Gwadien
Uneducated Northern Cretin
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,163
Agree Tom.
But taking a photo of a little girl peeing in a park. It's not automatically pornographic. In fact - it's something to be laughed at that's happening in a public place. A keen-eyed photographer could take a photo of that and normal people would go "ah cute". And that's how it should be.
You got the ubiquitous photo of you and maybe your brothers or sisters when you were kids - in the bath from the 1970's that your mum or dad took? Covered in suds and smiling innocently? Maybe pulled out at your 18th birthday by tearful parents? That's not even in public? It's more akin to that.
Is this pornographic? I'm pretty sure someone could wank to it.
I think we have to be very careful about calling for legislation about what we can and cannot view that happens in public places. Because it's very easy for public spaces to become heavily regulated spaces. When the answer is - if you don't want people to see what you do, don't do it in public.
Gwadien's immediate reach for the worst examples ever (yeah, I clearly support upskirting because I think public photography needs protecting) is just daft. And we've legislated against upskirting. But if you're fucking in a side alley and people plaster it all over the internet? Tough shit. Don't fuck in public.
Your "telephoto lens of a baby's privates" argument is clearly a similar argument to Gwadien's and not what's being talked about.
You're saying you can do what you like in a public place, I don't see the difference in taking a photo from afar vs taking a photo up someone's skirt.
Obviously it's not pornographic, I never said that, hence why I said it has nothing to do with porn, it's about having your face and your genitals anywhere without your permission.