"father who was harassed for trying to take pictures of his kids on a Sunday afternoon"

There's probably a local "backstory" to this that hasn't been reported.

The father is a consultant to a rubber manufacturer............

Dental care in the UK rocks!

Next up. Stoneing any man who appears in public with kids and without a female.

We don't allows any camera type de-vice in ours house. Granny is down right jealous of her weasel flambeau receipe and wouldn't take kindly to have it being a copied.

Brian

"I hate the idea that men on the playground may be seen as guilty until proven otherwise."

You don't like negative male stereotypes? Gosh, last week you wrote "Those are habits that have followed me to adulthood, where I have the typical male aversion to doctors".....

WWLD?

(What Would Leslie-Morgan Stiener--Do?)

"(What Would Leslie-Morgan Stiener--Do?)"

Steiner would write a book, fight with Perry, go on a massive PR tour for the book, fight with Perry, sell the book to Lifetime Network for a made-for-TV movie deal, fight with perry, go back on TV for a PR drive for the TV movie, fight with Perry...

Stacey doesn't like strangers taking pictures of her kids.

The playground women are hysterical, and not hysterical in a funny way. Try insane. There may be a backstory, but there may not be. I suggest all dads take their cameras to the park this weekend for a mass picture day of their kids. Make the point that you're a parent just like their mother. Until you demand to be treated the same, you won't be. Women learned that point years ago. Now men need to learn it.

No video at a pool? Outrageous, especially when explained you are taking photos of your own child. Hit them with a clue by four!

Here where I live everyone knows everyone else, so there isn't an issue.

Seiously, people are way too paranoid! Not everyone is a predator, in fact, I don't think most people are predators. We take pictures of our kids at the park and other public places all the time. No one has ever seemed to have a problem with it. If I was attempting to photograph your child individually, you should are right to be upset, but it might happen that if your kid is behind mine in line she might end up in my picture. Is that really so bad?

And...is it different if my husband is taking that picture? That is messed up...

Wow. This is a new one. We also take lots of pictures of our kids, both at home and out and about. I naturally gravitate towards being behind the camera, but nvadad takes many pictures, too.

It appears that the people in this story were way out of line.

But I have to admit that it's now something I will think about when I take out my camera in a public place. The unfortunate flip side is that, after hearing about this incident, I will now wonder if seemingly camera-happy people at the pool or park have good or sinister intentions.

Last weekend I was at out local pool and I was taking pictures of out daughters first time in the pool. I am the MOTHER. My kids were playing with their father and their aunt and there were NO other kids around (we were in the kiddie pool). I was asked, "very politely" to please not take pictures at the pool. I protested that the only people in the shot are my kids and family and the lady just said, "sorry, no camaras allowed."

Should I have complained to the manager? I felt so ashamed. I got the feeling it wasn't about fears I would use the photos as breach for people's privacy-- again, they were only my family and everyone in the shot was was fine with it. It seemed like it something else-- perhaps concern that something bad would happen to the camara (stolen, spashed on, etc) and that would cause a big disruption and perhaps a fight?

Also, perhaps a concern that it is ostentatious to use a camara in a public place where there are so many other people who can't afford the equiptment-- or maybe that is it just a parental no-no to be taking pictures where you should just be enjoying the moment?

I'm grabbing at straws here! Ideas? This was at the Rumsey Aquatic Center by Eastern Market.

Here where I live everyone knows everyone else, so there isn't an issue.

Posted by: sanity | July 17, 2008 8:39 AM

not everyone lives in flyover country.

Public Photos, Pedophelia and Common Sense

It's spelled pedophilia. The "-phil" part comes from the Greek, meaning love.

i should add that there wasn't a sign anywhere that I could see that said "no camaras around the pool."

I know this sounds ridiculous, but do you think perhaps it had to do with some sort of fears re legal liability, i.e., getting sued? There ARE some litigation-happy folks (& their attorneys) out there who are all too happy to file nuisance lawsuits in hopes of getting cash settlements.

Spelling Police: Thanks for the catch. It's been fixed.

I don't even know what to say. That's insane. Ya, I don't want weirdos taking pictures of my kids, but to freak out about parents taking pictures of their own kids? Really, I'm speechless.

atb

"I don't even know what to say. That's insane. Ya, I don't want weirdos taking pictures of my kids, but to freak out about parents taking pictures of their own kids?"

" Really, I'm speechless."

Yeah, right! You're speechless.

I am surprised that none of the MM has yet admitted washing out and reusing certain feminine products.

"Oh, I only used it once on my last day! Surely, I can reuse!"

Posted by: Cecilia | July 16, 2008 4:48 PM

Who did the asking? Another parent or someone who represents the pool?

I am surprised that none of the MM has yet admitted washing out and reusing certain feminine products.

"Oh, I only used it once on my last day! Surely, I can reuse!"

Posted by: Cecilia | July 16, 2008 4:48 PM

Posted by: from the celebritology blog | July 17, 2008 9:37 AM

I bet Mrs. Duggar never has this problem.

Don't know if it's a father vs. mother stereotype - in the original article it notes that the children's mother was also there. And see capitolhillmom's comments above - it appears to be more aversion to cameras than to men-with-cameras.

In the original article, it's clear that the women complaining about the father were WAY out of line. It would have been very easy (and polite) to just have their children wait for a second so that the father could get pictures of only his own children.

Ya, I don't want weirdos taking pictures of my kids, but to freak out about parents taking pictures of their own kids?

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 9:24 AM

According to The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children up to 90% of children are sexually abused by someone that they know.

Child predators generally are:

clean cut and have not had previous trouble with the law.

Are in professional occupations or occupations which garner respect from others.

Are often involved with child related activities.

If you are at a park or the zoo or Disney World, how do you propose to distinguish between the weirdos and the dads taking picture of their own kids?

While parents waste their time worrying about the homeless guy on the Mall who is statistically unlikely to pose a threat to anyone's child, the accountant who lives next door has his way.

Jezebel- Don't get me wrong, I could go on and on about how useless you are, but I'm speechless about the topic at hand.

It was someone who represents the pool-- she was at the "reseptionist desk" when we came in and then after we were there for like half an hour she was walking around, maybe on her break. that is when she told me "no camaras allowed at the pool." If it were just another parent I would have said that I only take photos when other kids aren't around. but as I said, there weren't any other kids around-- just my family at the kiddie pool.

yet another anon- Everyone knew this guy was the father of these kids. It wasn't some clean cut guy hanging on the fringe. It wasn't the accountant next door. A "weirdo" isn't a homeless guy on the mall. A "weirdo" is a guy, clean cut or otherwise, taking pix of kids that aren't his.

sorry for the misspelling! Receptionist!

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 9:45 AM

I thought she was speechless. Damn.

Some people were mocking me yesterday and it has starting again today! Please use your own name and not mine!

About the photo thing. When I take little precious out in public, I always have a disguise. A floppy hat and oversized sunglasses work just fine.

camera

Who's the disguise for, you or your kid?

I thought you were useless. I was right. Yay!

"A "weirdo" is a guy, clean cut or otherwise, taking pix of kids that aren't his."

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 9:45 AM

Largemouth ego with all the superficial answers to life's questions on Aisle 9.

Once, again, useless. Waste of space. Impotent. Nothing to add.

For both of us, you silly goose!

anonymous troll at 9:41: "If you are at a park or the zoo or Disney World, how do you propose to distinguish between the weirdos and the dads taking picture of their own kids?"

Well, if I see a man who's obviously spending time with a child or small group of children, particularly if there is another adult or group of adults also with the child/children, I'm going to assume that it's (a) the father; (b) a group sponsor/chaperone; (c) another "approved" male (e.g., uncle, grandfather, mother's new boyfriend).

It's really not that hard.

In the case described by Brian, here, it was trivially easy to see that the man in question WAS with the children in question, and that there was another (female) adult also with them.

capitolhillmom- They should have the policy posted. They aren't likely to make exceptions, just like no one can take pictures at airport security, even if they are just screwing around. That the kids are in swimming suits is just too much. It really sets of alarms, kind of like camera phones at the gym.

"According to The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children up to 90% of children are sexually abused by someone that they know."

This would imply that more than 90% of all children are sexually abused, either by someone they know or someone they don't, which is wrong.

Do the math.

"If you are at a park or the zoo or Disney World, how do you propose to distinguish between the weirdos and the dads taking picture of their own kids?"

Are you saying that parents/grandparents/aunts/uncles/family friends should not take pictures of children? WOW

Then why did you use the singular, "A floppy hat"?

atb

"weirdo" is a guy, clean cut or otherwise, taking pix of kids that aren't his. "

Right, guys NEVER abuse their own kids...

It never would have occurred to me that somebody taking pictures of kids at a park might have some other sinister intention. It saddens me that is what the world has come to - that we need to worry about these kinds of things.

And I guess it gives me a heads up not to be taking pictures of kids. I have certainly done it in the past while on vacation and didn't think twice about it. I suppose because because my intentions were innocent it never would have occurred to me to think it would bother anyone. It does make me wonder how photojournalists would get pictures these days of photos that have been famous in the past. Just recently, there was a piece in the WP about a photo taken of a child rescued by a soldier that made both the photojournalist and the soldier famous. I see those spontaneous snapshots of childhood (that were published in the past) gone because you need to ask permission first to snap that special moment.

Then why did you use the singular, "A floppy hat"?

Because I wear only 1 hat at a time.

If it was clear that the father was taking pictures of his own kids then I cannot understand what all the fuss was about. It's usually pretty obvious when someone is the parent. I would have been concerned about the situation Brian described, random guy taking pictures of girls at an after school activity, and agree it was worth a call.

"Should I have complained to the manager? I felt so ashamed. "

For Pete's sake, you'll never know the answer if you don't ask the management. And don't ask a bunch of cyberstrangers on the Net!!!! Especially the ones who claim to be speechless and minutes later are running off at the mouth on yet another moronic rant!

For several years, I worked on a project on playgrounds. Several times, I went to a public park in the middle of the day with my camera (and sometimes my test equiptment). Never once was I stopped or questioned. Frankly, it amazed me, but I assumed it was because I was female. I truely believe that if one of my male coworkers had been doing the same thing, the police would have been called.

That said, i was also very concious to not take photos of the children

HAHAHAHA Moronic rant. HAHAHAHH Pot, Kettle. Oh, the irony.

Jed Clampett - if noone has told you yet, your schtick has been old for some time. Do you have any genuine humor to contribute, or are you that person that tells the same tired jokes over and over?

OK, forget it. All cameras should be banned. No one should take pictures of anything. That's the only solution.

"If you are at a park or the zoo or Disney World, how do you propose to distinguish between the weirdos and the dads taking picture of their own kids?"

Are you saying that parents/grandparents/aunts/uncles/family friends should not take pictures of children? WOW

Posted by: to anon at 9:41 | July 17, 2008 10:00 AM

I asked a question. You made a statement entirely unrelated to my question, but thanks for the straw man. Do you have an answer to the question I asked?

If you're out in public, it's implied that you've given consent to have your pix taken. Otherwise, stay indoors with the shades drawn, or in the yard with a tall fence.

I think all children under the age of 21 should be locked in a room of bubble wrap, kept alone and never be allowed to be seen in public. Just to protect them of course.

If you're out in public, it's implied that you've given consent to have your pix taken.

Posted by: stating the obvious | July 17, 2008 10:22 AM

This makes about as much sense as stating that a woman who goes on a date has impliedly consented to have sex. Not.

If your kids play sports as they get older, this will become more of an issue. Check your local paper for pictures/identification of your local athletes - especially the high-schoolers.

When kids are younger, leagues generally have rules prohibiting publication of their pictures and names together, although exceptions are made with parental permission - e.g., those shots in the local papers of the championship-winning 10 & under girls soccer team.

(FWIW, photographers for the local papers/TV stations are usually happy to identify themselves as such and their credentials can be checked - and in a lot of cases the home team coaches will already know who they are, so it's not a situation of total strangers with cameras.)

But a lot of teams of high-school aged kids have websites with player biographies, pictures and even video in the hopes of attracting interest from college coaches.

It can be a fine line. And if you want to see what can happen in extreme circumstances, just google "Allison Stokke".

See "The Photographer's Right
Your Rights and Remedies When Stopped or Confronted for Photography"
by Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law, at
www.newslab.org/resources/photographersright.htm

I follow Michael Jackson's way of parenting. I have my kids wear masks and sheets over their face so that no one can really take any pictures of my precious little ones.

Really, I'm speechless.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 9:24 AM

I'm speechless about the topic at hand.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 9:42 AM

I thought you were useless. I was right. Yay!

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 9:50 AM

HAHAHAHA Moronic rant. HAHAHAHH Pot, Kettle. Oh, the irony.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 10:13 AM

OK, forget it. All cameras should be banned. No one should take pictures of anything. That's the only solution.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 10:14 AM

Person responding to stating the obvious. Have you never taken a law class of any kind? Stating the obvious is stating the obvious under the law. If you are out in public it is completly legal for someone to take your picture.

I think a lot more people are a little paranoid about cameras in this day and age. I remember one case where a coach (or maybe it was a camp counselor) had taken pictures of teens in his care then via Photoshop affixed their heads to pornographic images. Ugh!! Families all found out when he was caught with this crap on his computer but he wasn't distributing it and it wasn't "child" pornography because the bodies were of adult females so I think he escaped criminal prosecution.
Stories like this creep many people out. But I do believe folks went a little overboard in the playground case.

anonymous troll at 10:18 and 9:41 (I figure you're the same poster): I already answered your question - see my 9:57 post. It's often not very hard at all to tell who's the father/grandfather/other approved male adult.

Do you have a meaningful response, or would you rather just keep firing off useless comments?

my precious little ones.

Posted by: Cecelia | July 17, 2008 10:27 AM

But you only have ONE little precious. Get your story straight.

If you're out in public, it's implied that you've given consent to have your pix taken.

Posted by: stating the obvious | July 17, 2008 10:22 AM

This makes about as much sense as stating that a woman who goes on a date has impliedly consented to have sex. Not.

Posted by: | July 17, 2008 10:25 AM

The Taliban strikes again. Bring on the burqas.

"Do you have a meaningful response, or would you rather just keep firing off useless comments?"

Nooo. Please don't write anything to trigger another pretentious lecture from that windbag ArmyBrat! Please!

anonymous troll at 10:18 and 9:41 (I figure you're the same poster): I already answered your question - see my 9:57 post. It's often not very hard at all to tell who's the father/grandfather/other approved male adult.

Do you have a meaningful response, or would you rather just keep firing off useless comments?

Posted by: ArmyBrat | July 17, 2008 10:30 AM

If you think a polite comment is useless, feel free to ignore it. On the other hand, the 10:18 response was to a different poster, so it is a mystery why you consider your answer to be the be all and end all of conversation on this blog. Did someone die and make you God?

Did atb and ArmyBrat come with return labels?

"my precious little ones.

Posted by: Cecelia | July 17, 2008 10:27 AM

But you only have ONE little precious. Get your story straight."

A CLUE that Cecelia is running a con.

anonymous troll at 10:18 and 9:41- I actually wasn't proposing trying to figure out which adult and which kid were legitimately together and then police picture taking accordingly. I just know who I'm OK with taking pictures of MY kid. I can't be responsible for all kids at all times, though, of course, I'll respond to obviously weird situations. Ya, ya, sometimes you won't see who's in the long shot, but there's only so much you can do in life to avoid risk.

"Did atb and ArmyBrat come with return labels?"

LOL! Here's hoping these two don't hook up and reproduce!
Talk about weidos at the park!

Common Sense? On this blog? Ha!!!

Don't insult AB by associating him with me.

atb

"anonymous troll at 10:18 and 9:41- I actually wasn't proposing trying to figure out which adult and which kid were legitimately together and then police picture taking accordingly. I just know who I'm OK with taking pictures of MY kid. I can't be responsible for all kids at all times, though, of course, I'll respond to obviously weird situations. Ya, ya, sometimes you won't see who's in the long shot, but there's only so much you can do in life to avoid risk."

"Speechless" found her voice!

atb & ArmyBrat should troll the dives together for dates.

I asked a question. You made a statement entirely unrelated to my question, but thanks for the straw man. Do you have an answer to the question I asked?

Posted by: | July 17, 2008 10:18 AM

Uh - how about this? Unless they are taking pics of YOUR kids you mind your own business?

"If you're out in public, it's implied that you've given consent to have your pix taken.

Posted by: stating the obvious | July 17, 2008 10:22 AM

This makes about as much sense as stating that a woman who goes on a date has impliedly consented to have sex. Not.

Posted by: | July 17, 2008 10:25 AM"

Really? Tell that to the Washington Supreme Court: http://www.wiredsafety.org/law/privacy/cameras.html

The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks. Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations...

Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places: ... * children*...

Although anyone has the right to approach a person in a public place and ask questions, persistent and unwanted conduct done without a legitimate purpose is a crime in many states if it causes serious annoyance. You are under no obligation to explain the purpose of your photography nor do you have to disclose your identity except in states that require so upon request by a law enforcement officer. If the conduct goes beyond mere questioning, all states have laws that make coercion and harassment criminal offenses...

Absent a court order, private parties have no right to confiscate your film. Taking your film directly or indirectly by threatening to use force or call a law enforcement agency can constitute criminal offenses such as theft and coercion. It can likewise constitute a civil tort such as onversion. Law enforcement officers may have the authority to seize film when making an arrest but otherwise must obtain a court order...

If you are disinclined to take legal action, there are still things you can do that contribute to protecting the right to take photographs.
(1) Call the local newspaper and see if they are interested in running a story. Many newspapers feel that civil liberties are worthy of serious coverage.
(2) Write to or call the supervisor of the person involved, or the legal or public relations department of the entity, and complain about the event.
(3) Make the event publicly known on an Internet forum that deals with photography or civil rights issues.

Uh - how about this? Unless they are taking pics of YOUR kids you mind your own business?

Posted by: | July 17, 2008 10:48 AM

Uh - how about this? If you do not want to engage in a civil debate on the topic, why post on a blog with other people?

Mind your own business is the perfect response when your MIL tells you how to raise your kids. When a blogger posts a column and invites a response, people who disagree with you get to have a voice, too. If you don't like it, go start your own blog and listen to the echo.

How

Don't insult AB by associating him with me.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 10:46 AM

You have so much in common, how can it be insulting to either of you to be linked on the OP?

But remember that here on OP we don't care about fact, laws or rights, just opinions.

Posted by: | July 17, 2008 10:53 AM

Surely you jest (don't call me Shirley)! My comment is one of the lesser of the offensive ones. You are only whining because it is directed at you. Grow a set.

For the troll who's focusing so intently on me today- I was speechless about the story, then I responded when people directly posted to me. How is this so hard to understand? I'm very flattered by the attention, of course.

What is you view on Brian's question about the photographing of children at playgrounds?

I'm very flattered by the attention, of course.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 10:57 AM

Another reason why you and ArmyBrat should troll the dives together looking for dates.

anon @ 10:37: in the immortal words of John Cleese: "I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."

I'm a fan of atb's; her points on this blog and others are generally cogent and well-written. Unlike some others.

Subject to all sorts of state-specific modifications, the short answer to the law on this topic is, as we discussed the other day, while someone generally is free to photograph others in public, he may not use the person or likeness of another for commercial gain. Photographers can be subject to misappropriation of likeness claims if they use another's image, likeness or identity for a commercial purpose. For example, if a photographer snaps 4 rolls of film of various children at the local park, then tries to sell those photos, he may be subject to claims from the parents of those children for damages.

The comments of the reasonable and identified folks here today are almost universally focused on the rights of the photographer. Personally, I am more worried about pedophile relatives than I am stranger-danger, but this discussion doesn't seem very balanced in light of the Jack McLellans of the world, free to snap photos of the village kids for their own pleasure, so long as they don't sell the photos.

I'm a fan of atb's; her points on this blog and others are generally cogent and well-written. Unlike some others.

Posted by: ArmyBrat | July 17, 2008 11:02

From the OP Middle School Debate Team captain.

If you don't want your children photographed in public, keep them on private property which has no visual access from public property.

I think you all are bieng very harsh. But i understnd the prolbem. Linsey is fotographed alot, but its not rite. She should only be fotographed with her consent. otherwize peeple can tak advantgae and fotoshop picutures. its a real prolbem.

Oh, I don't go to bars to get attention, I get pregnant. People are always so sweet and attentive when you're pregnant. Of course you have to deal with the children when they're born, but as long as you lose the weight quickly, it's another great way to get attention.

otherwize peeple can tak advantgae and fotoshop picutures.

Like girlz whoz hoohahs are fotoshoped to look like their not waring pantyz in public?

That is, being a thin mom with a newborn.

People are always so sweet and attentive when you're pregnant. Of course you have to deal with the children when they're born, but as long as you lose the weight quickly, it's another great way to get attention.

Is that you, Mrs. Duggar?

"From the OP Middle School Debate Team captain."

Lame. Truly, horribly lame. Please tell me you've got something better than that.

Oh, I don't go to bars to get attention, I get pregnant. People are always so sweet and attentive when you're pregnant. Of course you have to deal with the children when they're born, but as long as you lose the weight quickly, it's another great way to get attention.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 11:19 AM

That is, being a thin mom with a newborn.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 11:20 AM

I'm starting to miss pATRICK.....

Oh, I don't go to bars to get attention, I get pregnant. People are always so sweet and attentive when you're pregnant. Of course you have to deal with the children when they're born, but as long as you lose the weight quickly, it's another great way to get attention.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 11:19 AM

ArmyBrat's wife!!!!!!!

On Parenting is soon to be renamed: atb's Private Soapbox.

More likely Father of 4's wife.

People that bathe/shower and sleep with their own children. That really, really creeps me out. Turns my stomach.

"From the OP Middle School Debate Team captain."

Lame. Truly, horribly lame. Please tell me you've got something better than that.

Posted by: ArmyBrat

Not gratis, Bozo.

Really? Tell that to the Washington Supreme Court: http://www.wiredsafety.org/law/privacy/cameras.html

Posted by: Laura | July 17, 2008 10:50 AM

Laura,

Sure, the Washington Supreme Court interpreted its own statute as written. Of course, the Washington legislature is now intending to amend the statute to prevent photos up skirts and the like.

The article at the link you shared also mentions the more broadly drafted California statute which bars the same sort of photos permitted under the Washington statute, as interpreted.

To say the law is in flux on the sciope of an individual's right to privacy as it applies to public photography is an understatement. Do you disagree?

"More likely Father of 4's wife."

And the Oscar for the funniest one-liner on the OP for 2008 goes to:

"my precious little ones.

Posted by: Cecelia | July 17, 2008 10:27 AM

But you only have ONE little precious. Get your story straight."

A CLUE that Cecelia is running a con.

Posted by: Matlock | July 17, 2008 10:38 AM

------------------------------------------------------

No Matlock, some one is mocking me again. There have been several posts under my "name" which I did not write.

I wish they would stop it. It is just so hateful!

"More likely Father of 4's wife."

That would explain Father of 4's boozer problem.

Listening to atb's "I'm speechless!!!" shrieks 24/7 would drive me also to some kind of substance abuse.

I wish they would stop it. It is just so hateful!

Posted by: Cecilia | July 17, 2008 11:40 AM

You mean h8teful?

My husband and I always have a camera in our goody bag and take it pretty much everywhere we go with the children. They love to have their picture taken. We make a scrapbook every year for each one documenting holidays, birthdays, vacations and other special events. They love to pull them out and look at them once in a while. We save ticket stubs for movies and they get to write a quick note about the movie. It is a fun family project.

Listening to atb's "I'm speechless!!!" shrieks 24/7 would drive me also to some kind of substance abuse.

Posted by: atb's husband must be deaf | July 17, 2008 11:43 AM

you and me both, bub. If her kid is like her in another 2 years, the house will be one rant after another all in high-pitched squeaky voices.

I post here rather than go directly to the management because I would like to go to the pool again and I've heard that the management will ban people. The pool is a meeting place for lots of families and it would be pretty humiliating to explain that I can't take meet at the pool because we challenged the policy against cameras. It just wasn't worth it also because i had already taken plenty of pictures. I probably would have pushed back a bit if I didn't even have one shot of the baby in the pool for the first time.

Anyway, it is easier to find out whether my reaction that it was weird is on-point with the rest of society, or whether others in society say "You're darn right you shouldn't have a camara at a public pool! What were you thinking? You should be focused on havinga good time, not on whether you are getting a good shot. Bringing a camara to the pool ruins the fun for everyone."

Seriously, I don't want me, or my kids to be Persona Non Grata at the pool and reporting what the receptionist said is a likely way to make enemies. What if someday I need her assistance? Even if we aren't banished, you are very vulnerable at the pool and you just not want to make enemies.

Calling back and asking anonymously what their policy is at the pool regarding camaras would be a good idea though. I'll try to call and ask later. no one is answering right now- they have weird hours.

More likely Father of 4's wife.

Posted by: | July 17, 2008 11:30 AM

Having multiple wives is not something to joke about. My husband has 3 other wives and we're all very happy. Perhaps you guys should all come and see how life is here in Utah. We don't have problems of strange people taking pictures of our kids.

Calling back and asking anonymously what their policy is at the pool regarding camaras would be a good idea though. I'll try to call and ask later. no one is answering right now- they have weird hours.

Posted by: capitol hill mom | July 17, 2008 11:47 AM

Call the management company. You shouldn't be subject to random enforcement of some individual's personal rule.

it would be pretty humiliating to explain that I can't take meet at the pool because we challenged the policy against cameras.

They can't do that. It's against the law.

11:48, take your anti-Mormon bias and shove it where the sun don't shine.

it would be pretty humiliating to explain that I can't take meet at the pool because we challenged the policy against cameras.

They can't do that. It's against the law.

Posted by: To capitol hill mom | July 17, 2008 11:49 AM

It is not against the law for a private social club to enforce its own club rules. If the club wants to ban red bathing suits, it can.

"No Matlock, some one is mocking me again. There have been several posts under my "name" which I did not write.

I wish they would stop it. It is just so hateful!"

Cecilia | Cecelia AKA Victor / Victoria

The spelling of your name and the details of your life vary from post to post, but your message remains the same.

Posted by: Matlock | July 17, 2008 10:38 AM

Posted by: Cecelia | July 17, 2008 10:27 AM
-------------------------------------
Cecilia, you spelled your own name wrong at 10:27. Precious.

"Seriously, I don't want me, or my kids to be Persona Non Grata at the pool and reporting what the receptionist said is a likely way to make enemies. What if someday I need her assistance? Even if we aren't banished, you are very vulnerable at the pool and you just not want to make enemies.

Calling back and asking anonymously what their policy is at the pool regarding camaras would be a good idea though. I'll try to call and ask later. no one is answering right now- they have weird hours.

Posted by: capitol hill mom | July 17, 2008 11:47 AM

Yikes!
Is there anything that doesn't scare you?Are you really a mom?

"To say the law is in flux on the sciope of an individual's right to privacy as it applies to public photography is an understatement. Do you disagree?

Posted by: MN | July 17, 2008 11:38 AM"

No disagreement at all. I'm not advocating at all that the decision was right/good and that that should be the law. Really, the potential implications bother me (no reasonable expectation of privacy under your own skirt? Well, there goes 50% of women's fashions. . . .). Point was merely to respond to the earlier post that suggested it was stupid to think you don't have a right to privacy when you're out in public. This case seemed like a really good example of how surprisingly limited your rights can be out in public.

Let's try this again. The 10:27 post and some others today were NOT mine.

XXXOOO

Cecilia

For any rules against photography to be enforceable by a private establishment, they must be promulgated in the same manner as other rules. That is, if rules are posted, but they do not contain any prohibition against photography, then there is no enforceable rule against photography.

If fixtures and people within the private establishment are readily visible from a public place, e.g., the sidewalk or the street, there is no enforceable rule against a photographer taking pictures of readily visible people and fixtures from a public place. That is, the photographer MUST be situated in a public place.

This case seemed like a really good example of how surprisingly limited your rights can be out in public.

Posted by: Laura | July 17, 2008 11:59 AM

Agreed. Thanks, Laura.

For any rules against photography to be enforceable by a private establishment, they must be promulgated in the same manner as other rules. That is, if rules are posted, but they do not contain any prohibition against photography, then there is no enforceable rule against photography.

Posted by: Dewey, Cheatem and Howe | July 17, 2008 12:07 PM

Cite please.

atb

"Jezebel - Don't get me wrong, I could go on and on about how useless you are, but I'm speechless about the topic at hand. "

Okaay, atb. I get it. You are speechless. Now you can go to lunch with the rest of the steno pool.

atb's only speechless if speechless means 'won't shut up' in some parallel universe.

What is you view on Brian's question about the photographing of children at playgrounds?

I'm so popular! What fun! Turns out I'm not so speechless, as I love to feed trolls.

Here, useless troll-y, troll-y. At the very least strive to be funny. Unless you ARE trying to be funny.

Since you seem to follow my posts closely, you'll know I don't use exclamation points and rarely type in caps, so I'm guessing the shrieking you're hearing is in your own head. Or maybe it's your mom upstairs.

One citation for Unpromulgated Regulation case law:

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2005/011005/5D04-1182.op.pdf

Annon, if you'd like more cites, I can do them for you at $250 per hour. Otherwise, get a life...and the virtual testicles to have an identity when you post.

I am disappointed that anyone would quote the Daily Mail- one of Britain's most unreliable papers which just tries to stir up outrage.

I thought much better of this column!

atb

"Since you seem to follow my posts closely, you'll know I don't use exclamation points and rarely type in caps, so I'm guessing the shrieking you're hearing is in your own head. Or maybe it's your mom upstairs."

For God's sake, it's more than one "troll"! Nitwit!!!

For God's sake, it's more than one "troll"! Nitwit!!!

Posted by: GC | July 17, 2008 12:32 PM

Coming soon! The "Best of atb"

Coming soon! The "Best of atb"

Posted by: Yada | July 17, 2008 12:40 PM

Since we already have the worst of trolls.

"I am disappointed that anyone would quote the Daily Mail- one of Britain's most unreliable papers which just tries to stir up outrage.

I thought much better of this column! "

Err, Brian is kinda naive and it really, really shows. The missus is a lawyer, but he remains pretty unsophisticated.

Dewey, Cheatem and Howe | July 17, 2008 12:29 PM

If you are a lawyer, which I doubt, being an d**kweed only reflects ill on the profession. Try for civility. It's a virtue.

It's not offensive for someone to ask for a reference when you decide to pronounce the current state of the law on a topic that has some nuance. You seem a tad defensive which leads folks to assume you are wrong on the law. Back it up, if you can. The case you cite - one federal district case from Florida - is inapposite.

The Daily Mail is an awful lot of fun, though, as long as you don't think it's accurate.

Coming soon! The "Best of atb"

Breaking news: The "Best of atb" has been cancelled due to lack of interest and lack of material. The executive who grossly overestimated atb's rather limited appeal has been canned.

DC &H may be confusing the law, on the one hand, with respect to private establishments, like Starbucks, hotels, athletic arenas, that invite the public in, and, on the other hand, with respect to private clubs for members only, like the VFW or the Washington Sports Club.

Assuming the club is not violating an otherwise applicable law, e.g., a nondiscrimination statute, etc, private clubs do not have to formulate their rules in a certain manner or post those rules as you describe in order for their rules to be enforceable against their own membership. If you do not like how the club promulgates and enforces its rules, leave the club.

we're all in awe of the trolls' ability to get past germane comments & zero in instead on posters who are on-topic.

The executive who grossly overestimated atb's rather limited appeal has been canned.

Posted by: The control room | July 17, 2008 12:57 PM

that is insufficient punishment.

I propose stoning.

capitol hill mom

someone who represents the pool-- she was at the "reseptionist desk" when we came in and then after we were there for like half an hour she was walking around, maybe on her break. that is when she told me "no camaras allowed at the pool."

Wow! Your local pool has a manager AND a receptionist? We are lucky if the workfare "clients" show up for duty!

We are lucky if the workfare "clients" show up for duty!

Posted by: Money talks | July 17, 2008 1:08 PM

Ah, good times at the country club!

So what does MN stand for? Masturbating Nabob?

"The case you cite - one federal district case from Florida - is inapposite."

Logic and cites, please. On your own nickel.

Dueling lawyers......

Money talks, I don't know if the pool has a receptionist and management-- could be the same person. And this isn't a private club-- it's our public neighborhood pool. They have been irrational to other people in the past, but it is so convenient and free, you feel like it is worth it to put up with some "quirks". (Such as, if your kid is getting swimming lessons, the parent must remain at the pool and with swim clothes on while the swim instructor is giving lessons. you can't just drop off your kid at the pool with the swim instructor.)

I did get some great pictures so it wasn't like i lost out on anything, although I didn't know that at the time.

In order to have dueling lawyers, there'd have to be a second one, and chances are he could back it up with facts, not froth. Dewey's a fraud with an attitude.

capitol hill mom

"Such as, if your kid is getting swimming lessons, the parent must remain at the pool and with swim clothes on while the swim instructor is giving lessons. you can't just drop off your kid at the pool with the swim instructor.) "

Wow! Your public pool has swim instructors and swimming lessons? We are lucky if the "lifeguards" stay awake. Are your local property taxes sky high?

linsey and dina never relally have a problm when they go to the pool. in vegas the pools are privat and they dont let fotogrpahers in. dina is smart, she takes linesey to places where the fotraphers wont see her.

moneytalks, the lessons are private, not sponsored or supported by the pool. Our taxes are OK. The pool is free, but you get what you pay for-- weird hours, power mad staff, frequent theft from lockers, etc.

dina is smart, she takes linesey to places where the fotraphers wont see her.

Posted by: luvlinsey | July 17, 2008 1:41 PM

And that's why we never see photos of Lindsay in the media.

I have 2 cats that don't always get along. One is a cranky older female who likes to assert her dominance and the other is an uppity younger male who likes to antagonize.
When tempers flare between them, fur flies and there is much hissing, growling, play(?) biting, and caterwauling.

I imagine if I could translate the comments section into Cat, it would sound an awful lot like their last big fight before I broke it up with a squirt bottle to their faces.

My cats possess the intelligence and instincts of, well, cats. What's everyone elses excuse?

My cats possess the intelligence and instincts of, well, cats. What's everyone elses excuse?

This beats working.

This blog smells like BABABOOEY, the vomit stench is overpowering...

"My cats possess the intelligence and instincts of, well, cats. What's everyone elses excuse?"

I don't get enough sex.

That's probably your cats' problem, as well.

But my cats don't have their bits anymore.
BTW:
MN = Male Neutered.

"My cats possess the intelligence and instincts of, well, cats. What's everyone elses excuse?"

Mandatory union breaks.

i just got off the phone. Is anyone interested in hearing back regarding the pool's camera policy?

"My cats possess the intelligence and instincts of, well, cats. What's everyone elses excuse?"

I blow off steam here and go home a pussycat.

capitol hill mom

"i just got off the phone. Is anyone interested in hearing back regarding the pool's camera policy? "

Sing it, Momma!

"But my cats don't have their bits anymore."

Neither do I, but I feel "frisky" about every ten days if I don't get some.

The constant sniping/off topic/completely baseless mocking is really sad these past few days- I wish I could blame it on immature kids out for the summer :(

As for the pictures- it's true and obvious IMO that females are given a lot of extra trust from the world than males are when it comes to child care. But the issue here is no different than a woman's ability to breast feed in public. It's a perfectly normal, natural, positive thing for families to do together and no one should be allowed to infringe on it.

The fact that we CARE so much about breasts being sucked on by a baby, or about a dad taking pics about his own kid playing at a park really shows how off base our priorities are.

I wish I could blame it on immature kids out for the summer :(

Where did you think the kids learned it from?

Liz D

"But the issue here is no different than a woman's ability to breast feed in public."

Thump. I never saw that one coming. Cameras & boobs. Same issue. Logical.

"What is your policy regarding cameras at the pool?"

Lady answers "No cameras are allowed at the pool."

Why?

For the safety of the children?

But what if you are only taking photos of your own children?

doesn't matter. No picture taking allowed. Period.

(sounds of splashing int he background, I realize that I don't want to further distract her from her job and thank her and hang up.)

Sooooo-- it isn't just daddy-- everyone is guilty unless proven otherwise and the system really doesn't have the time or resources to figure out who is or is not guilty, so "for the safety of the children" no cameras allowed. Ever.

I'm not going to raise any further stink about this. The big reason why i brought it up was to put the English story into context. Brian suggested that perhaps nothing would have happened if it had been a mom taking the pictures, and my experience indicates otherwise. (And no, trolls, no one was mistaking me for a man-- not at the pool and not over the phone.)

The fact that we CARE so much about breasts being sucked on by a baby, or about a dad taking pics about his own kid playing at a park really shows how off base our priorities are.

Posted by: Liz D | July 17, 2008 2:19 PM

How about dads taking pictures of moms breastfeeding in public?

oops-- there should not be a question mark following "for the safety of the children." Extra emphasis on "SAFETY". She was totally confident in her answer. no question about it at all.

capitol hill mom

"I'm not going to raise any further stink about this."

I get it. Your attention quota from cyberstrangers on the Net for the day has been filled. Come back when you need another "fix".

How about dads taking pictures of moms breastfeeding in public?

Posted by: | July 17, 2008 2:28 PM

i thynk this is rong. thayt shuld be bannd

This blog is just like On Balance ....minus the wittiness and cleverness.

'Zat you, Chitty?

Could be Matt in Aberdeen, man of 1000 voices.

I think this board has been infiltrated by the Celebritology-idiots. We should go on there board and fill their blog up with inane comments as well.

The woman running the slide at Wolverhampton Show asked him what he was doing and other families waiting in the queue demanded that he stop.

Maybe, just maybe, part of the problem had nothing to do with a perception of possible pedophilia. It could've had to do with the dad apparently slowing up the waiting children's turn to go down the slide.

"This blog is just like On Balance ....minus the wittiness and cleverness"

And Leslie Morgan Steiner's massive ego.

This topic has really got me scared. I think my kids need to be pulled from public schools where any old person can take a picture of them. I am going to home school them so that they get a proper and decent education, where they aren't exposed to such sin and temptation.

sorry i've been missing so long. i had to go rinse and reuse my feminine product.

I am going to home school them so that they get a proper and decent education, where they aren't exposed to such sin and temptation.

Posted by: Donna | July 17, 2008 2:52 PM

Incest, like charity, begins in the home.

"Public Photos, Pedophilia and Common Sense" is the title.

False Advertising is the claim.

Donna

"I am going to home school them so that they get a proper and decent education, where they aren't exposed to such sin and temptation."

Since you are a former teacher and now a SAHM, what else do you have to do?

If the pool management are so worried about the safety of the kids, then they should ban swimming in pools, rather than cameras. Because as far as I know, there is an actual risk of kids drowning in pools - happens all the time. I think the perceived security risk from the use of cameras is ridiculous in comparison.

sorry i've been missing so long.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 2:55 PM

I spent a year in the South one night.

According to most accounts, what Dick Gregory said was:

"I know the South very well. I spent twenty years there one night.

I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

According to most accounts, what Dick Gregory said was:

"I know the South very well. I spent twenty years there one night.

Posted by: MN | July 17, 2008 3:06 PM

Wow, that changes the meaning entirely.

Emily

"If the pool management are so worried about the safety of the kids, then they should ban swimming in pools, rather than cameras. Because as far as I know, there is an actual risk of kids drowning in pools - happens all the time. I think the perceived security risk from the use of cameras is ridiculous in comparison."

Close the pools. That's helpful.

Emily's point is well taken, e.g., proportionate measures for proportionate risks.

Thank, you, MN. I was not suggesting we close our pools.

The Battle of the Pretentious Bores.

"The Battle of the Pretentious Bores."

And yet you continue to read and respond to them.

Why?

I think this board has been infiltrated by the Celebritology-idiots. We should go on there board and fill their blog up with inane comments as well.

Posted by: Celebritologists at it | July 17, 2008 2:45 PM

*********************************************

Hey, we've been good today. We all agreed to leave you guys alone today. Please don't blame us for the crazies posting here today.

sorry i've been missing so long. i had to go rinse and reuse my feminine product.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 2:55 PM

do you go to the pool wearing a re-used product? thats like re-using diapers.

thats like re-using diapers.

Posted by: for atb | July 17, 2008 3:20 PM

Yup, whatever on earth did we do before disposable diapers?

sorry i've been missing so long. i had to go rinse and reuse my feminine product.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 2:55 PM

_____________________________________

Posting this on multiple blogs still doesn't make it funny.

Stacey, while you're at it, also correct the misspelling in the accompanying URL:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2008/07/public_photos_pedophelia_and_c.html

sorry i've been missing so long. i had to go rinse and reuse my feminine product.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 2:55 PM

_____________________________________

Posting this on multiple blogs still doesn't make it funny.

Posted by: | July 17, 2008 3:45 PM

It wasnt meant to be funny. It was true.

The Battle of the Pretentious Bores.

Posted by: Over a quote | July 17, 2008 3:18 PM

Geez, if every interaction is a "battle" to you, no wonder you're so miserable. Hystrionic, much?

sorry i've been missing so long. i had to go rinse and reuse my feminine product.

Posted by: atb | July 17, 2008 2:55 PM

_____________________________________

Posting this on multiple blogs still doesn't make it funny.

Posted by: | July 17, 2008 3:45 PM

It wasnt meant to be funny. It was true.

Posted by: | July 17, 2008 4:45 PM

------------------------------------------
No not true, she/he used this lame joke yesterday, wasn't funny then either.

Why would I want to waste my time taking photos of kids when I could be shooting tasteful nude portfolios with their mothers?

Oh, and that wasn't me. You won't see a whole lot of body fluid "humor" from me. Also, I use capital letters at the beginnings of my sentences.

Am I crazy because I couldn't give a poop who takes a picture of my kids? If they're pervs they'll think whatever nasty thoughts they want to think with or without pictures. The only people these policies really harm are people trying to take legit photos.

We were at a park last night: My husband, my son and me. While my son and I were off playing (but I could still see my husband), two little girls approached my husband and started talking to him. I thought that was cute. Then I thought, "Oh no -- will people think he's a predator or something, even though those girls approached him to chat?" So I walked quickly over to join him on the bench. The two little girls kept talking to us until we edged away to corral our son. Sad comment on the state of affairs when a father at a park could be construed as a molester.