Gonz wrote:
Perhaps you dont have a(ny) daughter(s)? :-O
I suspect that no one on this list has access to the photographs in
question, yet the discussion has proceeded in a deliberately inflammatory
way assuming the photographer's rights have been violated and not his
subjects. Having daughters makes you realize that there is potentially more
than one side to this story.
It goes both ways. I dont believe that we can draw a conclusion either way.
You may be right, but since I have a reasonable expectation of the police
in my area to interpret this statute correctly, I'm more inclined to believe
my interpretation. And given the typical psychological profile of serial
rapists and killers, I would rather err on that side rather than risk an
individual like this finally acting out his fantasies on innocent lives.
-----------------
I agree up to the last two sentences. I have a 14 year old son that I've
attemped to protect, safeguard, and raise in a responsible manner.
However, I would rather see 100 guilty people go free than see one innocent
person, accused, convicted and sentenced unjustly. Crime is a sad thing,
and it does and will happen, but let's not believe that criminal acts can or
should be prevented by further criminal acts. The fact that crime exists
does not justify the authorities committing additional crimes against
potentially innocent persons, in the hopes that some of the guilty will be
caught in the dragnet.
That being siad, I have no idea what was in the pictures.
Some of us may remember sometime in the last five years when a mother in the
midwest U.S., took her two children to a State Fair and forgot to put
sunscreen on them. Her children were taken and put in protective custody by
a jackass deputy (or such) and she was charged with dependency and neglect.
All over a case of sunburn when she took her kids to have fun.
Tom C.
