Harassed by Police for photography on playground. (Memory card confiscated and harassed by police)

So as not to be too rigid on this complex issue..

 

How the photographer behaves is, I would think, part of the equation. We have to balance

people's rights. I think there must be laws against stalking that could relate to this, aren't

there? In other words, a court might have to decide at which point the photographer's

behavior infringed on reasonable privacy or constituted harrassment of people in a public

place. I wouldn't think

anyone

should be allowed to follow a family around, for example, for extended periods of time

against their wishes. The problem of rights against the photographer would seem to have

to

do with the suspicion against him when his behavior is within reason. Reasonable

behavior or

unreasonable behavior- determining what that is, if I may say- reasonably- isn't that the

question?

"The problem of rights against the photographer would seem to have to do with the suspicion against him when his behavior is within reason. "

 

This is what I don't understand. I take pictures of men and women - no one suspects me of abusing them. I take pictures of dogs and horses, and chickens, likewise. Why is someone who takes pictures of birds a nature-lover but someone who takes pictures of children automatially a pedophile? What's so special about pictures of children?

Gary; I lived in Deroit for decades and knew in kindergarden that Canada was another country; and Toronto was in Canada and had different rules and laws. The bulk of kidnapings of kids in the USA are by relatives, NOT the unknown simplistic Toronto bogeys. Its abit wrong to distort facts; the real enemy is paranoid poor informed parents who are creating another generation of more paranoid kids. Folks who dont want photos shot at events often are wanted, are cheating on their wives, are out with a mistress, or are not legally susposed to vist their kid that day at to legal issues; divorce rulings. There is a whole bunch of deadbeat dads and moms, many mucking out of child support payments. Its easy to paint the photo problem with shooting in public like its a paranoid stranger being the bad guy; when one ignores 99.5 percent of the data. The cameras not allowed is usually a smoke screen for bigger issues, a parent doesnt want to be found with their kid they grabbed from another state. Its about laughable; one sees wanted faxes for missing kids; the prime suspects are always embattled husband or wife. Parents who grab their kid(s) and move to another state dont want to be found; they are wanted by the Police. Thus they dont want their kid shot in school events because it gets the kids image above the radar screen; and thus the parent who kidnapped their own kid can be found quicker. The hogwash and paranoia created as a smokescreen to hide folks that run from the Police is geared to helping parents on the run.

"I really can't see any way in which an absence of photography

prevents harm to children"

 

Love this turn... Read it enough, and you almost ask yourselves:

can a safe environment do WITHOUT freedom of photography...

(and i don't mean anonymous, even abusive security cameras)

hahaha.

 

where exactly where you in detroit?

 

 

I live in a suburb, and this doesn't sound like the Detroit police...They were too fast to respond.