Photograph kids in Maine a Felony?

This one is from http://www.photopermit.org

 

Quite ominous and a real problem coming if this crap gets popular with the

paranoia of the day crowd.

 

 

Maine: Public ?Visual Aggression? to be a Felony?

Thursday April 17th 2008, 11:57 pm

Filed under: State & Local

?Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place,

it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a

Class C felony if the child is under 12.?

 

This amazing bit of legislation from Maine, described in this SeacoastOnline

article, describes the new penalties for appearing to be observing fully-

clothed children in public. The bill has cleared the state house and is moving

now to the state senate.

The parents better hid the kids then, because I can`t help but view them if they are in public.

 

This is the sort of thing that goes to the US Supreme Court.

Must be a lot of perv legislators in Maine for this thing to have gotten any traction. It's the kind of thing you need an overactive sickness to envision.

The proposed law, as stated in the article, applies to private and public places.

 

Well, ... even in your own backyard, being your private place, no more watching kids children, grandchilren ? - make sure you are friendly with your neighbors or have a tall fence, or else they can report you...

Okay, calm down people! Read the entire article, not just the sensationalized / highlights.

 

The law is clearly aimed at preventing sexual predators from watching kids and gives the police opportunity to question / run a background check on them when they are found to be watching kids.

 

First if you're photographing kids on a public beach anywhere, I'd expect to be questioned, especially if they're not your kids. Second, the law as currently on the books applies to places where an expectation of privacy exists. The new law extends the existing to cover public places.

 

If you read the whole article, the individual was watching kids come and go from a bathroom...Creepy... Unless he / she had a child in there. And because the current felony law doesn't apply to public places, the police could only tell him / her to move along. They could not run a background check or detain the person.

 

IMO this is one of those cases where the headline writer got ahead of themselves.

 

Dave

Don't calm down at all. The law may have been written with a particular situation in mind, but the article gives no indication that its application is so limited.

 

The police chief had it right: there are sufficient laws to deal with such problems now.

 

Visual aggression? What nonsense.

Being a Maine resident and rather concerned by the content of the news report cited by

PhotoPermit.org, I tracked down the language of the bill, which is an amendment to an

existing law (which I don't have time to look for right now; perhaps someone else does):

 

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/billtexts/ld207901.asp

 

Sec. 1. 17-A MRSA ?256, sub-?1, ?A, as amended by PL 2005, c. 655, ?1, is further

amended to read:

 

A. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire or for the purpose of causing

affront or alarm, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age , IN A PUBLIC OR

PRIVATE PLACE, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other

person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's

spouse, has not in fact attained 14 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D

crime;

 

Sec. 2. 17-A MRSA ?256, sub-?1, ?B, as amended by PL 2005, c. 655, ?1, is further

amended to read:

 

B. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact

attained 18 years of age , IN A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PLACE, exposes the actor's

genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to

the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 12 years of

age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime;

 

summary

 

This bill amends the crime of visual sexual aggression against a child to clarify that the

crime applies when the exposure occurs in either a public or private place

I take it none of you are parents. I am. I've also worked as a therapist inside a state mental hospital and have known dozens of child molesters. Don't you think it's odd for an adult to hang around photo'ing young children that aren't their own? I once saw some guy furtively doing this in a park in Chicago, and he was really, really creepy. While I'll agree it's not against the law to be creepy, as a parent I really don't mind if the police have the power to at least question someone like that and run their ID. I'm betting most of you folks have absolutely NO idea about child molesters and what they really are like. If you knew as much about them as I do, you'd be demanding a lot more than this simple law. When it comes to protecting my kids, I'd rather error a bit on the safe side. What should really happen is they get locked up for life on the first offense anyway, and then we wouldn't need laws about photo'ing. Keep in mind that I worked as a licensed therapist (7 years of college training) and I know first hand you can't "reform" or change these people with therapy.

 

 

Kent in SD

While the law is aimed at one group how long will it be before a cop gets a complaint from a parent that 'that guy with the camera' is hanging around taking pictures... and the cop comes after you and uses this law as justification for anything he wants? Lying, exaggerating and misrepresenting the law by cops is nothing new just as not knowing what the laws are is not new. It will be twisted and used against someone with a camera before long.

 

As for why someone would be photographing kids? For the same reason a guy in NYC photographed a jewish guy for a book, DiCorcia(think that is the case name) shot him and put the photo in a book and the jewish guy took offense and sued, lost and sued some more on appeal and finally lost. We have a right to photograph and use the images for journalism and/or Art without many limits. Kids in range of your lens are as open a subject as any other but it will take suing some cops in places like Maine for the message to get through to them.

No, I don't like Child Molesters but watching kids doesn't make you one.

Of course Therapy doesn't help, it is nothing more than modern day witch doctors with a degree. It isn't science.

A lot of truth to both sides of the argument. I'm not a therapist, but work in a police department. I have a Masters in Public Administration and an undergrad degree in Psychology. I register sex offenders, handle complaints from parents and victims of rape, incest, and molestation .. and I freelance as a photographer. I think the paparazzi-type photographer does a great disservice to all of us who desire to exericse our craft.

 

I'm concerned with the erosion of photographer's rights and equally concerned that children require protection under the law. I work in southern Illinois, a stone's throw from St. Louis (had an earthquake here yesterday) .. I'm a parent and have two grown daughters.

 

I see both sides of the equation. I believe the law as quoted above is reasonable. I futher believe the photographer has to be aware that his/her conduct may arouse suspicion, be it either in a climate of terrorism or responding to concerns of parents and civic minded people concerned for the general safety of children. God knows we need more people concerned about children; from the parents I've seen, our future as a society and nation is questionable.

 

Photography, barring criminal intent is not a crime, but we all have a responsibility not to harass, intimidate or frighten others in the process .. law abiding citizens and we as photographers, should be cooperative with authorities and able to explain our actions without being confrontational, rude, or defensive. If you swing your camera like a paparazzi, you're asking for trouble; if you run up to a fenceline and shoot a picture of a corporate entity, even from a public area, and run away you may not have committed a crime, but your actions are certainly questionable.

 

Hang around the public swimming pool with a camera, or the beach may cause people concern, especially if the children you photograph are not your own. Nobody is alledging the camera makes you a terrorist nor a child molestor. Reality check and common sense should apply.

 

I think the current laws of most States address the concerns in a manner consistant with our rights as photographers. But remember, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should recklessly exercise it without concern for others. Now, if you want to live recklessly paparrazi-style and claim journalistic safety .. well it just don't fly with me; and personally, I don't think police find it amusing to have to respond to such problems. As has been explained in previous threads, don't expect police to be anything but suspicious of your behavior if you chase down children as a photo subject .. or express an unnatural curiosity in children. (Clearly the case cited above is not what most street photographers do)

 

Consider this, most people have no problem identifying themselves to police, even when they don't have to do so .. most professional photographers have enough foresight to coordinate with people in/around the area of a photo shoot, ususally if for no other reason than to let them know what's going on and to keep them out of the lens.

 

If we are going to understand our rights as photographers we also have to understand our responsibilities and not behave in a manner which alarms or disturbs others ... of course, you can be the type of photographer you want to be .. yes, you do have rights, yes, you may be the one who gets that "dumb" cop - dumb because he's not a photographer and has seldom handled a photo-related complaint .. you play your hand, you take your chances. I personally think it works easier to be smart about approaching your photo subject and task. What say you?

Let me make clear that I am in favor of the law as quoted above. That quote is not what

the news story, linked to through PhotoPermit.org, says or even implies, and people

should read that before coming to conclusions about what people are (or at least were)

becoming alarmed about:

 

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/NEWS/

804060343/-1/NEWS01

 

"Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a

Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is

under 12, according to Alexander."

 

This is clearly not what the bill itself says. Note, too, that neither this paragraph from the

article nor the amendment quoted previously mentions photography. It is the act of

looking being discussed in both cases. So, had the news story been accurate (which

thankfully it's not), the repercussions would extend far, far beyond our photographic

concerns.

 

I recommend that people avoid making sweeping assumptions about where other people's

points of view are coming from. While it is true that I am not a parent, I have a young

neice. And anyway, being a parent is not a precondition for being concerned about the

welfare of children, whether family or not. Further, a family member was the victim of

sexual abuse as a child, and I myself narrowly escaped a sexual assault as a teen. Even

with such a background, no, I don't think it's necessarily odd at all for people to watch

children who aren't their own. I personally enjoy watching children play as much as I enjoy

watching people of any age do what they do. And yes, I've even been known to

photograph them on occasion.

 

(I still haven't found the full text of the law which the above amends, but can tell that it

pertains to gross sexual assault, not anything photographic.)

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that child molestation usually occurs from someone the child knows and trusts such as another family member, teacher, coach and so fourth? Yes, I agree some of the behaviour of some people with cameras is creepy and warrants suspicion but a really thin line gets tread when paranoia gets to the point when anyone (usually male)with a camera who happens to be near a child is automatically presumed to be a pervert up to no good. I'm no lawyer but I think one would have to have beyond reasonable doubt of malicious intent in order to make such an accusation. If you check the archives last June I wrote about a off duty LA police officer who was taking pictures of kids at some festival and was chased down by a parent. I wonder how that whole thing played out.

RE <I>Why hasn't anyone mentioned that child molestation usually occurs from someone the child knows and trusts such as another family member, teacher, coach and so fourth?</i><BR><BR>Because thats the GIANT elephant in the room folks are too whussy and lame to talk about.<BR><BR>Many times the folks who are the worry warts and create these goofy laws about this stuff are the elephants; the ones to be watched. <BR><BR>The molesters and ones that kidnap kids are typically parents; uncles; known folks, coaches, the kidnappers are typically the separated parent who uses the kids as pawns. In investigations the known relatives and so called friends are the elephants who typically are the monsters harming kids that are the first suspects; since the do 95 percent of the harm. <BR><BR>This whole concern is an industry; it has an interest; a profitable one. Maybe it should be law that parents an friends should not photograph kids; they are the massive bulk of the molesters and kidnappers; not random stangers. <BR><BR>

Its Creepy how BAD parents who are the bulk of the problem want to blame total strangers for their failed raising of theirs kids. Yah they want the typical Government solution; since their egos cannot fathom they are the molesters, kidnappers and abusers of kids. Its creepy how parents imply that strangers are causing these woes. Its creepy how folks rights are being stripped away by folks who are bad parents. Its creepy how many coaches; teachers, religous leaders and parents have done the bulk of wrongs. In some states the laws are stronger cracking down towards these folks who are so called roll models who are doing the bulk of the harm.

While it may be true that about two thirds of convicted molesters/perverts were well known to the child, what you aren't taking into account is the tremendous number of victims that other third generate. You would be stunned, as I was when I first began working with those sent to the forensic institution I worked in. While the typical "funny uncle" might have a couple of family victims, the "unknown stranger" type some of you are so dismissive of have hundreds and HUNDREDS of known victims. You just can't imagine it! These people's whole lives revolve around getting access to children. They buy houses near parks. They put playground equipment in their yard even though they have no children. They exist only to attract and seduce children. Yes, they are a smaller percentage of those arrested, but I'm thinking their impact is beyond the comprehension of some folks here. Yes, I know what I a talking about. I have seven years of college training and solid experience in a state forensic institution. What I know, I know first hand. You just have no idea..... Any law that makes it easier for police to simply ask to see an ID, any law that makes it more difficult for these creatures to exploit children, is a good thing for society and I support it 100%. Some of you really have NO comprehension of exactly what these full time "professional" perverts are all about. I knew nearly 50 of them personally. If I ever saw any of them taking photos of my kids, or even just near them, I'd take out my deer rifle and start shooting. I am not kidding. They are dangerous creatures and to pretend otherwise is well beyond naive.

 

 

Kent in SD

"Any law that makes it easier for police to simply ask to see an ID, any law that makes it more difficult for these creatures to exploit children, is a good thing for society and I support it 100%"

 

So why not ban cameras all together then? Or ban any one from looking at a kid?

Update: A PDF of the actual amendment is available on the Maine legislative web site, which shows the exact wording ? wording that would not, despite the circumstance cited in the Seacoast Online article, allow police to legally arrest someone for observing fully-clothed children.

"If I ever saw any of them taking photos of my kids, or even just near them, I'd take out my deer rifle and start shooting. I am not kidding. They are dangerous creatures and to pretend otherwise is well beyond naive."

 

Based on these statements I would say the same thing about you- "dangerous creature" indeed.

This is not good. Here's the thread.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PQl4

Here's a link to the actual proposed legislation:

 

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/billpdfs/LD207902.pdf

 

It does NOT say that simply looking at or photographing a child in public is a crime.

<p>Without revealing too much, I work in law enforcement and specialize in crimes against children. The intent of the proposed legislation appears to be to address a rather distasteful and difficult to discuss problem. Sexual abuse statutes protecting children generally require actual physical contact for the crime to be a felony. In recent years, however, particularly in the internet age, law enforcement has encountered an increased number of cases involving adults who have either masturbated in front of children or gotten children to do this in front of the perpetrator. In the view of many, such conduct should be punishable as more than a misdeamenor. <br>

So, statutes such as the one being discussed here are getting passed around the country. Note, there is a "sexual gratification" component of the crime. It is not illegal to "look" at clothed children--unless one has one's own genitals exposed at the same time!<br>

The statute should not interfere in any way with legitimate photographers--amatuer or pro. <br>

As others have said, when photographing other people's children, great discretion should be exercised as a matter of common courtesy. Candid photography of other people's kids is generally perceived as invasive--even in a public place--and I for one, even being an avid photographer, would have a rather sharp encounter with anyone photographing my niece or nephew in public without asking my permission first. And if asked, I would say no. </p>