Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by funk Q on March 1, 2010 at 9:08pm

Maybe he's a dyslexic bibliophile?

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on March 1, 2010 at 9:14pm

What's a swimming carnival?

Permalink Reply by Luke on March 1, 2010 at 9:49pm

School kids racing in the town swimming pool. The kids are split into school houses (like on Harry Potter). Which ever house has the most wins in all the different age groups and swimming styles wins the day.

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on March 1, 2010 at 9:51pm

Thanks, sounds like fun.

Permalink Reply by David on March 1, 2010 at 10:58pm

Frightening as it may seem, this is his constitutional right. All photographers, regardless of their motives, have this right to photograph people (including children) in public places (in the USA at least). The fact that he had a Bible is irrelevant. I've photographed lot of strangers, does that make me perverted? I read the article, but they don't specify what he was charged with. If people can take pictures at those events, why can't he? And what does taking pictures of people do to those people?

Permalink Reply by Luke on March 2, 2010 at 4:53am

This is not in USA. There is no Bill of Rights in Australia. Irrational moral panic erupts over the use of photographic equipment around children periodically and the photographers cannot site a bill of rights. There is a bill of rights movement in Australia but they make little progress.

His possession of the bible is as irrelevant as the possession of atheist books in this story discussed here recently and mentioned all over the web. It is nice to see the theist's literature getting a taste of its own medicine.

You said:
The fact that he had a Bible is irrelevant. I've photographed lot of strangers, does that make me perverted? I read the article, but they don't specify what he was charged with. If people can take pictures at those events, why can't he? And what does taking pictures of people do to those people?
I agree with you. However, much of the world does not. We see that Google is having a hell of a time getting it's street view images in Europe because people object to be photographed.

Permalink Reply by Stephen Moore on March 2, 2010 at 6:10am

I read the article, but they don't specify what he was charged with.

From the article: The man was charged with three counts of recording in breach of privacy in relation to the Thornlands incident and two others at Alexandra Headland on the Sunshine Coast and Cairns in far-north Queensland.

Reading the Code, and based only on the reporting in the article, they seem to be trumped up charges and without merit. I can't see how there could be an expectation of privacy, unless privacy is so broadly defined it becomes meaningless.

Permalink Reply by MaleficVTwin on March 1, 2010 at 11:04pm

I bet he'd found a passage in there that says it's OK to be a creepy old perve.


Numbers 31:18 :)

Permalink Reply by David on March 1, 2010 at 11:11pm

It's not illegal to be. How do you define "perve?" Maybe he's a photographer who specializes in capturing the gayety of youth through his photographs. You don't know, and the "concerned parents" didn't bother to find out. Again, I ask, what does photographing a person in a public place do to that person?

Permalink Reply by Luke on March 2, 2010 at 5:49pm

Nice that the article mentioned the Bible in the car because I'm sure a copy of The God Delusion would've been noted, probably in bold-face.

This was my motive for putting it up. Thanks for making my point succinctly, Karen W.

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on March 11, 2010 at 11:26am

Maybe he's a photographer who specializes in capturing the gayety of youth through his photographs. You don't know, and the "concerned parents" didn't bother to find out. Again, I ask, what does photographing a person in a public place do to that person?

I kind of thought that too. While it would be less than shocking if it turns out he is a perve, there are also genuine photographers out there who genuinely like kids as subjects in a positive way.

Don't know how the laws work in OZ, but here in the States, if the photos are to be used in a news publication he's free to take them. Public event, public news. If the photos are to be used for private profit (say a book he's writing about Swimming Carnivals), he might needs talent releases. 'Might.' If it's an advertised public event, sometimes there's leeway for taking photos of participants of that event.

If he's a hobby photographer, he also gets some leeway. But if he's following these carnivals around taking pictures of only the kids, then at that point it's in his best interest to talk to parents and event coordinators to get permission.