<p>UC Irvine placed police dispatcher Scott Cornelius on paid administrative leave today while it investigates his involvement in taking photos of unsuspecting high school boys water polo players that appeared on gay porn Web sites.</p>
<p>When Edison High School boys water polo coach Diggy Riley was shown an online photo of a player on a pool deck wearing just a Speedo swim suit, he recognized the athlete immediately.</p>
<p>The player was an Edison freshman.</p>
<p>The photo was from a gay porn site that also contains photos of nude young men and young males engaged in sex acts.</p>
<p>The Web site is one of five gay-oriented Web sites found by The Orange County Register that contained dozens of non-action photographs of apparently unsuspecting high school boys water polo players from least 11 Orange County high schools as well as schools in Los Angeles and San Diego counties.</p>
<p>On these sites, images of local high school athletes, some as young as 14, according to parents, are juxtaposed next to photos of nude or semi-nude young males and graphic sexual content. The photos are the subject of lewd comments from chat room participants as far away as Australia.</p>
<p>His behavior is tasteless if true, but I am not sure what recourse can be taken against the dispatcher. If the dispatcher was taking pictures at public events and not as part of his job duties or while wearing a police uniform, what business is it of his employer? Apparently he did not take pictures of the boys while they were nude; thus, he probably did not break any criminal laws. Possibly the boys may have a cause of action against the dispatcher and website for using their pictures for profit without their permission, but that would be a private civil matter, not one involving the police department.</p>
<p>Many young boys and young men of the water polo community have recently been victimized by a group of unethical photographers. These male photographers have taken inappropriate (dry land) photographs of young boys in speedos and posted them on gay websites around the world. These photographs (many of male water polo players under the age of 15) are posted, inviting message board comments such as “oh, these bodies make me sooooo hot” and “oh, what I would like to do to this boy all night long”. They are filed under keywords "sexy boys, speedo bulges, etc. </p>
<p>Investigation into this practice has revealed that water polo and swimming are not the only sports involved. Pictures of unaware boys involved in many more sports are posted on these gay/porn sites: </p>
<p>Triathelon
Wrestling
Weight Lifting
Gymnastics
Running
Swimming
Surfing
Jr. Lifeguard </p>
<p>Please note that the UCI dispatcher is but one of several rogue photographers from all over the country involved in this practice. The photographs in many instances are put onto a subcription site and sold to viewers of gay porn all over the world. In more than one instance the water polo players team names (identifying what high school they attend) is clearly visible. As a parent myself, I am certain that it is better to publicize it and make every parent aware of what is going on than to ignore it and allow these predators to continue to victimize our kids.</p>
<p>Taking pictures in public and posting them on the Internet isn’t illegal, so we should all be selective about what we wear and what we do while in public.</p>
<p>An employer can fire an employee for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with illegal activity – especially in an employment-at-will state like California. I’d fire this guy in about 10 seconds, especially since he is in a customer-facing job. If being a creepy pornography freak is a protected class, I’d find some other reason.</p>
<p>I’m with WashDad on how to go forward for the police department, but dntw8up does have a valid point. It’s public, and taking pictures of public events and posting them to the web is certainly not illegal.</p>
<p>It is tasteless, disgusting and exploitative, but not illegal. Since the pictures are being sold, there is almost certainly the potential for a civil suit, but this is definitely not a criminal matter. Just a perverted one.</p>
<p>He cannot be fired at will. (I say this with 95% certainty). State government employees are entitled to procedural due process prior to removal of their liberty and/or property interest in their employment. Thus, they would be entitled to removal only for cause following a hearing by an impartial decision-maker.</p>
<p>I actually knew that, razor, but I was speaking of what I would do if he worked for me in a private company. The good thing about governmental employment is that employees are protected from the worst abuses of a capricious management. The bad thing is that it is nearly impossible to fire a government employee for anything other than a violent felony. I worked for a county government in California, and setting up “layoffs” for undesirable employees consumed a huge amount of time for the personnel department. Even with rules, management can still get what they want, it just takes a really long time.</p>
<p>Perhaps tacky and tawdry to someone with a dirty mind. They are the uniform for the sport. Nothing more and nothing less. The uniform is designed to work for aquatic sports and if you knew anything you would know why a speedo is the proper uniform. Just as a leotard is for a dancer and running shorts are for a runner. How dare you make these boys, and yes they are boys the criminals in this case. They are innocent victims of someone else’s disgusting and perverted actions. There is as we blog a bi-partisan bill being put together to stop these perverts in their tracks.</p>
<p>That worries me. I cannot see any possible bill to combat this that would not massively impose upon the right to free speech. Yes, clearly the selling of pictures of children without their guardians’ consent is wrong. Clearly, in this case, the photos taken of a public event are being used in a perverted way.</p>
<p>But there is a thin edge of the wedge here, and I do not think that there is any way to criminalize what happened without overly restricting freedom of speech and expression. Furthermore, I do not think there is a feasible way to actually do it. This stuff is on the Internet, and it’s on computers around the world.</p>
<p>What would the bill propose? Put a photographer in jail because his photos were used for somewhat perverted purposes? Put a person in jail merely for putting photos of a public event on the Internet?</p>
<p>I dislike what these people did as much as the next guy, but the solution to everything is not a new law.</p>
<p>As for cgm, while she’s wrong about Speedos being tacky, she’s right about one thing: these students compete in public, where it is fully clear that pictures can be and are taken regularly. So these ones ended up being used for perverted purposes… why is everyone taken aback?</p>
<p>More entertainingly, I want to know who was the person who first found them, and how they managed to get the word back to the people involved without lots of awkwardness. ;)</p>
<p>As distasteful as it seems, I think CGM has a point. Its not like these boys were photographed in their underwear in the locker room while expecting some privacy. They do wear speedos in public and in the yearbook picture and even local newspaper team photos. I’m not condoning what happened, but really photos of any one appearing in public in any outfit could end up on a sleazy internet site.</p>
<p>It all sounds so nice and clean the way you put it. Understand these photographers took close up pictures of childrens private areas. They did this while attending the sporting events under the guise of being legitimate photographers. Also understand that this is going on all over the country at all kinds of sporting events and that boys are not the only children being photographed for these kinds of purposes. Be clear that in numerous pictures put up on web-sites frequented by pedophiles, the children’s schools were clearly identified. There is a line that has been crossed here. Would you like your child’s picture on one of these sites?</p>
<p>They purchase special equipment to do this so that they can go undetected. They hide away and take close up shots of kids who are not asked if they want to be photographed. They sell these unauthorized photos on web-sites to pedophiles.</p>
<p>What if it’s your little girl at the beach? While the law may not provide for it, I believe there is a reasonable expectation of privacy that one’s image won’t be used for pedophilic porn websites just because one steps outside of one’s home. Especially if the person is identifiable.</p>
<p>I’d be appalled and disgusted (as I am at this), and I would sue anyone selling the photos. I would also request any free sites to remove them. But past that, there’s nothing I could or would do.</p>
<p>And no, in public at a public event, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. And the fact that the photos were used for pedophilic purposes does not add some magical expectation of privacy. It’s as simple as that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, we know it’s gross. I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that we don’t understand that, but it’s wrong.</p>
<p>However, disgusting as it is, what exactly is illegal about it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the kids are in public at a public event. They don’t have to ask to be photographed. They don’t complain about being photographed until the pictures become the objects of someone else’s sexual fantasies. So clearly it’s not the photos being taken, it’s the fact that someone else is getting aroused over them. And frankly, while I find it as disgusting as all of you, what about this lends itself to being made illegal? </p>
<p>Do we make it illegal to take pictures of underage kids?
Do we make it illegal to take pictures of people shirtless?
Do we make it illegal to take pictures that people could find arousing?</p>
<p>Can you think of a single law that would not violate the first amendment and be immediately struck down by the first court that it was appealed to? Because I can’t. And frankly, I wouldn’t want to.</p>
<p>Some people are disgusting. You see some dirty old man ogling you on the street, you feel violated, etc. etc. But there are all kinds of disgusting perverted people in the world. You can’t just legislate them out of existence - it won’t happen. And attempts to do so will cause more harm than benefit, inevitably.</p>
<p>It is certainly possible that close-up photos of my childrens’ private areas are posted somewhere on the internet, but if they are, I take comfort in knowing that those areas are covered up with clothing.</p>
<p>The kids schools are clearly identified to pedophiles. Does that worry you at all? Would you be ok with having your childs picture along with the name of the school they attend clearly identified up on a web-site frequented by pedophiles?</p>
<p>1of42 asked:
“More entertainingly, I want to know who was the person who first found them, and how they managed to get the word back to the people involved without lots of awkwardness.”</p>
<p>The answer to that question is given in the linked interview in post #18.</p>