Parents outraged over cheerleaders being videotaped

[DRBUZZ0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12963229/

I recently saw a news story about parents being upset over someone who has been videotaping cheerleaders at high school football games and selling the tapes on eBay. The tapes are obviously being sold to those with a cheerleader fetish and the filming is very suggestive. (zooming in on certain areas and freezeframing)

They want the sheriff to do something about it. They say they do not understand why this is not being prosecuted.

Well. I got news for them: there’s nothing illegal about filming a public event. Sorry. Finding this revolting, sick, perverted and creepy are all perfectly understandable. I can completely see how if you saw yourself or your daughter in one of these videos, it would make your skin crawl.

Of course, the reality is, that if you are an attractive young women dancing as a cheerleader, there’s going to be a lot of guys in the stands with their minds in the gutter. Sorry…it’s true. But there’s definitely a difference between it being your classmates who are there primarily to watch the game versus having it all over the internet.

Unfortunately, this is not actually anything new. There are plenty of pervs on the internet who trade pictures of young girls in the park or at the beach. Many of them weren’t even taken candidly, but were grabbed from parenting magazine sites or family photo albums.

If I were to find out my neighbor had a lot of blown up bikini pictures of the Olsen twins when they were 14, I’d definitely be very creeped out, and I wouldn’t let him anywhere near any of the younger kids in my family. I’d probably also give a warning to my other neighbors.

I’m really not sure what the solution to this problem is. It may have to come down to the school banning videotaping. Perhaps they could instead offer parents the opportunity to buy a school-made videotape of the game. This goes deeper though. It’s completely reasonable to want to prevent the fear and embarrassment that this sort of thing would cause those shown, but as far as legal recourse: I don’t see any.

It could possibly be taken to civil court, on the grounds that it is exploitive or constitutes harassment. That’d be a tough case to make though. Trying to stop this by taking each individual into such a legal battle would be like trying to use a cork to plug the Titanic.

Perhaps the best solution (if there is one) is simply community shame. I don't think this guy should be harrassed to any extreme extent. But at the very least, knowing that those around you know what you are doing with your camcorder could be some disensentive. At the very least...then he'd know what it's like to be scared of people coming after you (such as an angry father)



Reasons why it is not illegal:


#1. It’s in public. It’s a public event. Furthermore, they are performing in front of an audience. There is no expectation of privacy. If it were a hidden camera somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, then there might be something to it. But it’s not.

#2. If you want to call this child porn, fine, but then you are saying cheerleading is a sexually erotic activity. There is no nudity. There is no sexual acts. The only thing sexual about the tape is the way it is filmed (the zooming ect). Arguably, the context could be considered sexual. However, at best that’s a very weak case and it would certainly set a dangerous precedent. Imagine: a guy filming his friends on the beach, turns to one of them and says “hey she’s looking hot today.” She’s 17.

#3. Others are allowed to videotape at the game. There’s no prohibition of camcorders. Certainly some of them will show cheerleaders. And, could possibly be considered a turn-on to someone. Even if not filmed in a sexual manner, they certainly could be edited as such.

[CFLarsen]

Reasons why it is not illegal:


#1. It’s in public. It’s a public event. Furthermore, they are performing in front of an audience. There is no expectation of privacy. If it were a hidden camera somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, then there might be something to it. But it’s not.

#2. If you want to call this child porn, fine, but then you are saying cheerleading is a sexually erotic activity. There is no nudity. There is no sexual acts. The only thing sexual about the tape is the way it is filmed (the zooming ect). Arguably, the context could be considered sexual. However, at best that’s a very weak case and it would certainly set a dangerous precedent. Imagine: a guy filming his friends on the beach, turns to one of them and says “hey she’s looking hot today.” She’s 17.

#3. Others are allowed to videotape at the game. There’s no prohibition of camcorders. Certainly some of them will show cheerleaders. And, could possibly be considered a turn-on to someone. Even if not filmed in a sexual manner, they certainly could be edited as such.

Which means we can publish photos of people attending TAM.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

...and selling the tapes on eBay. The tapes are being created for a commercial purpose. The photographer needs to get a model release, otherwise the parents are perfectly within their rights to file a civil suit. Read more here: CHAPTER 12. Releases (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/index.html).

[DRBUZZ0]

The tapes are being created for a commercial purpose. The photographer needs to get a model release, otherwise the parents are perfectly within their rights to file a civil suit. Read more here: CHAPTER 12. Releases (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/index.html).


Yes, I did look into this. (Actually, I have before, having designed many websites, I always want to make sure things are on the up and up).

In this case, the event is being captured publicly. Arguably, the identity of the person is not actually important toward the money being generated. There are many websites and videos which have public pictures of people and are used for the purposes of generating a profit.

Definately, a suit could be filed on this one. But it is, at best, a difficult case. My best guess is that it would probably not get resolved any time soon and is likely to be appealed.

So I suppose it's not a case where there is "nothing you can do." it's more one where there's no easy sure-fire thing you could do

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Which means we can publish photos of people attending TAM.People have perfectly legitimate privacy concerns about having their picture posted on the web. The fact that you can publish doesn't mean you must or should. If someone doesn't want their TAM picture on the net, simply don't put it up (not a horrible imposition, if you ask me.) It's called being a decent human being.

[tkingdoll]

The tapes are being created for a commercial purpose. The photographer needs to get a model release, otherwise the parents are perfectly within their rights to file a civil suit. Read more here: CHAPTER 12. Releases (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/index.html).

That is correct, but the people in the video need to be recognisable (not famous, I mean their face or other uniquely identifying part of them must be shown). The cameraman could get round this by simply not filming their faces.

Guys, we all know the laws and legalities regarding the TAM photos issues, can we please not drag it all up again in an entirely unrelated thread? I'm sure DRBUZZO doesn't want his topic disintegrating into a fight.

[Pyrrho]

Quote from the article:


CHRISTINE: I think it's embarrassing. They can see your face and if they wanted to find me it's not that hard.

ANA GARCIA: They, would be the 600-plus "happy buyers" who have left "positive feedback" for the seller, "cheer*girls." The tape we have is one of 20 advertised. This one features cheerleaders from schools in and around Santa Barbara, Rio Mesa, Dos Pueblos, Bishop Garcia Diego and Carpinteria.

Identifiable face; identifiable schools; commercial, for-profit enterprise; model release should be required. I'd say the parents of this girl, at least, have a case, as do any parents of any girl whose identifiable face appears in a video.

Consent to be photographed is not an issue, as the venue is a public space. Consent to use an identifiable face in a for-profit venture is an issue.

If all that appears are assorted closeups of anatomical features, it's not actionable, unless the cameraman is filming "private parts".

It will be interesting if this becomes a "test case".

[Soapy Sam]

Perhaps if the parents are concerned about their daughters being videotaped wearing short skirts in public while performing gymnastics and dance routines, they should not have permitted them to do so in the first place?

Yes, I agree filming them and selling the films is bad form and a bit sad, but would the parents feel happier if they videotaped them themselves and sold the tapes for school funds? Then why don't they?

What exactly are we supposed to be indignant about here? Girls dancing in public? Someone filming them? Teenage (or indeed older) masturbatory fantasy?
Cheerleaders are an American phenomenon. While I'm as partial to pretty girls as anyone, I have to admit I never really saw the point, unless it was to give girls something to do at High School Footbal games, so they didn't feel left out. In my schooldays they gave them hockey sticks and turned them loose to kill each other. I recall some male cheerleaders making the odd comment from the touchline, but you had to be a fast runner. Those girls were vicious.


As for guys in the crowd "having their minds in the gutter", I wonder at the sanity of any male of whatever age- and probably many women- who would not rather look at a bunch of pretty girls than a squad of apes in armor.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Arguably, the identity of the person is not actually important toward the money being generated. I'm not sure that's really relevant. They may not be identified by name, but their likeness is being used without their permission.
There are many websites and videos which have public pictures of people and are used for the purposes of generating a profit. Well, we really don't know what the situation is with those videos. The producers may be ignorant of the law and opening themselves up to a lawsuit, or they may have gotten releases or settled with with anyone who complained. However, there is a bit of a grey area between "informational" and "commercial" (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/12-b.html) use.

Definately, a suit could be filed on this one. But it is, at best, a difficult case. My best guess is that it would probably not get resolved any time soon and is likely to be appealed.
You could be right. I think the "Girls Gone Wild" people have been sued repeatedly, but they seem to still be in business.

[Diamond]

As a non-American, I would have to question what exactly cheerleaders are for, except as a suggestive synchronized sexual display. It may be an all-American custom, but it still had to be questioned. It was only after the bizarre (and still unsolved) murder of Jon-Benet Ramsey that people started asking questions about the child beauty pageants that Jon-Benet was a champion of.

The other part is about (I assume) an unhealthy sexual interest in girls who are clearly below the age of consent. That is much more difficult. Paedophiles have been known to pass around pictures of children taken from clothing catalogues (this commonly happens in prisons in the UK).

From my side of the pond, one of the most noticeable cultural phenomena of the last ten years has been the sexualisation of pre-pubescent girls in popular culture from boy bands and "girl power", the focus has relentlessly been on girls too young to realise the sexual signals they are broadcasting in the fashions they wear are attracting attention from some men.

There's a reality show on at the moment on British TV called "Big Brother". I don't watch it as a rule, but I noticed this evening in passing that all of the women are wearing clothes, make-up and hairstyles of pre-pubescent girl gangs. Clearly nobody is asking any questions in the ad agencies where fashions like this begin.

[Kopji]

When a child participates in a local school event, does that mean we as parents automatically acquiesce to them being displayed worldwide as soft porn? No. So I side with the angry mob of parents with pitchforks and torches on this one (for the sake of argument). :D

The laws and ethics associated with children are different than that of adults, so the TAM photo example is not quite the same thing.

Removing the TAM photos is something I'd call 'being a good neighbor' ethics. I agree in that case that there was no legal expectation of privacy. BUT whatever JREF could have legally done, a specific request for privacy should be honored if it is not too onerous. That is 'good neighbor' ethics and probably also simple good business.

I generally prefer there be fewer laws rather than more laws, and I lean toward working to solve these kinds of things on a community level.

[Bikewer]

There is a related question regarding the so-called "upskirt" photos and videos that are made without the consent of the victim.
In this case, the perpetrator positions a hidden camera on a stairwell or whatever and tapes women descending the stairs, hoping for a shot of underwear or naughty bits.
There have been attempts to prosecute these individuals, which have met with limited success. In most areas of the country, this practice was not found to be specifically illegal, most likely because the technology that allows it is relatively new. (there have always been "mirror artists" and "peekers" but that's a private enterprise)
Some states, notably New York, have passed specific upskirt legislation, but legal analysts feel that the statute will not pass muster.

Speaking of cheerleaders, our university hosted a summertime cheerleader camp for several years, with up to 2000 nubile enthusiasts partaking. The first year, our new athletic complex was still under construction, and the girls had to practice and perform outside. This drew boys and men like flies....

One fellow was busily photographing with a very professional rig; a large-format camera on a pro tripod with a variety of lenses and such. Everyone thought he was the "official" photographer till the camp organizers started talking among themselves. "No, I didn't hire him...."
He got a lot of pics before we booted him off campus.

[pipelineaudio]

Talk about having it both ways! First america is soundly criticized for being too prudish about teenage sexuality compared to europe

then we are criticized for being too sexual about teenagers compared to europe

nuts

[DRBUZZ0]

That is correct, but the people in the video need to be recognisable (not famous, I mean their face or other uniquely identifying part of them must be shown). The cameraman could get round this by simply not filming their faces.

Guys, we all know the laws and legalities regarding the TAM photos issues, can we please not drag it all up again in an entirely unrelated thread? I'm sure DRBUZZO doesn't want his topic disintegrating into a fight.



Yeah...I did not reeally bring this up as an example of the rather broad subject of putting pictures of people up in general.

The fact is this: There are plenty of places where you will see candid pictures of people in public. It may be incidental. It may be unwelcome. It may be directly related to making money or not.


It could be a celeberity "slip" or an embarrassing picture of someone. It could be many things.



Yes. You can sue for it. The law can be a little ambiguous on this, at best.


But....any lawsuit involving this sort of thing is never going to be simple or open and shut. More likely it'll just end up in a drawn out legal mess. One of the problems being that manyu of the laws pertaining to this were written before the internet, where people are likely to have all kinds of online photo albums ect.

Unless you have a lot of money and want to make it your personal battle, I don't know that civil law is going to offer you very complete protection

[peptoabysmal]

I had the same reaction when I saw this story. It is a public event, no law was broken.

I can forsee image capturing devices being banned at HS sports events in the future.

[tkingdoll]

I had the same reaction when I saw this story. It is a public event, no law was broken.



That's not the case. No law is broken until you use the images for commercial purposes (e.g. if you sell the footage on the internet). If you do that, and the faces of the people on the video can be clearly seen, you must obtain a model release form from them before selling the tape.

[PogoPedant]

Talk about having it both ways! First america is soundly criticized for being too prudish about teenage sexuality compared to europe

then we are criticized for being too sexual about teenagers compared to europe

nuts
<elitist european hat>
While you oversex your youth with skimpy dresses and suggestive dancing, you deny them the basic sexual education they need to approach the subject in a healthy, safe manner. You say yes to looking and acting sexy, but no to actually having sex.

We, on the other hand, give our youth the necessary sexual education to have a responsible sex life, while we stear them away from becoming oversexed, so that they're not tempted to debut too early or become the object of attraction for perverts of all ages and genders.
</elitist european hat>

The above is of course over-generalizations, but I'm guessing that's where they come from, whomever they are that critizise (sp?) you.

[pipelineaudio]

Good points but


<elitist european hat>
so that they're not tempted to debut too early or become the object of attraction for perverts of all ages and genders.
</elitist european hat>
.

I think we could, especially in light of recent threads here, successfully argue that that is NOT the euro policy

[morningstar2651]

What about the Right of Publicity? It is the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of his or her identity.

[morningstar2651]

What about the Right of Publicity? It is the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of his or her identity.This means that the cheerleaders can sue the guy for all of his profits, effectively destroying his incentive to put the film on ebay.

EDIT: Plus, 17 U.S.C § 503(a) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000503----000-.html) provides for the impoundment of all infringing copies at any time, as well as the articles used to manufacture the copies.

After the final judgement, these tapes are likely to be destroyed.

[DRBUZZ0]

<elitist european hat>
While you oversex your youth with skimpy dresses and suggestive dancing, you deny them the basic sexual education they need to approach the subject in a healthy, safe manner. You say yes to looking and acting sexy, but no to actually having sex.

We, on the other hand, give our youth the necessary sexual education to have a responsible sex life, while we stear them away from becoming oversexed, so that they're not tempted to debut too early or become the object of attraction for perverts of all ages and genders.
</elitist european hat>

The above is of course over-generalizations, but I'm guessing that's where they come from, whomever they are that critizise (sp?) you.


[edit] oh wait. You're from denmark. Do they even have a royal family. To be honest, I cannot remember. But maybe that's because I'm american so we never hear much around these parts about other countries, unless they have oil or something


I hate this whole thing from the europeans. Trust me. There are plenty of sane Americans who aren't quite so hypocritical. Unfortionately, it's the other side that you mostly hear about. I think they have a more organized front. I'm not sure how it breaks down. Obviously, you can't fit everyone into one group or another. Also, it varies a lot by state and location

Oh well. At least we don't spend a portion of the federal budget on the lifestyle of a group of people who are considered to be entitled to it based on the fact that they were born to the right parents.

Arguably, we do things that are just as nonsensical.. But at least it's not quite as blatent.

Ug...There I go. I've just insulted another country. Now I feel bad.

I'm sorry. Thanks for the beatles and led zeppelin and stuff. I really appreciate it.

[DRBUZZ0]

oh wait....he's from Denmark. Opps. Do they even have a royal family at this point? (oh crap...just revealed how little the americans know about other countries)

[NoZed Avenger]

oh wait....he's from Denmark. Opps. Do they even have a royal family at this point? (oh crap...just revealed how little the americans know about other countries)

Yes, they do.

N/A

(American)

[TragicMonkey]

Yes, they do.

But their royal family consists entirely of murderous depressives. See "Hamlet" for details.

[rockoon]

So the problem is with the manner in which these are filmed? Zooming in on bouncing breasts and so forth? Please....

[epepke]

As a non-American, I would have to question what exactly cheerleaders are for, except as a suggestive synchronized sexual display.

This is exactly what they're for, and everybody knows it.

[peptoabysmal]

That's not the case. No law is broken until you use the images for commercial purposes (e.g. if you sell the footage on the internet). If you do that, and the faces of the people on the video can be clearly seen, you must obtain a model release form from them before selling the tape.

I doubt that the faces were what was zoomed in on. Anyway, if the parents or school go the "copyright" route, the outcome will be that the seller of the vidoes will be forced to blur the faces or the parents would have to settle for a portion of the profits, effectively prostituting the cheerleaders.

The parents and school did not persue this avenue of complaint, they went for "peeping" laws and the response was:
ANA GARCIA: So we asked the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office to look at the tape. After watching for two hours ...

SGT. ERICK RANEY, SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: People may have their own opinions about it and whether they like it or not. From a law enforcement standpoint there's nothing that breaks any threshold on crimes.
http://www.nbc4.tv/news/9270716/detail.html


Also, in the story, the high school is persuing what legal avenues they can take. My bet is still on no imaging devices allowed at HS games in the future.

[schplurg]

Also, in the story, the high school is persuing what legal avenues they can take. My bet is still on no imaging devices allowed at HS games in the future.So you can't take a picture of your son scoring the game winning touchdown? Doubt it.

[Rolfe]

They had all this stuff in Scotland a few years ago. No videotaping or even photographing the school nativity play in case a pic ends up on a child porn site. A lot of parents were quite annoyed at not being able to photograph their children.

I think the people making the rules were fairly ignorant of the technology - at one point it was said that film-loaded cameras were OK, but nobody was allowed to use a digital camera. Maybe they didn't know what a scanner was.

Rolfe.

[tkingdoll]

They had all this stuff in Scotland a few years ago. No videotaping or even photographing the school nativity play in case a pic ends up on a child porn site. A lot of parents were quite annoyed at not being able to photograph their children.

I think the people making the rules were fairly ignorant of the technology - at one point it was said that film-loaded cameras were OK, but nobody was allowed to use a digital camera. Maybe they didn't know what a scanner was.

Rolfe.

I remember this, a few schools also managed to misinterpret the (then) new data protection legislation, thinking that it meant you couldn't film someone elses kid. Ho hum.

[fishbob]

Cheerleaders are an American phenomenon. While I'm as partial to pretty girls as anyone, I have to admit I never really saw the point, unless it was to give girls something to do at High School Footbal games, so they didn't feel left out.

Hey there. GW Bush was a cheerleader.

[peptoabysmal]

So you can't take a picture of your son scoring the game winning touchdown? Doubt it.
You will have the option to purchase it from the official school photographer(s).

[Ryokan]

The other part is about (I assume) an unhealthy sexual interest in girls who are clearly below the age of consent. That is much more difficult. Paedophiles have been known to pass around pictures of children taken from clothing catalogues (this commonly happens in prisons in the UK).

Clearly below? How old are these girls, anyway? High School is between 14 and 18, right? Is there an age-limit to being a cheerleader? Since you were speaking from a non-US perspective, I'd guess most of the girls were above the age of consent in my country and yours. And even if they weren't, pedophiles aren't interested in girls aged 14+; the definition of a pedophile is someone who likes prepubescent children.

[brodski]

Hey there. GW Bush was a cheerleader.
ah, so it's a consipracy... :p

[tkingdoll]

the definition of a pedophile is someone who likes prepubescent children.

No it's not. A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.

For the purposes of rape and molestation laws, a child is someone who is under the legal age of consent, whatever that may be for your particular country.

[kittynh]

Cheerleading has become more suggestive over the years. All the cheerleaders show tummy now days.

doesn't mean it is nice to sell photos of it.

Still, my husbands co worker did a video of "women in the park without their tops at lunch time" in Europe. He made a lot of copies for friends. But he didn't sell it. Mind you, if I liked the guy I'd suggest ebay for him! The sad part is that with special lenses and stuff, most of these women had no clue they were being photographed.

[Ryokan]

No it's not. A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.

No, it's not.

A pedophile is someone who likes prebubescent children.

From Wikipeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile) :

Pedophilia, paedophilia, or pædophilia (see spelling differences), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles.

[DRBUZZ0]

You can be interested in 15 years and not be a pedophile. However, you'll still be a criminal. Assuming you act on it.

[tkingdoll]

No, it's not.

A pedophile is someone who likes prebubescent children.

From Wikipeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile) :

Got any better sources than Wikipedia? Because every dictionary I have looked in goes with my definition. And that Wiki entry itself agrees with it in several paragraphs.

Dr Buzzo, you are right, in that pedophilia itself is not a crime. However, in many countries (such as the USA or UK), 15 year olds are considered children so you would technically be a pedophile if you were attracted to one.

[DRBUZZ0]

Got any better sources than Wikipedia? Because every dictionary I have looked in goes with my definition. And that Wiki entry itself agrees with it in several paragraphs.

Dr Buzzo, you are right, in that pedophilia itself is not a crime. However, in many countries (such as the USA or UK), 15 year olds are considered children so you would technically be a pedophile if you were attracted to one.


I suppose you could say that this would be an issue over whether we are going for the psycological definition of pedophile vrs. the crime of statatory rape.

It's a completely pointless debate though. In some states (in the US) the age of consent is 16. In some it's 17. In some it's 18. That's how the law is. Of course, the chances of prosecution and penelties go up with age difference. (IE: a judge would be likely to consider a 35 year old and a 13 year old a much bigger deal than a 18 and 17 year old) Also younger would have the possibility of carrying the charges of child endangerment ect.

Of course...it's completely irrelevant what definition of the word you use.

If you are arrested for having sex with a 15 year old and you say, "But she was developed, so I'm not a pedo." they'll probably say "Okay...maybe you're not, but you're still a statatory rapist."


One thing though, which is a bit strange within the law. The age of concent varies and can be as low as 16, but child pornography means under 18. (it's a federal crime). So, you could be in a state where it's legal to have sex with a 16 year old, but not take a picture of it.


Of course....again...this is one of those issues where the age and circumstances is going to come into play as to how severe a judgement you are likely to get.

But also...a bit off topic

[Checkmite]

If somebody wants to have sex with a 15-year-old kid, there is something wrong with them. 15-year-olds are not "developed", they are "developing". And despite this urban legend about how "some (imaginary) fifteen year olds look twenty-six", I've never had a problem discerning whether someone was a young teenager as opposed to a mature adult. 17, 18, 19 - I'll grant some leeway. 15? Sorry, I don't buy it. 13 or 14 and you're completely out of your mind.

No, of course videotaping high school kids at a public event isn't illegal. This person is obviously a creep, and I hope he ends up shunned by the community; but he didn't do anything illegal.

[Flange Desire]

But their royal family consists entirely of murderous depressives. See "Hamlet" for details.

Not entirely true.
The monarchs current wife Mary is one stikingly beautiful Australian lass.

Cheerleaders do appear (to us aliens) to be some sort of strange synchronized sexual display. And the exploitation of this is not to be unexpected, nor would it seem to be particularly onerous given the subject's ages. A little sleazy perhaps, but no precedents are being set here.

Sexual attraction is a fact of life but so many will try to dissavow this.
If you don't want your daughters to be inflaming the desires of the ravening hoardes then such synchronized sexual displays should be avoided.

[CFLarsen]

Not entirely true.
The monarchs current wife Mary is one stikingly beautiful Australian lass.

Not anymore. Not only is she now a Danish citizen, but all Aussies are, by dowry, now subjects to the Danish Crown.

We own you, Aussies!! BUWAHAHAAAAA!!!!

[MaxHardcore]

There have been some prosecutions in Australia over photos on topless beachs. Apparently the rules are whether you can get off on it, it's bad to get aroused. There's been debate about photography at swimming carnivals, surf carnivals and the like.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Parents-wont-support-camera-ban-on-Bondi-Beach/2005/01/16/1105810777691.html

As an internet user, I am astounded by peoples ability to get turn over almost anything, my current favorite is zombie porn, people made up to look like horror monsters having sex.

Arguments have been made against clothing catalogues, Harry Potter movies, nappy advertisments, carpet samples because some one can get there rocks off to them.

And CFLarsen, from my viewing of parts of the Julia Stiles movie "the Prince and I" I know that Denmark is ruled by Julie Andrews and that Edward is a traditional Danish royal name.

[Flange Desire]

Not anymore. Not only is she now a Danish citizen, but all Aussies are, by dowry, now subjects to the Danish Crown.

We own you, Aussies!! BUWAHAHAAAAA!!!!

Small sidetrack on the derail Claus:
Have you ever read of Jurgen Jurgensen - Danish guy deported to Tasmania?
What an amazing life and story! He should be much more famous than he is.
I recommend "The Viking of VanDeimens Land" - funny title but a great read!

[luchog]

Got any better sources than Wikipedia? Because every dictionary I have looked in goes with my definition. And that Wiki entry itself agrees with it in several paragraphs.
There's a huge difference between the common, colloquial definition; and the medical definition. Paedophilia is a medical term that refers specifically to sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.

American Psychiatric Association article with excerpt from the DSM-IV (http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355)

[tkingdoll]

There's a huge difference between the common, colloquial definition; and the medical definition. Paedophilia is a medical term that refers specifically to sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.

American Psychiatric Association article with excerpt from the DSM-IV (http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355)

And why would I be using the medical definition and not the common one?

[Bikewer]

Zombie porn..... One of the "mods" available for the game Half-Life 2 is called "Garry's Mod", which allows you acess to the game's construction set and models. (ragdolls)
This allows the enterprising enthusiast to pose all the HL2 characters in any way desirable. Some use this mod to produce hilarious HL2 cartoons, but one could easily produce Zombie Porn.

[epepke]

If somebody wants to have sex with a 15-year-old kid, there is something wrong with them.

Oh, (insert name of Penn and Teller show on Showtime here). We were all 15 once. And we all wanted to plook other 15-year-olds, whether we got to or not. You're just lying.

[thaiboxerken]

When I was younger, I lusted after 15 yr olds. Often, I didn't know how young they were until I asked. After finding out the age, I would go away. However, that doesn't change the fact that I was lusting after a 15 yr old. Some people physically mature faster than others. The age thing is arbritary and I don't disagree with it. But to state that people who lust after young people (post pubescent) have something wrong with them is just silly.

[thaiboxerken]

And despite this urban legend about how "some (imaginary) fifteen year olds look twenty-six", I've never had a problem discerning whether someone was a young teenager as opposed to a mature adult. 17, 18, 19 - I'll grant some leeway. 15? Sorry, I don't buy it.


So, how old would you say this young lady was at the time of this picture was taken?

http://www.strangecelebrities.com/images/content/110168.jpg

[Miss Whiplash]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12963229/

I recently saw a news story about parents being upset over someone who has been videotaping cheerleaders at high school football games and selling the tapes on eBay. The tapes are obviously being sold to those with a cheerleader fetish and the filming is very suggestive. (zooming in on certain areas and freezeframing)

They want the sheriff to do something about it. They say they do not understand why this is not being prosecuted.

Well. I got news for them: there’s nothing illegal about filming a public event. Sorry. Finding this revolting, sick, perverted and creepy are all perfectly understandable. I can completely see how if you saw yourself or your daughter in one of these videos, it would make your skin crawl.

Of course, the reality is, that if you are an attractive young women dancing as a cheerleader, there’s going to be a lot of guys in the stands with their minds in the gutter. Sorry…it’s true. But there’s definitely a difference between it being your classmates who are there primarily to watch the game versus having it all over the internet.

Unfortunately, this is not actually anything new. There are plenty of pervs on the internet who trade pictures of young girls in the park or at the beach. Many of them weren’t even taken candidly, but were grabbed from parenting magazine sites or family photo albums.

If I were to find out my neighbor had a lot of blown up bikini pictures of the Olsen twins when they were 14, I’d definitely be very creeped out, and I wouldn’t let him anywhere near any of the younger kids in my family. I’d probably also give a warning to my other neighbors.

I’m really not sure what the solution to this problem is. It may have to come down to the school banning videotaping. Perhaps they could instead offer parents the opportunity to buy a school-made videotape of the game. This goes deeper though. It’s completely reasonable to want to prevent the fear and embarrassment that this sort of thing would cause those shown, but as far as legal recourse: I don’t see any.

It could possibly be taken to civil court, on the grounds that it is exploitive or constitutes harassment. That’d be a tough case to make though. Trying to stop this by taking each individual into such a legal battle would be like trying to use a cork to plug the Titanic.

Perhaps the best solution (if there is one) is simply community shame. I don't think this guy should be harrassed to any extreme extent. But at the very least, knowing that those around you know what you are doing with your camcorder could be some disensentive. At the very least...then he'd know what it's like to be scared of people coming after you (such as an angry father)



Reasons why it is not illegal:


#1. It’s in public. It’s a public event. Furthermore, they are performing in front of an audience. There is no expectation of privacy. If it were a hidden camera somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, then there might be something to it. But it’s not.

#2. If you want to call this child porn, fine, but then you are saying cheerleading is a sexually erotic activity. There is no nudity. There is no sexual acts. The only thing sexual about the tape is the way it is filmed (the zooming ect). Arguably, the context could be considered sexual. However, at best that’s a very weak case and it would certainly set a dangerous precedent. Imagine: a guy filming his friends on the beach, turns to one of them and says “hey she’s looking hot today.” She’s 17.

#3. Others are allowed to videotape at the game. There’s no prohibition of camcorders. Certainly some of them will show cheerleaders. And, could possibly be considered a turn-on to someone. Even if not filmed in a sexual manner, they certainly could be edited as such.


Sorry, that's not completely true. Photographing public events for private use is OK. Photographing to sell, you must have a release from the subjects if the person is recognizable. That goes for people in the street, as well as property including most private buildings, art, etc. Under 18 is still concidered a minor in most states.

ASMP Property and Model Releases (http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/)

A fine art photographer was sued for taking a picture of a busy street in New York. When the picture was published, a class action suit was brought by those in the frame as they were recognisable and did not give permission for their image to be sold.

[epepke]

Zombie porn..... One of the "mods" available for the game Half-Life 2 is called "Garry's Mod", which allows you acess to the game's construction set and models. (ragdolls)
This allows the enterprising enthusiast to pose all the HL2 characters in any way desirable. Some use this mod to produce hilarious HL2 cartoons, but one could easily produce Zombie Porn.

It would be fun to produce a mod where you could drop cars on zombies engaging in anal sex.

[Silly Green Monkey]

I knew a 19 year old who kept getting hit on by old guys who thought she was twelve...

[Beerina]

If somebody wants to have sex with a 15-year-old kid, there is something wrong with them.

If it were because they saw the 15 year old as "easy prey", then yes. But physically, a 15 year old is more or less all the woman they're ever gonna be. Natural urges are a completely different thing.

Our society has decided (rightly or wrongly) that this thing should be forbidden, ostensibly to protect the mentality of the 15 year old. That in no way acknowledges that natural feelings of attraction are inherently wrong or sick. Indeed, it's this discrepancy between the physical and the (suggested) mental immaturity that is the exact core of the issue. The mind is not (claimed) up to the same level as the body. But feeling natural, healthy, physical desire for such a person is the problem when the mind of the person is (claimed) not up to par.

15-year-olds are not "developed", they are "developing". And despite this urban legend about how "some (imaginary) fifteen year olds look twenty-six", I've never had a problem discerning whether someone was a young teenager as opposed to a mature adult.[/b]

15 is not a young teenager. They may have a somewhat youthful face, but physically and sexually (physically) they are mature. When I was 15 I weighed 190 and was bench pressing 260.

[quote]17, 18, 19 - I'll grant some leeway. 15? Sorry, I don't buy it. 13 or 14 and you're completely out of your mind.

Studies of 14 and 15 year olds showed "simple consent" to sex with an adult mapped very faithfully to whether they felt it was a positive experience or not. The idea that they would exhibit emotional distress equivalent to "a mauling by a dog" when simple consent was given was a fairy tale.

[Ryokan]

And why would I be using the medical definition and not the common one?

Because the common one is wrong?

Not only wrong, but it doesn't make any sense.

If you like a 17-year-old in USA you're a pedophile, but would be normal in Ireland? If you like a 16-year-old in Ireland you're a pedophile, but you're normal in Norway? If you like a 15-year-old in Norway you're a pedophile, but you're normal in Sweden? If you like a 14-year-old in Sweden you're a pedohile, but normal in Canada? If you like a 13-year-old in Canada you're a pedophile, but normal in Spain? If you like a 12-year-old in Spain you're a pedophile, but normal in Mexico?

Doesn't make sense.

Besides, there's a seperate term for those that like pubescents, hebeophile.

(Numbers taken from www.ageofconsent.com)

[DRBUZZ0]

Because the common one is wrong?

Not only wrong, but it doesn't make any sense.

If you like a 17-year-old in USA you're a pedophile, but would be normal in Ireland? If you like a 16-year-old in Ireland you're a pedophile, but you're normal in Norway? If you like a 15-year-old in Norway you're a pedophile, but you're normal in Sweden? If you like a 14-year-old in Sweden you're a pedohile, but normal in Canada? If you like a 13-year-old in Canada you're a pedophile, but normal in Spain? If you like a 12-year-old in Spain you're a pedophile, but normal in Mexico?

Doesn't make sense.

Besides, there's a seperate term for those that like pubescents, hebeophile.

(Numbers taken from www.ageofconsent.com)


Er...actually it varies by state. In my state (Connecticut), the age of consent is 16. However, there are provisions (both in the law and by court precident) which make it hard to prosecute somebody if the age difference is not major. Also, I know in some states, there are additional provisions if the perpitrator is a teacher/coach/boss or something.

Definately one of those issues where the details of the case are going to be important in how agressively it would be prosecuted.

[DRBUZZ0]

A pedophile is someone who gets off on kids. Generally, this means prepubescent. However, you can debate what that means all you want. It comes from the latin “child lover.” However…this would not be plutonic love.

It is not illegal to be a pedophile. You cannot legislate what people think. If you like to think about little kids and wack off, then there’s nothing anybody can do about it.



However. If you have sex with someone under the age of consent (which varies state to state), then it IS a crime. The crime is not “pedophelia” and you don’t even need to be a pedophile to commit it. Perhaps (s)he was a 17 year old in a state with an age of 18. Perhaps (s)he was a 14 year old who looked like she could be 20 and convinced you that (s)he just looked young, but really wasn’t. Perhaps you were drunk.

In any case, this is irrelevant. The crime is “statuary rape.”

Other crimes may be involved such as endangering the welfare of a child, sexual assault, child pornography. It all depends on the circumstances.

However, you won’t be charged with “being a pedophile.” Similarly, a serial killer will not face the charge of “being a psychopath” instead, he will be charged with first degree murder. Ted Kezinski was not charged with “being a creepy dude who sends out bombs.” He was charged with murder/assult/sending an explosive by mail ect. Ect.



So…you can label someone anything you want. As far as the law is concerned, the crime is in the act.

[luchog]

Sorry, that's not completely true. Photographing public events for private use is OK. Photographing to sell, you must have a release from the subjects if the person is recognizable. That goes for people in the street, as well as property including most private buildings, art, etc. Under 18 is still concidered a minor in most states.

That's not entirely true. The law specificies that the individuals in the image be recognizable and the primary subject of the image.

There is, however, quite a bit of latitude in judgement on those two characteristics.

A fine art photographer was sued for taking a picture of a busy street in New York. When the picture was published, a class action suit was brought by those in the frame as they were recognisable and did not give permission for their image to be sold.
I would have to see the image in question. Do you know the verdict on the suit? If it was found in favour of the plaintiffs, then it would be in the minority of cases; since images of crowds are generally not considered to be protected, according to case law.

[luchog]

I knew a 19 year old who kept getting hit on by old guys who thought she was twelve...
Before she had kids, my partner had the same problem; clear up into her mid-20s. Specifically, she was so narrow-hipped and flat-chested, she got hit on by old guys thinking she was a 12 year old boy.

[luchog]

And why would I be using the medical definition and not the common one?
Because the medical definition is specific and standard; the common one is vague and highly variable by person region. The former is accepted in legal prosecution, the latter is not.

And in any case, it's irrelevant, legally, since paedophilia is not a crime; and there is not "legal definition" of paedophilia any more than there is a legal definition of "insanity".

[rjh01]

One thing I find silly. Until a certain age you are not allowed to do certain things, and people are not allowed to do things to you. Then one day later everything is OK. It does not matter about intelligence, maturity or anything else.

[kittynh]

speaking of the lovely very young golfer.

How old one looks, and how old one is psychologically is vastly different.

For instance a 35 year old that decided to do it with the 15 year old is psychologically stuck at about age 2.

Not joking. I know a psychologist that firmly believes seriel killers are psychologically stuck at age 6 months.

Stewie proves it.

[DRBUZZ0]

One thing I find silly. Until a certain age you are not allowed to do certain things, and people are not allowed to do things to you. Then one day later everything is OK. It does not matter about intelligence, maturity or anything else.


Perhaps. But would you rather a system where everybody is constantly tested and evaluated to determine when they qualify? I think some probably never would

[rjh01]

Delete the word constantly and DRBUZZO might have a idea worth thinking about.

Remeber young people are given lots of tests at school.

[Infinite]

I video tape my kid playing hockey, all the time. I'm sorry is there something wrong with that. Does video taping become a problem only if there is a chance someone will see up someone's skirt? No chance of that I guess with hockey. What about gymnastics or tennis? Are there special rules for swimmers...no camera, no video taping your child because you might get someone else's kid in the frame? What everyone had left their camera's at home the day JFK was shot? Hmmmm, sometimes it's ok to preserve history, but not when your kid is cheerleading?

[Checkmite]

So, how old would you say this young lady was at the time of this picture was taken?



Younger than me, which is all that matters to me. But I'll humor you: she looks 14 to me.

[Checkmite]

Oh, (insert name of Penn and Teller show on Showtime here). We were all 15 once. And we all wanted to plook other 15-year-olds, whether we got to or not. You're just lying.

No.

When I was 13, there was a 15 year old I would've have minded plooking. Then I changed schools.

Though lately, various other threads have fully convinced me that I'm clearly in the minority w/regard to my attitudes about sex, so these days I'm admittedly not as vocal about freaks who are sexually attracted to high school kids as I was back when I made the post we're referring to. Though I'll still maintain that they are, indeed, freaks.

[ponderingturtle]

No it's not. A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.

For the purposes of rape and molestation laws, a child is someone who is under the legal age of consent, whatever that may be for your particular country.

The problem is that there are really multiple issues here, and pedophile is not a legal term but a psychological one. They are all sex offenders as that is what the law considers them, but real pedophiles is not the target audience.

The law does not find someone to be a pedophile, as it is not a legal finding.

[ponderingturtle]

Cheerleading has become more suggestive over the years. All the cheerleaders show tummy now days.

doesn't mean it is nice to sell photos of it.

Still, my husbands co worker did a video of "women in the park without their tops at lunch time" in Europe. He made a lot of copies for friends. But he didn't sell it. Mind you, if I liked the guy I'd suggest ebay for him! The sad part is that with special lenses and stuff, most of these women had no clue they were being photographed.

They where in public. Now how about this for creepy, a camp in the group of camps I went to was for girls 9-14, and these camps had clothing optional swiming and the people who took pictures seemed more interested in the 9-14 girls camp than the 15-17 coed camp.

Still not sure if they could be held to be doing anything illegal as they where candid and not sexualy explicit pictures. And nude photographs of children are not illegal by themselves.

[ponderingturtle]

speaking of the lovely very young golfer.

How old one looks, and how old one is psychologically is vastly different.

For instance a 35 year old that decided to do it with the 15 year old is psychologically stuck at about age 2.

Not joking. I know a psychologist that firmly believes seriel killers are psychologically stuck at age 6 months.

Stewie proves it.

And there are psychologists who firmly beleive that taping your body in certain places will align your energy feilds and correct problems with PTSD.

[American]

There are just as many amateur tape traders who do this for fun, not as a commercial project.


They are very safe in their freedom to do so.