• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Photograph kids in Maine... go to Prison

WarEaglemtn

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
461
Format
Multi Format
This in from http://www.photopermit.org a really good site for some information, one that deserves our support.

I can just see it now. You sign up for a photo workshop and get busted because a kid walks in front of the camera. Will you get a longer sentence for using ULF cameras?

Maine: Public “Visual Aggression” to be a Felony?
Thursday April 17th 2008, 11:57 pm
Filed under: State & Local
“Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12.”

This amazing bit of legislation from Maine, described in this SeacoastOnline article, describes the new penalties for appearing to be observing fully-clothed children in public. The bill has cleared the state house and is moving now to the state senate.
 
I know that a lot of bad things happen to children but they should be supervised by parents when out in public, that might stop most of it...EC
 
When reading the law it doesn't sound like what this guy did is illegal, unless it was a nude beach and even then I'm not sure it would they could get a conviction.

The law as written

§256. Visual sexual aggression against child
1. A person is guilty of visual sexual aggression against a child if:
A. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire or for the purpose of causing affront or alarm, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 14 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; [2005, c. 655, §1 (AMD).]
B. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 12 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime; [2005, c. 655, §1 (AMD).]
C. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person in a private place, not the actor's spouse and not having in fact attained 14 years of age, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be safe from such visual surveillance. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; or [2005, c. 655, §1 (NEW).]
D. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person in a private place, not the actor's spouse and not having in fact attained 12 years of age, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be safe from such visual surveillance. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime. [2005, c. 655, §1 (NEW).]
 
In sections A and B, as far as photography goes, it sounds like you'd need to be using a peniscam to get yourself in trouble. In C and D, the "private place" condition sounds reasonable to me. If one were taking pics of naked children in the changing area at a beach for instance I would have to agree that such an act is totally inappropriate and I have no problem with it now being regarded as a criminal act.
 
Where I live a man was charged with using a hidden camera to film up the skirts of young girls he was tutoring. A different man, a custodian for a synagogue in the next town, put a hidden camera in a girls' restroom. It seems the law is aimed at that type of conduct, which is about as far away from art photography or a photo workshop as I can imagine. I don't feel threatened by such a law. I think it's a good idea. Sorry. -Laura
 
So, you are pissed because you can't put your hidden cameras in the girls bathroom? The laws sounds plenty reasonable to me. What about the law has ruffled your feathers. The idiot who wrote the article did not read the law. I don't think the person who posted it on Bjork's site read it either.
 
I hate stupid laws. Everybody knows that. I'm liberal, when it comes to freedom.

I can't find anything stupid about this.

You gotta wag your willy at a little kid for the first half of it. Guys who show there stuff to little kids, etc. on purpose in a sexual manner deserve to friggin die, and die long and hard. (JMO) Sneaking nudie gawks, or pics of little kids is the other half. I'd like the penalty for that to involve vice grips, and maybe a trip to the desert.

hmmm.... i guess i got a opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The law is a good one, this is an example of what happens when people react strongly to not having all the information; yes you can go to jail for photographing kids in this state, but only if they're naked!

I've lived in Maine most of my life, and I find it a pretty reasonable place to be a photographer. I've never been questioned for photographing anywhere, other than simple cuiriosity about the view camera, etc., and that includes downtown Portland, at night, with a tripod, after 9/11.

Peter
 
So, many classic photographs of old masters are now illegal...
What I see is a general crackdown on photography.
Abu Graib showed us how dangerous photographs are.
If that's going to stop child pornography, hell, I'll stop complaining and turn in my press card.
You call sell anything "for the good of the children" and "for security and peace" these days...
As if photographers are not harassed, detained or worse, enough.
Try explaining the law to every paranoid cowardly over protective bad parent in the state...
 
I like Jock Sturges, and I think he's pretty far from photographing kids he doesn't know through a crack in the door in a public toilet.

Arri, the photo's or whatever have to be made surreptitiously. This thing targets pervs hiding in bathrooms with cameras.

There is so much going on to be actually upset about. I don't see this as one of them.
 
I have worked in Maine (some time ago) and can attest that Maine is a rather kooky place. But who would disagree with this law? Put another way, how would someone who objects to this law write a substitute that would prevent perv cams in regard to children?

I think paranoia is getting the best of some people. Anyway, the purpose of the law is not necessarily to prevent child pornography. It is a means of convicting and punishing those who practice it. If the law pushed them a bit farther into the shadows, then great.
 
tac said:
And Sally Mann?
Click to expand...

Yep, Sally Mann is great. Nothing in this law conflicts with her type of work.

If she puts on a wet suit and sneaks down the hole of an outhouse to photograph pooters on the seat from underneath, she would be in violation of the statute.

Do you really think it should be ok to sneak pictures, or wank off to little kids while hiding in a public bathroom? Thats all this law is about. Pretty clear. How would you write it differently?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The critical words in the legislation are:

"For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire or for the purpose of causing affront or alarm".

Thus, a photograph of a naked baby in the bath isn't very likely to be an offense. A photograph of a naked 12 year old boy or girl might be a problem, if the purpose for it was as proscribed.

I wouldn't want to be the prosecuting lawyer though. Unless there is accompanying information, such as descriptive language on a website, trying to prove "purpose" is often very difficult.

Matt
 
eclarke said:
I know that a lot of bad things happen to children but they should be supervised by parents when out in public, that might stop most of it...EC
Click to expand...

There's got to be an alternative. Micromanaging your kids is about the worst thing you could ever do to someone. I fondly remember my free time wandering around as a kid in my neighborhood (which had its share of rough stuff, for sure) with other kids. People keep asserting that everything is different now, but the only change I see is the playgrounds becoming deserted and kids being denied the basic experience of learning how to be independent.
 
Oh. That puts a different spin on things. Not quite the harmless viewing I had in mind.


 
MattKing said:
The critical words in the legislation are:

"For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire or for the purpose of causing affront or alarm".

Matt
Click to expand...

So who determines "For the purpose of ...?" Some self-regilious zealous? And who monitors them? God?
 
Yeah, I guess it gets tricky if it's not just a clear cut case of some whacky masturbating in his car.

Edwardv said:
So who determines "For the purpose of ...?" Some self-regilious zealous? And who monitors them? God?
Click to expand...
 
Edwardv said:
So who determines "For the purpose of ...?" Some self-regilious zealous? And who monitors them? God?
Click to expand...

This appears to be a criminal law statute, so it is very unlikely to be the subject of individual whims, and easy hasty decisions.

I would assume it would a criminal court judge who makes these decisions, and that he/she would base his/her decisions on the facts, as are determined from the evidence, and the law, as it develops over time, or may have been determined by previous cases, dealing with similar legislation and issues.

Alternatively, these charges may be tried before a judge and jury, in which case decisions as to law would be made by the judge, and decisions as to facts would be made by the jury, most likely after receiving guidance from the judge.

Normally decisions in criminal law matters are made carefully, with close attention paid to the need to prove criminal guilt. In most common law jurisdictions, and I would assume that Maine would be one of them, that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That tends to be a very demanding burden.

The actual decision is most likely one that could be appealed to a higher court.

In addition, Maine most likely has some sort of system that includes safeguards which are intended to prevent the laying of charges that ought not to proceed. That may include a Grand Jury system (which I am not particularly familiar with, because it had been deemed outmoded and was no longer being used in England in the 1860s when Canada brought over most of it's early criminal law) or a system like one we use, which requires charge approval by independent prosecutors ("Crown Counsel"), using criteria which includes the public interest as well as consideration of the likelihood of conviction.

Matt
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The key phrase in paragraphs C and D is that the survalance must be of "uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area" of a minor. While the clause about sexual gratification could have some ambiguity (search the 'net, there's a group of people aroused by _everything_), survalance of "uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area" is a pretty clear line; it's also a very reasonable line as considered by most of our society.

Jerold, what do you mean Kookey?
 
eclarke said:
I know that a lot of bad things happen to children but they should be supervised by parents when out in public, that might stop most of it...EC
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're stating that if parents watched their children more carefully, then we wouldn't have to worry much about sexual aggression against children. While that might very well be true sometimes, as a parent, who does keep a close eye on what is happening with my children when appropriate, there are too many times when kids are on their own for one reason or another as they grow up, none of which would be considered neglect. It's not about the parent, but the sexual predator. The laws should be powerful and serious for sexual aggression against children, but also clear, and not written in a way that it could be misused against people who aren't predators.We do need to careful that our individual freedoms are being eroded
by overly broad poorly written legislature.
 
Interesting that so many respondants are citing the law reprinted in the list -- not the original story, which said that someone "appeared to be observing" children outdoors at a park (near the bathrooms?) and that police complained that they didn't have any law that said what he was doing is illegal.

I strongly suspect that this law, if passed, will be heavily used and mis-used as a justification to harass anyone who just "appears" to be a little creepy.
 

I've read the article on the seacoastonline site. While it does talk about the gensis of the legislation, the concerns sited don't seem to be relevant to the actual bill. It doesn't appear that the author has actually read the legislation (or least not in it's final form anyway). There's an edit on the photopermit.org site with a link to a pdf of the acctual bill, which is where the text posted here seems to come from (it's accurate in any case) also stating that one "would not, despite the circumstance cited in the Seacoast Online article, allow police to legally arrest someone for observing fully-clothed children."

It is very important to preserve the rights of photographers to work in public without being harrassed, however this has nothing to do with that. This piece of legislation is about watching naked children. It's also important not to pass legislation that can and will (because if it can be, it will be) misused to harass people, but in it's current form this isn't such an example. As a Maine resident and voter, as well as a photographer, I want my representatives to vote for this. In fact I rather like JBrunner's idea involving vice-grips...

Peter
 
pwitkop said:
...
Jerold, what do you mean Kookey?
Click to expand...

We worked at a state psychiatric hospital there. Our temporary housing was in a defunct forensic psychiatric group home. Had the largest recliner I have ever seen. The director of mental health for the state in charge of state psychiatric hospitals seemed to be opposed to involuntary treatment/medication. That led to some interesting situations and a murder on the grounds that should not have happened. So oddly, it was one of the few states that still maintained long term residential treatment units for people with chronic psychotic disorders, held them there involuntarily, but more or less refused to treat them. I am simplifying it a little but that was basically what was going on. I was glad to get out of there as it was lawsuit waiting to happen. The state is beautiful though and the people were uniformly nice (except for the untreated psychotics that murdered people).
 

Okay. Consider this what happens to the individual who is accused of such acts and is found innocent later? Their lives are ruin, job lost, broken family etc. Who is going to set the record straight or support the person, find a home, job etc surely not the individual who was the accuser, the justice system, or state. Chances are no one would give this individual a chance in life. Once you are labeled regardless if you are innocent you life is ruined. One more thing, if word gets out in jail or prison chances are that you life will definitely change for the worst.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register