Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 04:53 Subject: Re: [Leica] What I did today > From my social work days and having been married to a > person who prosecutes child molesters. Why does this not surprise me? > One of the few things we could talk about her work > - me being a journalist made it hard to talk about > most criminal matters in specifics ... Did you ever talk about _your_ work? > Fact: Eight out of 25 women are molested before age 18. > Reason to be concerned. How many of them were molested by strangers who photographed them on a playground first? > Fact: The average child molester is male, in his mid-30s, > is mostly incapable of forming mature relationships with > women his own age, and (HERE'S THE POINT) plays with cameras. He probably drives a car, too. Does that make anyone who drives a car a likely child molestér? You forgot to mention that most people are molested by other people whom they already know, such as relatives. Are all relatives likely child molesters, then? > The camera thing is not for art's sake, but to record their > perversion. So anyone who uses a camera is probably recording a perversion? Isn't this reaching a bit? > In fact, they like to use cameras that are not real expensive, > because they throw the subject out of focus, so it's easier to > fantasize about the kids they know. If they know the kids, then they obviously are not photographing strangers. And if they prefer inexpensive cameras, then that pretty much excludes anyone with a Leica. And certainly Leica lenses will not throw anything out of focus! > It's sick, inexcusable, and in my opinion is just this > side of murder. In a way, the lives of the children are > stolen - for good. I can sympathize with that--but how does taking a photograph of a child in public have anything at all to do with this? So molesters have cameras--LOTS of people have cameras. It's like saying that molesters have telephones. > People know this. Where the heck do you think kiddie port comes > from? Crackerjack boxes? Wherever it comes from, it cannot be coming from pictures of children taken on the street, as least not according to any definition of pornography I've ever come across. > It seems pretty easy to put two and two together, when they > live in fear as so many people do today. It's not the news > media's fault. It _is_ the media's fault. That's where people get all their information, and invariably people who watch the news a lot are much more fearful and worried than those who do not. > Combined with the fact that there are lots of molesters out there. There are even more photographers out there. > That's no excuse for being paranoid, but we can appreciate when > a parent shows concern. Concern is one thing, persistent paranoia is another. Unless cameras are built to shoot paralyzing rays when the shutter is tripped, I fail to see how photographs taken on the street are dangerous to anyone, child or otherwise. > I for one have never had a problem after explaining who I > am, a newspaper photographer out looking for pictures, and > smiling. Isn't that exactly what a pervert would do? -- Anthony