Thursday, 25 October 2012

Is It The Same As Underage Pornography?

I was reading some blogs of my blogroll, as I sometimes like to do a couple of days a week. The blogs on my roll are those which I like to read, comment etc. There was nothing out of the usual until I came to this particular blog and this particular part of the post. I won't name the writer but I wanted to get an understanding of others interpretation of the following text.


.....go to the nearby soccer game and take pictures - and simply not come back until it was over. (Or simply not go back until tomorrow). Part of me was leery of making a scene, but mostly the weather was icky all day - chilly cloudy and off-and-on raining. So, I figured if the day stayed that way, why bother going out in yucky weather.

It was the phrase 'make a scene' that made me wonder, why would taking photos at a football game cause a scene, it was then that I started to wonder, is it because the people playing football would be children underage?

I commented on the blog, I couldn't help myself  'You want to take photo's of young dude's playing soccer, does that seem weird to you?'. It was presumptuous of me to assume that they were children but I had a feeling I was right. He was quick to respond with 'last time I checked it was a free country'. I was expecting a denial, for him to say that it was a college game or some kind of adult match.

I asked him again how old the players were, and agreed that it was a free country but that children should also be free to play sports without being photographed for what is most likely sexual gratification. Again, he responded almost immediately but he didn't deny any anything sexual but rather said sexual gratification was a little bit to extreme.

I pushed him further on this, pointing out how wrong and inappropriate this was and he replied with ' I'm not having sexual encounters with anyone for crying out loud. I'm taking pictures of something I enjoy. End of discussion. Thanks for commenting.'.


Now, I don't know about you but I don't see much difference between these kind of photographs and child pornography  especially when the uses would be the same and the writer, didn't agree with me, it was more just a 'hobby' for him. I couldn't get my head around it, how could he not see that this was the same. I couldn't help but wonder, what other peoples opinions on the situation were. No one else has commented on this particular post so I don't know if anyone else out there is looking at the situation in the same light.

Is this perfectly innocent? Let me know what you think.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh and for the record - you mis-read the words "make a scene" - that referred to "make a scene at work" (as in, listening to the boss bitching) NOT to making a scene at the game.

Eyre said...

Children, and I include teens in that, should not be seen as sexual objects, so I think that this counts as child pornography since the pictures seem to be being used for the same type of, umm, gratification. I don't think it's innocent at all. In fact, there have been cases where adults have been arrested for taking unsolicited pictures of children at places like fairs, and when their computers were searched, it became evident that their interests had escalated/were escalating to more dangerous and inappropriate activities.

Anonymous said...

Also for the record, I did in the past value your input. So thanks for that. Cheers and goodbye.

Mind Of Mine said...

For those that are reading the comments, the first comment is actually by the writer of the post in question.

Isn't unusual that the only correction he has to make is the use of scene being taken out of context. Like it is the worst part about what was written.

behrmark said...

In my humble opinion, because he's posting comments under "anonymous" he knows what he's doing could be a problem for him, especially one involving police, courts, and the national sex offenders list. While taking pics of clothed children is not a crime, per se, I think one must take into consideration the intent behind such photography. I'm with you, Ian.

Buddy Bear said...

As a father of three, I would be extremely concerned about an adult male secretly photographing my kids, no matter how innocent he may think it is.

In time, the photographer might not get enough gratification from just photographing the young players. He might need to escalate his activities into something more serious.....

Mind Of Mine said...

It is irrelevant if you valued my input before. I would never have engaged in a rapport with you if I had known you engaged in this kind of activity.

It's the fact that you genuinely believe it to be perfectly innocent which worries/creeps me out the most.

Jay M. said...

From a strictly legal point of view, if the children are in a public place, then the photographer is within his/her rights to photograph the game. That being said, if I go photograph anything in public, I typically have a reason for it: publication (no expectation of privacy in public), promotion (of me as a photographer, so I can understand that if my photography business was taking sports photos, then perhaps there is a reason to take pictures of children playing games outdoors in public - or to promote the event that is taking place). But there are a lot of subjects that I can take pictures of without even appearing to be creepy, and appearing at children's soccer games to randomly take pictures. That also being said, why do we automatically assume that everyone/anyone who takes pictures at a soccer game are there for nefarious reasons? It's called "worst-first thinking" and is part of the reason that children tend to trust no one their parents haven't tattooed "he's ok" on the forehead of (and thus are completely without resource if they find themselves lost since no one can be trusted to be helpful without being creepy). See where I'm going? Would it be wrong of me to take pictures at a soccer game because I know a child's mother or father can't be there to watch and would love to see their kid score the winning goal? Without seeing the entire original post, and the entire comment thread (the post I can read, the comments are gone apparently), I can't pass judgment, though I know who this is, and that particular person has in no way ever expressed an interest in children as sexual objects to me at least, but he does like taking pictures of lots of things, and submits them to local newspapers - wrecks, news events, sports. Oh, and make sure you shut down anyone taking pictures at these games, male or female, for whatever their reasons may be since you can't be sure they won't use them for some reason more nefarious than publishing them in the local newsrag. Quite honestly, I think this is a huge overreaction to a post that was taken hugely out of context.
Peace <3
Jay

Jay M. said...

Oh, and there was NO MENTION of SECRETLY taking pictures at this soccer game. Not in the post, not in the comments here by Ian, yet one of the commenters immediately read that into it. HUGE difference between hiding in the trees with a telephoto lens and standing on the sidelines with a camera.
Peace <3
Jay

Mind Of Mine said...

Yes Jay, I get what your saying. However if someone told me they were going to a soccer match, the thought wouldn't even occur to me that it might be children, it was this blogger in particular, based on some of the 'barely legal' pictures he used to post, that made me initially suspicious.

But then he confirmed they were underage.

Mind Of Mine said...

No I did not mention secretly anywhere, but I think this could still be applied to taking photo's in the pretense of documenting the game and using them for other purposes.

Mind Of Mine said...

Jay, as I said, it was the comments which that actually re-enforced my suspicions. Comments he has since deleted, which pretty much confirmed that he was taking the pictures for purposes other than documenting the game and photos he would get pleasure from.

However, he did say 'sexual gratification is a little extreme'.

Jay M. said...

All I can say is that I've never seen an illegal picture, nor one that is "barely legal" on his blog, but perhaps that's before my time. But my comment stands that it's weird to immediately assume that someone taking pictures at a kid's soccer match is a bad person. And there's a huge chasm between legal twink pics and kiddy porn. Totally different mindsets, and people don't tend to cross those lines, no matter what some people might say about "escalating"...unless you are a socio/psychopath, that's not how it works. I've studied enough psychology to know that. It serves no one to make an immediate leap from innocent to guilty without hard and fast evidence, and certainly not based on a couple of sentences, one of which you admit you took out of context (because if you read his blog on a regular basis, you should know that everything at his work is a scene).
Peace <3
Jay

Jay M. said...

"Buddy Bear said...
As a father of three, I would be extremely concerned about an adult male secretly photographing my kids..."

NO WHERE was it mentioned that anyone was taking ANY pictures secretly.

And yes, I see the comments are gone. This was taken out of context and blown up to be something way more than it was - on both sides.
Good night!
Jay

Anonymous said...

You need to stop assuming that you know why the person was originally interested in taking the photos - and stop imagining the person sitting there in the dark with a stack of printed pictures jerking off onto the pictures, or as you say "using them for purposes other then...." (in other words for nefarious purposes).

Vivid imagination, not truth.

Mind Of Mine said...

Again Jay, I get what point you are trying to make. But wouldn't you agree, that if someone made comment about sexual gratification in the same context as this, that you would deny the whole suggestion, rather than using the phrase, is a little bit extreme.

Anonymous said...

In my translation "that's a little bit extreme" is similar to saying "that's ridiculous" which is for all intents and purposes the same as denying the whole suggestion.

So... that's that.

TontoChorizo said...

Sadly we live in a 'Daily Mail Culture' where any man over the age of 40 taking pictures of children is a paedophile and every Muslim is a terrorist.

Anonymous said...

I've not read through all of the comments, only the initial post but yes I guess it is a little suspicious that someone would want to take photographs of young kids playing football unless it's their own child involved with the game or it was for a specific purpose. On it's own though without knowing any reasoning behind it does appear a little creepy.

naturgesetz said...

What is the difference between looking at a young athlete and thinking him good-looking, looking at pictures of young athletes and thinking some of them good-looking, and looking at pictures one has taken oneself of young athletes and thinking some of them good-looking?

IMO there is a difference between enjoying beauty and sexual gratification.

Jason said...

Did the photographer blogger actually ever say why he was taking photos at a kids game?

It's not a bit like the car accidents and other incidents he takes pictures of for local news outlets.

It also depends upon what age 'under age' indicates, for in some countries 18 is under age, whilst here in the UK under age is usually used to indicate someone under legal intercourse age of consent of 16.