We may have a pervert in the area
The local police are trying to find a man who takes pictures of little girls at the local soccer fields. According to the reports, he was taking pictures of them in provocative positions. Now I don't know if that means he's approaching them and asking them to pose in those positions or what, because that seems a little difficult to get out of a soccer game.
Anyway, he has been seen by several female coaches and was approached by one a few days ago. He offered a strange excuse for his actions, so she reported him to the police.
They say he hasn't broken any laws yet, but they want to identify him and talk with him just to be safe. Since he was approached a few days ago, there has been no sign of him even though he had been a daily attendant at the fields.
Better to be safe than sorry, and it's a good idea to keep your eyes opened for your kids.
Anyway, he has been seen by several female coaches and was approached by one a few days ago. He offered a strange excuse for his actions, so she reported him to the police.
They say he hasn't broken any laws yet, but they want to identify him and talk with him just to be safe. Since he was approached a few days ago, there has been no sign of him even though he had been a daily attendant at the fields.
Better to be safe than sorry, and it's a good idea to keep your eyes opened for your kids.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by nunn
Yes, Randy, I agree with your assessment of the SPIRIT of the law, but if you read the LETTER of the law, it is much more far-reaching. On the other hand, how does one PROVE what is in the mind of the photographer?It's true that it requires certain thoughts to violate this statute, but there's a second element that must exist before a violation is committed.
It specifically states these images must be captured without the person's consent. Our laws already establish that anything people are willing to openly display in public is fair game for photography, with certain restrictions if it's done for commercial purposes. A photographer must cross the "reasonable expectation of privacy" line to be in violation of this statute, no matter what their motives.
The only way this law could possibly apply in the situation stated is if the area were posted as a "no photography zone". Except in areas involving national security, establishing these would open up an entirely new can of legal worms. Due to strong public sentiment when it comes to protecting our kids and the creativity of these pervs, don't be surprised if you see this proposed in the near future.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
31 comments