Children; prohibited photography, penalty. (HB23)

This seems like an awfully weird proposal. Why a photograph? Can they film the kid? Paint him? Sketch in charcoal? Describe in great detail? It sounds like this is actually prohibiting stalking. Isn't that illegal already?

My guess is that there is a story behind here, an actual problem that this is seeking to solve, but without a description of that problem, it's tough to see the purpose of this.

Can I take picture of my kids or friends kids. Will you throw someone in jail or fine them for snapping a few pictures of kids playing in the park? Are we in germany yet? AND if its owned by the public then the public OWNS the property. Come on guys.

Waldo,

I have sent an e-mail to Delegate Johnson asking him what the inspiration for this bill was.

I believe it's related to a recent situation in West Virginia (close to Delegate Johnson’s district)

Top U.S. Photographer Arrested & Injured by Police for Photographing Santa Claus, December 14, 2009:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december142009/rensberger_tk.php

West Virginia Photographer Arrested After Taking Pictures of Children on Santa's Lap, December 11, 2009:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0293358004100.html?test=latestnews

Scott Rensberger Arrested At Mall After Shooting Holiday Photos, December 10, 2009:
http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/12/arrest.html

I believe it has nothing to do with an actual issue here in Virginia but just another “feel good, anti-sex offender bill” for Delegate Johnson to add to his score board. It’s not based on statistics of fact, just plain predator hysteria and hatred.

I’ll let you know if the Delegate replies to my e-mail inquiry.

Mary of RSOL of Virginia
Seeking Justice and Safety for ALL Virginians

I agree with Waldo here. There may be something important here but it's not obvious. I wish our legislators would spend their time figuring out how to fund transportation, education and health care while working on the economy. Do you think they've noticed there's a connection between not funding VDOT and the fact my road still has not been plowed?

Can't go wrong with a an anti-sex offender bill (or 6) under your belt at election time.

If you're in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, too include being photographed.

Wonder if our Delegates are all doing crack before this budget session?

Delegate Johnson had the State Trooper that asked him for this bill to call me. Per the Trooper the bill was inspired because a registered sex offender was taking photos of an 18 year old girl walking through a Sam's Club in Southwest VA with his cell phone. The State can't ban sex offenders from Sam's clubs but since they are banned from schools, daycares and some parks then this is an easy bill. This bill wouldn't have stopped the Sam's Club incident, nor was the girl under 18 years old. Another rush by our lawmakers to look tough on sex offenders and to add another unnecessary, ineffective restriction/regulation to the long list that already exists today.

I don't relish the idea of yet another "feel-good" bill that doesn't accomplish much. It does seem to have some vague protections built in - the target child isn't related and is the focus of the picture. A former offender who is taking a photo of his own child playing a sport wouldn't (or shouldn't) be charged. As a parent, I don't want ANYBODY taking a picture exclusively of my child without my permission. I'm just not sure this bill does much of anything other than give police more ability to harass offenders who may be simply taking photos of their own children at an event (the ones they are still allowed to attend).

I think This Cline guy is jealous no one wants his picture.

FYI

We are not involved with this bill, however, I'm not entirely opposed to it and here's why. A few years ago, the Chief Security Officer for Microsoft called us to alert us to a growing problem they had been watching. Convicted sex offender's were using various internet platforms, social networking sites, email and im to provide other pedophile's with pictures, names and addresses of children across the country. There was an initial "fee" for the picture which could be paid for either with real currency or with images of child porn, and there was a much higher "fee", over $1,000.00 or hardcore or streaming video of live molest acts, for the address and name of the child in the photo if one of the "buyer's" found one he really liked.

I understand that this forum has a tendency to be cynical about the sex offender bills each year, but unless you are privy to what is actually going on ( and only cops, perps and isp providers are), then I wish that you'd stop assuming that all of these bills are simply "political" and draconian.

Camille Cooper
PROTECT

Dear Camille Cooper,

Does your organization realize that "what is actually going on" is good people, who are NOT a threat to ANYONE have been retroactively rounded up and "labeled" as violent "predators?" People who have already proven themselves as safe? People who are good husbands and fathers are being restricted from their own families, their own children. Who is "PROTECTing" MY children from these laws? Laws that sound good, but actually hurt more people than they can tentatively protect.

Ms. Cooper, this bill does not address those kinds of situations. Obviously we need to work to identify those who are exchanging sexual photos of young children. However, this bill would have had the potential to result in the arrest of a convicted sex offender for possessing a photo of his godchild. He could then be in the position of having to defend himself in court. He would win, but not before enduring publicity and the financial costs associated with any legal action.

Most of these laws are well-intended. We just have to figure out how best to protect children given the research on the issue. I applaud your efforts, but it isn't a pro-child vs pro-sex offender issue. We can protect children while preserving basic offender rights. There are many child protection organizations that oppose over-the-top legislation. We can do this better.