<p>That’s fascinating, that a news story actually linked to a gay pornography-oriented. I’m surprised by that.</p>
<p>The surrogate stalkers act is interesting, but as far as I can tell the entire bill is predicated upon the following:</p>
<p>“Any person who publishes information describing
or depicting a child, the physical appearance of a child, the location
of a child, or locations where children may be found with the intent
that another person use the information to commit a crime against
a child and the information is likely to aid in the imminent
commission of a crime against a child, is guilty of a misdemeanor…”</p>
<p>While this bill is interesting, and as worded actually pretty reasonable, I can see nothing in it that would criminalize this particular case. How does one prove that the photographer intended a crime to be committed against the children? Or, even more topically, do you actually think that they did? As much as it’s perverted to look at young kids and desire them sexually, thoughts are certainly not criminal, and neither is viewing photos.</p>
<p>So yeah, if a guy posts a photo of some kid, posts his name and address and suggests that someone go rape the kid, yeah, that guy should be going to jail. But I just don’t see the act being applicable in this case.</p>
<p>“So yeah, if a guy posts a photo of some kid, posts his name and address and suggests that someone go rape the kid, yeah, that guy should be going to jail. But I just don’t see the act being applicable in this case.”</p>
<p>I do see it being applicable. The photographers put up photos onto web-sites that were for men who like to look at children in a sexual context. The pictures made clearly visible what schools these children attend. I don’t think you need too much more.</p>
<p>One of the sites had pictures taken during a summertime event. The pictures were of children who were in the 12 and under age group. A particular photo was of two twelve year old boys standing together whispering to each other and taken from behind. A comment left by a frequenter of the site was about how much he would love to, “find himself sandwiched in between” the two boys. That is the kind of men who use these sites.</p>
<p>The bill clearly states that the photos must be made available with the intent that they be used in order to aid another person in committing a crime against the subject of the photo.</p>
<p>Looking at photos is not a crime. Neither is being aroused over them.</p>
<p>Even if a crime were committed as a result of the photos (highly unlikely), I think it would be nearly impossible to prove that that was the photographer’s intent, as compared to the clearly more obvious intent of making money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what part of this you are finding unclear. I do not know a single person who does not agree that the comments left by pedophiles are disgusting. They are. But it is not illegal to be disgusting.</p>
<p>Let me repeat that: It is not illegal to be perverted and disgusting.</p>
<p>If the guy who said that actually went and sandwiched himself there, then yes, clearly illegal. Talking about it in a fantasy way? Not illegal. Shouldn’t be illegal, either. Disgusting, yes. Illegal, no. Simple as that.</p>
<p>You might feel differently if it were your child who was the subject in the picture. I guarantee you the child would not be pleased and might even be distressed. All this talk of the rights of the lookers what about the rights of these children and their parents!</p>
<p>You have all kinds of rights, but the right to be distressed over other peoples’ legal self-expression (perverted as it may be) is not one of them. It might make you angry that people have sexual feelings towards these boys. But so long as they do not act on them, you have no right over their feelings or their expression of those feelings, so long as it does not take the form of stalking, harassment, or whatever.</p>
<p>There are lots of behaviors out there that distress people. Unfortunately, the fact that something distresses you gives you no particular right to stop it.</p>
<p>Putting a child’s photo up on a pornographic web-site WITHOUT THEIR EXPRESS PERMISSION for pedophiles all over the world to view IS stalking. End of story.</p>
<p>collegemom, you’re clearly not reading 1of42’s posts. Regardless of how disgusting we think this may be, it is not illegal. You cannot legislate disgusting behavior out of existence. Your post #28 is just not factual. It is not stalking, in the legal sense. Has your son’s photo been posted on one of these sites? It would appear that you have more than a general interest in this story, judging by the fervor with which you are replying.</p>
<p>I’m going to try to lay this out, as clearly as I can:</p>
<p>When somebody takes a picture like this at a public event and puts it on a website, no one complains, and no one has complained.</p>
<p>The only thing that is causing people to be so angry is that the site in question also contains gay porn, and that people are using the pictures for sexual gratification.</p>
<p>But there are no restrictions on what kind of site a person can upload their own personal photos to (and, in absence of selling [yes, I know he sold them, and as I’ve already said should be sued for that], no restrictions on photos that contain other people either). The fact that this particular site has a lot of perverted people visit it is immaterial. It makes it much more perverted, but not illegal. Simple as that.</p>
<p>I read every single one of 1of42’s posts. No my sons pictures have not been put up to my knowledge, but friends sons yes. I feel it is stalking and that it is putting these kids safety in peril. These kids have a right to not have their pictures plastered up on sites where they do not want them.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how much more fruit this debate will bear. I have pointed out, multiple times, that as disgusting as this behavior is, as gross as it seems to you and everyone who hears about it, it is Constitutionally protected, and as such not illegal.</p>
<p>Your emotional appeals notwithstanding, those are the simple, hard facts of the case. Be outraged all you want, it’s not going to change the facts of the matter. If you’re really truly that disturbed by free speech, I would suggest going somewhere where they don’t have much - such as China, maybe, where such forms of expression (Internet, photography etc.) are rigorously curtailed. I suspect you won’t like it as much as America, but that’s life.</p>
<p>Free speech is a mixed bag. It protects very important expression and all that stuff. It also protects truly disgusting perverted people’s opinions, and their right to express them. You cannot have one without the other, and as much as that distresses you, you cannot change it.</p>
<p>Hmmm, what happened to our WA pedophile “export” to CA - I mean the guy who stalked little girls on playgrounds over here, posted their photos and their names on his personal websites to notify the pedophile community of what is available and where? He was really not welcome here, and he ran off to CA, continued his efforts there, but Californians were even less welcoming to his practices… Last time I heard of him he was heading back. The dads over here are wiping the dust off their baseball bats. He has his First Amendment rights, and the parents have their own ideas… When my kids were involved in Summer League, I personally had no trouble to kick some shady elements off the pool deck. If approached with “Sir, do you have a kid in this meet?”, they ususally run like he** and do not remind me of their rights :)</p>
<p>1of42, why do you think we are DEBATING? We are merely DISCUSSING stuff. Not everything needs to be debated until mouths foam up You are always welcome to chime in, we appreciate your input.</p>
<p>It was probably the back-and-forth point-rebuttal that had me thinking it was a debate. ;)</p>
<p>Discussion is an equally useful description, I don’t think it really matters.</p>
<p>Your method of getting rid of shady elements, by the way, is an excellent one. Non-violent, quick and painless. Thumbs up. :)</p>
<p>That guy from WA sounds truly disturbing, actually actively telling people where these children are. That’s the kind of thing that would clearly fall under the purview of the surrogate stalking act. It sometimes amazes me the kind of people that are out there.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with you. I could care less what these individuals express or how they express it. They can express away. What I care about is when they involve children who also have rights to NOT be involved inside their world via unauthorized photographs. Especially photographs that reveal to pedophiles what high schools these children attend.</p>
<p>BunsenBurner I like the story on the link of the moms who pushed the unwelcome photographers $10,000 worth of equipment into the deep end of the pool. I guess he couldn’t get away fast enough…left his equipment behind.</p>
<p>what about girls that pose in swimsuits for catalogs, or diapers, or whatever</p>
<p>I mean unless we put everyone in a shroud, sick people will look at pictures</p>
<p>How many couldn’t wait for the National Geographic to come out? I find it sick that people get sexual gratification from pictures of kids…newspapers and magazines ALSO talk about what schools these kids attend, and the schools even brag about it</p>
<p>Not saying the websites are right, however, if you get publicity and kudos, etc for your teens, then the ugly often comes with that, fair or not</p>
<p>There really is no need to have kids names anywhere at an event, is there? why not just use #s, why put their name in the paper, why talk about them being recruited</p>
<p>If you want to talk about the sites advertising where these kids go to school, then you need to look at the school itself and the publciity they get for sports</p>
<p>cgm I think you misunderstand. The team’s name is on the suit or cap. This reveals the high school. I don’t think there is too much of the kind of publicity you suggest in aquatic sports, LOL.</p>
<p>As for teens who pose "in swimsuits for catalogs, or diapers, or whatever, "they are doing it voluntarily. That is fine by me. It is not fine to take pictures of this nature of unwilling subjects and then post them up for profit without permission. With these sites consenting adults can post away. Put up whatever floats your boat. Just don’t vicitmize unwilling children. It is wrong…</p>
<p>In my D’s high school sport, professional photographers take photos of the athletes during their event, and their school is clearly identifiable by their uniforms. The photos are posted on the photographer’s website for purchase. The photos can be purchased by anyone. Perhaps I signed some authorization for this along the way, but I don’t recall it. I don’t think the “selling” part of the equation makes it illegal either.</p>
<p>collegemom16- I completely sympathize with you outrage. My S is an OC H20 polo player as well, and several of his friends have had their photos plastered on the gay web sites. It is good that this story is finally reaching a wider audience and unsuspecting parents and students are becoming more aware of who is on the pool deck. Signs prohibiting photography without authorization are being posted at major tournaments and at some schools. Parents are beginning to ask questions of anyone with a camera at games. Sadly, the days of innocence for these kids is over, but we can take steps to protect them.</p>
You are always welcome to chime in, we appreciate your input.</p>