NJ considers bill that would ban photographing children

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by likemyorbs, Sep 25, 2011.

  1. likemyorbs, Sep 25, 2011
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2011

    likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #1
    Here's some stupidity out of my home state...


    Link


    Absolutely ridiculous, it's just a knee jerk reaction to an incident with a perverted old man filming preteen girls at swim meets. Let's just legislate all our problems away. :rolleyes:
     
  2. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #2
    So what?
     
  3. likemyorbs thread starter macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #3
    I edited the OP, read the new quote.
     
  4. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #4
    I don't care whether an old "creep" videotapes preteen girls, then goes home and faps to the material like a madman. As long as he doesn't molest them, who cares?
     
  5. likemyorbs thread starter macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #5
    One could say the same about child pornography. I don't agree with "yeah go film children and jerk off to them, as long as you don't touch them" But i think this law is pushing it.
     
  6. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #6
    I think the bill is a good idea but I also agree that the language is a little vague.
     
  7. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #7
    I do.
     
  8. likemyorbs thread starter macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #8
    Are you frickin kidding me? This thread should get interesting pretty soon...
     
  9. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #9
    But children don't normally have sex with each other. The filmmakers psychologically damage the children.

    I also don't really care what the creep does with his photos of children that he takes, since it doesn't really hurt the children.
     
  10. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #10
    No, I'm not kidding you. I'd legalize child pornography, but keep sexual intercourse with children illegal. Watching cp doesn't hurt children, producing it does.
     
  11. likemyorbs, Sep 25, 2011
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2011

    likemyorbs thread starter macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #11
    I can buy that argument, although you would probably change your tune if it were your own kids in the perv's videos. But the fact marc feels the same about kiddie porn is a little odd.


    Ummm.......wow. Looks like i have a new quote for my sig. CaoCao has been dethroned.
     
  12. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #12
    A few fries short of a happy meal...

    This sort of mindless hysteria seems to be popular these days...

    Earlier in the year, a bill was introduced by State Senator Jim Norman of Florida that would make it a felony to take a picture of a farm without the owner’s permission.
     
  13. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #13
    I am with you on this. It is way WAY to vague and this law is open for abuse. I could see it being abused left and right. Heck based on the law the cripper that they made this law about could not be charged for said crime they want to get him on because any reasonable parent would understand that a swim meet your childed is going to be video taped or photo graphed during said event by other parents and family of the kids. It is a public event and it is reasonable to be done.


    Hell I could say the law is worthless because it is so vague and could be useless to be able to charge anyone with it. It would make no one any money but lawyers and waste tax payer money.
    Got to love all the feel good useless laws that are passed.
     
  14. reputationZed macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    34°55′42″N 80°44′41″W (34.
    #14
    there are already laws against child pornography, what are the provisions of this bill going to accomplish that those laws do not? So you deny thousands of parents from filming their kids little league game or dance recital because of the possibility that some deviant might come across a copy of the pictures and decide to jerk off to them?
     
  15. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
  16. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #16
    I don't know how I would feel, because I don't have kids. I probably wouldn't bring them out in public with revealing swimsuits. ;)
     
  17. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #17
    Yep, yep, yep and another yep.

    The problem is him getting-off with the images. This is against God. :rolleyes:

    Nope. After 2 yeps, you should have quit while you were ahead.

    Watching child porn creates a demand that will be filled.
     
  18. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #18
    Why? Did they get harmed?

    The people who are attracted to kids didn't choose to be. Demonizing them doesn't help, and therapies don't work. So I suggest we find ways to make child pornography accessible, without children getting harmed. But someone should make a new thread about this if they want to discuss it, otherwise this thread will derail.


    As long as you don't pay for it, you don't create any demand.
     
  19. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #19
    There is a reason that they are called public areas. Unless parents are going to shelter their kids until they turn 18 there is no way to avoid pictures or anything else for that matter. What about security cameras, are police departments not allowed to save footage?
     
  20. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #20
    Are pedophiles attracted to kids from puberty on? I think that 'people don't choose to be gay' and 'people don't choose to be pedophiles' are different arguments entirely. When two people are gay, they can enter into a consensual relationship to each of their own benefits.

    When a person is a pedophile,there can be no consent, and one person is the victim.

    I think that that argument is similar to 'people don't choose to murder others'. Lots of people have the inclination to murder, but it is most often suppressed for the the good of society.
    How? CGI'ed cartoons? :cool:
     
  21. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #21
    Damn it!!! :mad: You just broke my naive meter.
     
  22. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #22
    I can see both sides of this argument. The mentioned law is vague.

    Why not just do what concert and other public event areas do.

    Make the photographer obtain a photo pass. This way the person doing photography would be known .
     
  23. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #23
    That will not work in public, you will take people's ability to take photos in public away. City streets are not private property.
     
  24. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #24
    True. Well then the only thing left to do giving the paranoid mentality of our society is to simply kill every person with a camera. That will stop it eh ?
     
  25. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #25
    True, but somewhat harsh.

    Just cut off their nuts, if they are male. I guess women are exempt from this?

    Annie Leibovitz will be pleased.

    ( "Eh"?? Who made you an honourary Canadian. :confused: )
     

Share This Page