This guy obviously did something that attracted attention -- after review of his photos, the police decided to charge him. If these were action or group shots, I doubt anything would have happened. He has pleaded not guilty and can have a trial and a jury can determine if the material is sexual.

Kome: Either way, the guy in TFA is f*cked for life. His name is now associated with a child pornography charge. Even if he's completely innocent of any wrongdoing, he's screwed. People will be whispering behind his back.

This is unfortunate -- I would be surprised, however, if it turns out that the material photographed wasn't overtly sexual. Otherwise, why go to the trouble of charging the guy?

Here's another article:
Link (new window) What if the material was six year olds? Does that change things?